Tag Archives: Roger Ebert

August 4, 2012

Bang, Bang; You’re Dead!

By Wyrd Smythe

The tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, naturally re-activated the “discussion” of guns and gun control in the blogsphere. As with reproductive rights and gay rights, it’s not really a discussion so much as two sides throwing comments (or worse) at each other.

At least they aren’t throwing bullets (yet?); I guess that’s something.

Full disclosure before I continue. I own a couple of handguns. I haven’t been to the gun range or fired those guns in years.  I like to explore the world, and part of that was a period where I “got into” guns and hand gun sports (target shooting and IPSC).  I don’t hunt (too much work; gutting a deer isn’t my idea of fun), and I don’t conceive of my guns as being for self-defense.  (At least not right now.  If the world should become a much scarier, dystopic place, that could change.)  I don’t think I could be considered a “gun nut,” and I can see good points on both sides of the issue.

And that’s what this post is about. My take, written to interweb stone, on the gun issue.  I’m not under the illusion this will mean anything; it’s just my view and vote on things.  Those who already agree will continue to agree; those who don’t won’t.

I learned long ago the futility of  discussing social hot topics, so I’ve tried to avoid entering the fray. Blog posts about gun control tend to generate long comment threads containing the same retreads. But I did stumble into two discussions, and I’m actually glad I did.

One, a comment to the post The Body Count, on Roger Ebert’s Journal, amongst 700+ comments there, hit a very large nail with me, “Why is EVERYTHING in this country 50/50?” (It’s the 20th comment down if my count is right.)

The comment was in response to statistics showing the near 50/50 split in this country regarding opinions on guns (and, by extension, so many other issues). I think it targets a real difficulty about public policy in this country: there is no single “will” of the people. We are as divided in our views as any society can be. It’s a source of strength (diversity), which of course also makes it a source of weakness (indecision). Fundamentally different world views make this a seemingly unsolvable Gordian (not to be confused with Gourdians).

As I mentioned above, it’s pointless to make points… one ends up preaching to the choir or tossing pearls on deaf ears (pardon the triple-mixed meta). And per the quoted comment, it’s unlikely we’ll ever see a consensus.  Still, the ‘web is all about making points, so here’s a few from me. They won’t matter worth a Tinker’s damn.

Firstly, with regard to the idea of controlling guns, consider the “success” of the “drug war” (leaving aside the idiocy of a “war” on some social issue). It’s pretty clear that this war is lost, and was lost, from the beginning. Drugs flow into this country at a huge, unstoppable rate. They are easy to get for anyone with an interest. In some cases they are grown or manufactured locally, and this, too, has proven impossible to eradicate.

The way I see it, it’s even harder to control guns than drugs. Guns have legitimate purposes (hunting, police, military, security) so will always be manufactured (unlike many drugs which have no legit purpose and could, in theory, be interdicted at the source). Also, drugs are distinct organics, and (again, theoretically) could be detectable via science. Something like an MRI machine could detect specific organic molecules. But gun parts, just bits of metal and plastic, are indistinguishable from sewing machine parts, so good luck blocking their illegal import.

Secondly, even if we decided that police and armies can do without guns, and we did end the manufacture of all guns, the problem remains (and actually becomes worse).  Guns are easy to make. Trivially easy. So is gunpowder (even Capt. Kirk did it).  All you really need is a tube, blocked at one end.  (On Mythbusters they once made a cannon out of duct tape!)

[Scary thought for the day: we lock criminals up in places where they often learn metal shop skills and learn from each other. A lathe, a metal rod, a gun!]

So, bottom line, you can’t control them.  All you can do is take them away from law-abiding people who aren’t the problem at all.  You can make them as illegal to possess as you like, but criminals—pretty much by definition—ignore the laws.  That the criminal had no legal right to the gun that killed a loved one is scant comfort after the fact.

