HOW I LEARNED TO HATE THE MONA LISA

[Layman Pascal]

Sure, I'm an art snob. That means I consider it possible that "good things" and "my favorites" are not necessarily the same. But what ought to go into the good things category? Or even the best things category?

We cannot tolerate this being simply be a matter of technical sophistication and production value. Very high-priced films with famous writers and great cinematography are often mysteriously inadequate. Big budget Soviet propaganda movies are interesting as historical curiosities -- not gems of the cinema. The remake of Evil Dead is technically a better horror film but sooooooo much less interesting than the haphazard and amateur irony of Sam Raimi's original films. So where does that leave us?

Well, the traditional approach for defining great art is simply a cocktail mix of "popular renown" with "academic vanity". I am suggesting that if a creation is both famous and often used by institutional intellectuals (either in praise or critique) then it ends up occupying the de facto category of Great Art. This is the approach that the whole world symbolizes in the icon of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

Yet I have elected to decorate this thread with Salvador Dali's Mona Lisa. For why? You might say it is one of my beloved Nietzschean themes. That weird theorist sought to remake the value of all values within an organic hierarchy based on the usefulness of each value to the overall production of increasingly complex and coherent intensities of empowerment for living beings. I.e. art should be GOOD for life's sake.

What is good art for life's sake?

It has three necessary characteristics:

1. It makes you want to make art. The best artwork is whatever incites you to want to generate art and to feel confident that you can generate art, with a good conscience, using the resources at your disposal.
2. It makes you feel more alive. The best artwork amplifies and enriches your sense of what it means to be you -- and what it means to be a human being.
3. It arms you for life. The best artwork makes you happy with what is, ready to embrace your world and your culture, and gives you the mood of capability to productively engage your specific life challenges and the universal human challenges (e.g. time & death).

This is art for life. It is what fascist art said it wants to do... but never actually accomplishes. Does the Mona Lisa do these things? Not really. Not for me, anyway. Da Vinci's historical status and apparent technical capacity seem beyond me. How can I match the curiosity of the moment in which that woman smiled so ambiguously? How does it relate to my life? What does it make me feel? How does it empower me for real challenges? It doesn't. So I must take myself seriously and devalue her status. Maybe it is really bad art!

On the other hand, I remember -- as a child -- walking out of the movie theater after Die Hard 3. Wow! I was ready to take on the world. After watching Twin Peaks I was confidently alert to the vibrant ethereal dimensions of my own local wildlife and community -- ready to intelligently struggle with world of even murders and demons!

Art becomes dangerous and dubious when it is so grand and involved that the individual feels distanced, placed into the role of the appreciative spectator or "consumer of facts about art". Just observe those sad pointless faces of school children at the museum... quickly moving from exhibit to exhibit READING THE NAMES, DATES AND EXPLANATION CARDS! Horrifying. 

Art becomes dubious and dangerous when intellectuals start thinking that the conceptual inquiry of "What is art? Could anything be art?" is either interesting or in any way related to the vital questions with which artists are grappling. 

No, the art of life is much closer to "cult classics" than to either sheer popularity or the academic praise of art critics, pundits & professors. In the recent documentary It Might Get Loud, musician Jack White describes how his favorite song is still the one which made him WANT to be a musician -- the instrument-less, untutored blues classics of Son House. That is great art. It animated him in art and life.

Although I have been a lifelong fan of Tolkien and the Middle-Earth films... they do not do for me what art should do. Instead, they "take me away" to "another place" whose challenges and energies bear little or no resemblance to my own life. On the other hand, the problematic writings of H.P. Lovecraft make me feel as if playing with words is accessible, highly personal and wildly chaotic opportunity. And Star Trek -- well just look at the power of human well-being, experimentation and actual technological innovation that has spread from that brief 1960s TV show! Probably we should say is a much greater work of art than the paltry Mona Lisa.

So if we really took seriously this call to revalue all values in the service of life -- our life -- how would we begin to rank Great Art? What paintings make us ready and willing to paint? What songs actually makes us feel capable of working to improve our lives? What television shows make you not only glad to be alive but more willing to be creatively engaged in YOUR life and life of the specific culture into which you are born?

And if this is the axis of altitude then what are the "levels" of an integral analysis of art?

[Joseph Camosy]

Layman,

Great post.

You write:

The "devil" of the Tarot seems to me as though it is symbolically weak precisely because it has such poetic and imaginative association with the systems of previous centuries. The card should bear the name of a generic word-principle in English. The Owner (of symbols). The Binder of Signs. The Secret Governor. The Oligarch.

Yes, there are many images, many metaphors or symbols that can be used.  Its name is legion.  However, with regards to the particular rendition that I show above.  There are many layers to the symbolism that are not apparent at first glance.  And while it's certainly possible to remap the many layers of symbolic subtlety into another image more attuned to postmodern sensibilities, this would not be a trivial task.  There are a large number of tarot decks that attempt this, some more successful than others.

For example:  http://www.intuiti.it/xv/

Layman Pascal said:

Joseph,

Capitalism, I often say, is bad for business.

