In Soviet Russia, art draws you!
I am, as may perhaps be obvious, more than occasionally embarrassed by the behaviour of people, groups or organisations who are in many ways my ideological stablemates - economically, say, or geopolitically - when the discussion turns to the role in society played by graphic (that is to say "explicit" or "violent") art.
Hayek wrote that the search for meaning is innate: it is an instinct to which we are little more than slaves, much of the time. It is a fundamental component of constructivism (I have covered this before in the context of religion): the search for meaning, the relentless analysis of effects in search of causes inculcates the belief, or more accurately the unconscious assumption, so ingrained as to take on a degree of certainty quite alien to a belief, that design is inherent and that it can thus, quite naturally, be refined if a greater intelligence is brought to bear than has been hitherto.
This search for meaning seems to catch everyone out at one point or another. Most destructively (pun intended) it is in the constructivist economic ethos; for some, as mentioned, it is religion. And some people like to blame art when people go on kill-crazy rampages. Distressingly, as I say, it is often those who avoid the other pitfalls of constructivism who fall for this one.
The Virginia Tech shootings have prompted an entirely predictable rash of debate and recrimination. I do not intend to rehearse the vastly entertaining argument I am having with a friend via email about gun control, my views on which are briefly outlined in this post. It was only a matter of time before some sharp-eyed, dull-witted hack noticed that the pose in which the perpetrator Cho held a gun to his own head in his ridiculous "multimedia manifesto" was remarkably similar to that in which the protagonist of the Korean film Oldboy held a gun to his own head. The notion that perhas there is pretty much only one way in which one can hold a gun to one's own head appears to have escaped him, and many others subsequently.
Anyway, the purpose of this post is not, for once, to indulge my penchant for rambling, self-righteous discouse; rather it is to draw attention (insofar as this blog is at all capable of that) to this excellent article by Sam Leith (which oddly enough had quite a different headline when it appeared in Saturday's paper, something like "You might as well blame the Bible for these shootings". I wonder why that was changed. The constructivists strike again, perhaps?). Mr Leith, despite being, I suspect, a candidate for that select (though very large) group of journalists who owe their career success to something more than innate talent, is nonetheless an exceptionally talented writer, and although he occasionally writes drivel, I am unable to think of where I have seen better repudiated the constructivist view that we are all slaves to the hynpotic ugre to violence that is inherent in violent art.
Hayek wrote that the search for meaning is innate: it is an instinct to which we are little more than slaves, much of the time. It is a fundamental component of constructivism (I have covered this before in the context of religion): the search for meaning, the relentless analysis of effects in search of causes inculcates the belief, or more accurately the unconscious assumption, so ingrained as to take on a degree of certainty quite alien to a belief, that design is inherent and that it can thus, quite naturally, be refined if a greater intelligence is brought to bear than has been hitherto.
This search for meaning seems to catch everyone out at one point or another. Most destructively (pun intended) it is in the constructivist economic ethos; for some, as mentioned, it is religion. And some people like to blame art when people go on kill-crazy rampages. Distressingly, as I say, it is often those who avoid the other pitfalls of constructivism who fall for this one.
The Virginia Tech shootings have prompted an entirely predictable rash of debate and recrimination. I do not intend to rehearse the vastly entertaining argument I am having with a friend via email about gun control, my views on which are briefly outlined in this post. It was only a matter of time before some sharp-eyed, dull-witted hack noticed that the pose in which the perpetrator Cho held a gun to his own head in his ridiculous "multimedia manifesto" was remarkably similar to that in which the protagonist of the Korean film Oldboy held a gun to his own head. The notion that perhas there is pretty much only one way in which one can hold a gun to one's own head appears to have escaped him, and many others subsequently.
Anyway, the purpose of this post is not, for once, to indulge my penchant for rambling, self-righteous discouse; rather it is to draw attention (insofar as this blog is at all capable of that) to this excellent article by Sam Leith (which oddly enough had quite a different headline when it appeared in Saturday's paper, something like "You might as well blame the Bible for these shootings". I wonder why that was changed. The constructivists strike again, perhaps?). Mr Leith, despite being, I suspect, a candidate for that select (though very large) group of journalists who owe their career success to something more than innate talent, is nonetheless an exceptionally talented writer, and although he occasionally writes drivel, I am unable to think of where I have seen better repudiated the constructivist view that we are all slaves to the hynpotic ugre to violence that is inherent in violent art.
posted by Novus at 08:50
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home