Third point. A common anti-gun argument has the form, “Why does anyone need X?!” Where “X” is usually the dreaded “assault weapon” but is sometimes “lots of guns” or some other aspect of gun ownership that alarms people.  I think this is a false argument. It’s not about need. The only thing anyone needs is food, water and shelter. The rest is stuff we want or enjoy. The question then is: In a free country, where do you draw the line between personal freedom and public safety?

And that’s not an easy question to answer due to those different world views.  Some want the world to be as safe as possible, sometimes even when that safety is nothing but an illusion (airport security springs to mind here).  Others feel that’s a losing, impossible, pointless task. (Put me in the latter category.)

The simple truth is that gun collectors and gun hobbyists aren’t the problem. Even the “gun nuts” aren’t really the problem (nearly all of them are as harmless as “Star Trek nuts” if, perhaps, a bit scarier (but have you been to a Star Trek convention?)).  It’s the honest-to-gosh insane nuts that are the problem.  A very good question here is: Does the availability of guns make it easier for these insane people, who intend to kill, to kill more people.  The answer is almost certainly: Yes!

But in a world where over 150,000 people die every day, and where traffic accidents and heart attacks kill many orders of magnitude more people than gun incidents (even five-gallon buckets have a surprisingly high kill rate, and they kill infants), such incidents—as horrific as they are—are just statistical blips. They are outliers, and cannot, must not, be used to form public policy.

It’s a bit like airplane crashes. They are horrifying, if extremely rare, events, and the headlines scream about any crash. But the fact remains that your air trip is vastly more safe than your drive to or from the airport. Part of the reason for that is that the people involved are highly trained, and nearly all aspects are controlled by strict regulations.  Every person I know who is “into” guns is fine with requiring training and nearly all are okay with some forms of restriction.

Point four. Another common target of the gun “discussion” is the Second Amendment. The usual argument is that simple guns, such that citizens can own, would be useless fighting the American military, should things come to that.  But consider what happened in Viet Nam and Afghanistan. In both cases a severely under-armed society of very determined fighters made mince meat of advanced mechanized armies (and not just us; the Russians got their asses kicked in Afghanistan, and they were way more ruthless about retaliation than we).

Or consider Iraq and IEDs. Consider that the most horrific violent attack against innocents on American soil… was (allegedly) accomplished with box cutters, not bullets. Or that another horrific chapter in our history was accomplished with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

And, oddly, if you really buy into what the Second Amendment is about (that citizens should be able to take down the government if needed), then it’s a weird argument in favor of citizen ownership of the “Scary Weapons.” (So, where’s my tank? If not a tank, can I have a bazooka? I would really like a bazooka! Mostly because I just really like the word, bazooka!)

So, if we can’t control them or ban them or end them, where does that leave us?

You have to somehow try to solve society, and that’s even harder than solving “the gun problem.” American society is, perhaps, one of the most complex and dynamic on the planet.  This, by the way, makes the usual comparisons to gun control in the UK or Australia, or comparisons of gun ownership in Switzerland utterly unsuccessful to my mind.  We’re a whole different ball of wax floating in a whole different kettle of fish (got the Meta-Mixer on puree today).

As always, at least to my eye, the only possible, no doubt partial, solution to any social issue is education.  We have got to fix our severely broken education system.  The sheer ignorance of most Americans is at the heart of the decay of this country (and make no mistake, we’re no longer #1 in lots of areas, and we deeply deserve our demotion).

People often resist being educated, and we’ve listened to that resistance and slacked off.  We’ve allowed people to maintain their ignorance.  That needs to stop.  Teachers need to be some of the most revered people in our society (how is it that those who form our childrens’ minds are not?).  I’m sorry, but most of you really need to have an education pounded into you, since you apparently haven’t have the sense to go and get one.

Which brings me to my last point.  I mentioned stumbling into two blog posts that interested me.  One was Roger Ebert’s, and it was really that one comment that stuck out (to be honest, much as I love the guy, have read him for decades, his posts in his areas of ignorance often seem very off-target to me).  Most of the rest (of the comments) were what you’d expect, although one thing about Ebert’s blog: the level of discourse is very high.  It’s a refreshing read.