[Edward theurj Berge]

"If it makes people energized either in terms of personally profiting from the existing economic system OR ready to oppose the structural pathology of the current economic system then it meets criteria #3 -- it arms people to face the world they inhabit."

I detest the type of character portrayed by the Wolf. And yet the movie moved me to sympathize with him. It made his antics funny. He was kind and loyal to his partners and workers. He gave them opportunities to be wealthy. It fed my desire for success and happiness through achievement. And my lust for the gorgeous babes he got with ease. That it was all based on rampant greed, intentional deception, cruel manipulation, ethical depravity and illegal activity never struck a chord in me even though all that generally makes me queasy. That's why the movie is all the more insidious in feeding the (d)evil in our society. And this from liberal Hollywood?

[Edward theurj Berge]

And then there's Reich's documentary, Inequality for All. I've yet to see it but I'm guessing it will meet some of the thread's standards for art. Reich has certainly inspired me over the years to get busy enacting a more equitable society.

[Layman Pascal]

Theurj/Wolf

yeah, this really brings home the need to clarify how pathology and primitivism are related. if the "nazis" love their families but suffer from an ethic confined by their small sphere of empathic community... okay... we sympathize. but if they are actually acting out a self-and-other destructive sickness or imbalance at that level of ethical consciousness then it we must very aggressively hunt them down and should be nauseated. it is not enough to conflate both types of undesirable behaviour... nor is it adequate to simply say that primitive is pathological relative to more complex levels. thanks for the Reich-link and for all your contributions and work. happy winterlight.

theurj said:

"If it makes people energized either in terms of personally profiting from the existing economic system OR ready to oppose the structural pathology of the current economic system then it meets criteria #3 -- it arms people to face the world they inhabit."

I detest the type of character portrayed by the Wolf. And yet the movie moved me to sympathize with him. It made his antics funny. He was kind and loyal to his partners and workers. He gave them opportunities to be wealthy. It fed my desire for success and happiness through achievement. And my lust for the gorgeous babes he got with ease. That it was all based on rampant greed, intentional deception, cruel manipulation, ethical depravity and illegal activity never struck a chord in me even though all that generally makes me queasy. That's why the movie is all the more insidious in feeding the (d)evil in our society. And this from liberal Hollywood?

[Edward theurj Berge]

Yes, I must be ferocious like a wolf in this culture war, but of Main rather than Wall Street. As are my heroes in the conflict, like Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes etc. It is truly a continuation of the eternal battle between the good, the bad and the ugly (talk about classic art.) The Lord of the Rings mythology has nothing on this apocalyptic conflagration.*

And no, I do not accept that to be 'integral' one must be trans-partisan. The emerging P2P paradigm is like any other meme, integral or otherwise, that must transcend and replace the prior worldview with its own partisan agenda, aka 'right view.' Include some aspects (or basic structures), sure, but the worldview and moral enactment, no. Even the likes of Buddhism must undergo a new (or at least updated secular) 'right view', like in Batchelor and Panikkar.

* Reminiscent of Apocalypse Now, more classic art. Recall Colonel Kurtz's speech in this post.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Reading further in the last link above I came upon Crowley's interpretation of his Lust card, resonant with Kurtz:

"The Love of Liber Legis is always bold, virile, even orgiastic. There is delicacy, but it is the delicacy of strength. Mighty and terrible and glorious as it is, however, it is but the pennon upon the sacred lance of Will, the damascened inscription upon the swords of the Knight-monks of Thelema."

More art that has changed me into the progressive warrior/wolf/monk.

[Layman Pascal]

Just saw "Wolf...". Great film.

Unusual. Ambiguous and haunting in many directions. Lots of well-crafted weird moods.

Classic saga about those who have mostly/only solar plexus power and those who would like more of it.

Interesting interplay between sub-types of orange cognition. Modern thought with Barbarian Impulses. Modern thought with conformist impulses. Modern Thought with Modern Feeling (perhaps only the FBI agent!).

Also hints at the often unacknowledged need for Bacchanalian indulgence rites.... improving the system is often stymied by a lack of sympathy for the carnivalesque spirit which haunts contemporary society. Obama is a good example of a guy whose higher impulses and insights are often thwarted by his inability to take seriously the dynamic need for excess carnivals. It is partly such a spirit that both the 60s and the anti-60s (tea party, etc.) have risen upon. That which binds people to the Wolf must either serve the culture or it will prey upon the culture.

theurj said:

Yes, I must be ferocious like a wolf in this culture war, but of Main rather than Wall Street. As are my heroes in the conflict, like Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes etc. It is truly a continuation of the eternal battle between the good, the bad and the ugly (talk about classic art.) The Lord of the Rings mythology has nothing on this apocalyptic conflagration.*

And no, I do not accept that to be 'integral' one must be trans-partisan. The emerging P2P paradigm is like any other meme, integral or otherwise, that must transcend and replace the prior worldview with its own partisan agenda, aka 'right view.' Include some aspects (or basic structures), sure, but the worldview and moral enactment, no. Even the likes of Buddhism must undergo a new (or at least updated secular) 'right view', like in Batchelor and Panikkar.

* Reminiscent of Apocalypse Now, more classic art. Recall Colonel Kurtz's speech in this post.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Yes, TWWS is very well done, given the talent involved. So well done that I was drawn in by it. And that is part of the problem. Here's a review that tackles some of the issues the movie has generated. She has heretofore been a staunch defender of movies that tackle unethical and/or criminal characters and content. But not this one. A few excerpts:

"The problem is not that Wolf tells the story of a morally repugnant guy, it's that the morally repugnant guy's memoir is the basis for the script, meaning we're getting the details from his skewed, self-serving perspective. DiCaprio states that Scorcese doesn't 'want to pass judgment on these people,' but given the serious lack of neutrality in the source material, that directorial neutrality leaves the audience at the mercy of an emotionally hedonistic, fiscally sociopathic narcissist who clearly loves the sound of his own life and was so successful at training other greed-stricken folks that he's now out (of prison) hawking his wares as a sales motivational speaker. Yeah... that's a guy whose worldview I want to spend THREE HOURS watching!

"Both Scorcese and DiCaprio insist they're not idealizing, glorifying or aggrandizing Belfort and his buddies. [...] Could've fooled me. In fact, it's odd that even when given the chance to prove that statement, the script and direction seem to resist the opportunity. At a point in the story when Chandler's FBI agent could have had a moment of reflective, emotive pride at getting his man, he's instead shown mournfully gazing around the subway on his ride home, comparing his drab existence to that of his flashy nemesis in response to Belfort's earlier jabs. In another scene toward the end, as Belfort rides the bus to his plea-bargained, rat-induced, 22-month jail sentence, we're teased that he's finally facing his comeuppance, feeling the angst of justice, payback for all the devastation he's wrought... only to segue quickly from there to a 'country club' snapshot of him playing jailhouse tennis, right to the concluding scene in which we see a still rich, still slick Belfort motivating a roomful of New Zealand wannabe sales wizards, leaving us with the image of survivor, a man on top of his game in spite of... everything.

"Am I one of those who 'missed the boat,' as DiCaprio suggests? Or, as I said, does Christine McDowell have a point? You'll make up your own mind. Me? I'm going to take a shower, steam some kale, and find three hours to go do something useful for somebody."

[Layman Pascal]

This movie was better written, and LESS stupidly aroused by mere gain, than was the novel version of The Great Gatsby.

[Edward theurj Berge]

It's been a long time since I read the Gatsby novel. But I do recall  the more recent movie, again with Leo. And it had a variety of viewpoints from the characters, the narrator of Nick Carraway being a significant one. Nick was drunk with Gatsby's lifestyle and reveled when the latter took an interest in him, even if it was only to reunite with his cousin Daisy. However the story is 'written' by Nick, who remembers it from the vantage of recovering in a sanitarium, thus showing the consequence of living that lifestyle.

The complexity of other character development also showed the consequences of the lifestyle. One was the contrast between Gatsby's world and the valley of ashes between his estate and NYC, where Tom had a mistress. Not only did this depict the stark income inequality inherent to the times but also how the rich could take advantage of the poor for sexual favors. Also the cuckold of Tom's poor mistress ends up killing Gatsby, thinking he killed his wife, another consequence. That it was mistaken identity is ironic, since Gatsby gets his due but for something he didn't do.

So there is a lot more about consequences of the decadent lifestyle in Gatsby given its rich complexity of plot and character not in the Wolf, a story told by a rich asshole entirely from his point of view without such varied and complex interweaving of elements.

[Layman Pascal]

You may be right. I have not read the novel, only seen films. But what stood out to me was the insidious sense that the narrators fascination with the "great ones" was only faux-critical and actually concealed more admiration and "longing for the one ring" than it let on. My perception of Gatsby-world is that it pretend to be an analysis of problematic elements within self-aggrandizing wealth culture but actually fails to accomplish this critique. Whereas the Wolf, not coming from a position of "wanting to be wealthy" actually provides a much more direct critique. The position of the "rich asshole" is actually the perfect vantage from which to reveal the functional systems which generate the problematic conditions. Yet the "sincere, interested, half-critical, half-admiring" position is one which produces a lot of moral intrigue without providing many actual insights into the mechanisms which are problematic.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I saw Saving Mr. Banks yesterday. It was far better than I expected. Disney had to win over PL Travers, the author Mary Poppins, to get the rights to make her famous book into a movie. What was enticing and quite endearing about the movie was showing Travers' backstory growing up, the relationship with her father. And how it was used in her book. Disney and his associates just couldn't understand why Travers was so bitchy, which was a direct result of her childhood. It wasn't until Disney did the research into her personal history that he finally connected to her with how his own childhood and father affected his life in significant ways.

One point is that no one 'liked' Travers personally, given her history and subsequent behavior. And yet that history, along with her talent and training, produced one of the most literary and beloved novels and movies of all time. If it was left up to just liking her the book or the movie might never have been published or produced. That required the 'business' world to promote, and left on her own in that regard her work would have never reached us.