The other was by an author here on WordPress. She had just been “Freshly Pressed,” which is how I stumbled on her blog.  In fact, the Freshly Pressed post was about grammar (a topic for another day), but later she posted one regarding gun control. What really stuck out was the intelligence, perception and self-awareness of this young 20-something (from Kansas no less, a state oft associated with, shall we say, an odd perspective on education).

It’s good to know that some young people are this much “on the ball.”  It gives us old farts hope that the world won’t completely turn to shit in the future.  Maybe, just maybe, the future of Idiocracy (a funny and scary movie) can be avoided.

4 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in Life, Philosophy

August 13, 2011

What is Art?

By Wyrd Smythe

An old and challenging question is, “What is art?” The question is probably as old as art and artists; the moment someone made a cave painting, someone else probably asked, “But is it art?”

It’s possible the question cannot be answered in any objective way; we may each have a personal definition of art. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter.

First, there are (at least) three distinct questions one might ask regarding art:

  1. Is it art?
  2. Is it good art?
  3. Do I like it?

This essay is strictly about the first question. Critical review (whether a piece of Art is good) and taste (whether you like it) are separate matters.

Second, art is hard to define because, like love, it is a fundamental concept. That makes it relatively easy to describe (one can cite the Mona Lisa or Burns & Allen), but hard to define. Definitions require concepts more basic than the thing defined. Just as buildings are defined by bricks, steel and glass; concepts are defined by basic “building block” concepts.

But what is more basic than art or love? The many forms of art (for example: paintings, dance, music, movies), show its enormous range and scope. As with love, the fundamental nature is demonstrated in the variety of ways we express it. Any definition we pick must be equally large in scope.

Third, art seems to be a form of communication between the creator and those that consume it. (As an aside, art is one of those things that, once created, is consumed by many and is sometimes consumed repeatedly by individuals. And after any amount of consumption, the original is still untouched.)

In any event, the duality between artist and consumer complicates finding a definition, since it must apply to both. It also begs the question of whether art is art if created strictly for the artist and never consumed. If the answer is that consumption is not a part of art, then art need be defined strictly in the context of the artist.

Which brings me to my personal definition.

For me, the answer to the question is pretty simple: Art is that which is created by an Artist. Which, of course, just moves the question to, “Okay, smartass, then what is an artist?” (The Zen reply would be to define an artist as “one who creates art,” but that would make this a much shorter article.)

But my definition of art—that it is created by an artist—does one very important thing: it narrows the scope down to products of the mind. It draws a definite line between that which is simply beautiful or appealing and that which was made in a creative act. A sunset or a landscape is not art, no matter how beautiful it is. The Grand Canyon, despite the fact that its sheer breath-taking beauty and majesty always make me weep (seriously, literally) is not art.

But depictions of beautiful things, photographs, paintings, perhaps even written accounts or songs, can be.

Now what about, say, a shuttle launch? Here’s another thing where the beauty, power and majesty (not to mention the implications behind it) also brings me to tears. The shuttle is a human-made thing; the launch is done by humans. When I saw the IMAX presentation of a shuttle launch once I was so profoundly affected I could not speak without sobbing for many minutes. (My lady friend at the time, who was with me, completely did not understand, and I could tell she looked down on me for it. Just one of many reasons she’s ancient history now.)

I’m going to say that the shuttle launch comes close to being art, but doesn’t quite cross the line. Explaining why is difficult, though. Basically, it has to do with the purpose behind the making. Which brings me to trying to define what I mean by artist.

An artist is one who is driven to create an interpretation and expression of their perception of reality. Artists have a deep need to express themselves, and that expression takes the form of a representation of some aspect of the world around them. There are two major components to this:

Perception & Interpretation: Art interprets some aspect of the artist’s perceived reality. The reality may be completely imaginary, partly imaginary or based fully on reality. A novel might have imaginary aliens on an imaginary planet. A photograph of a sunset can be an artistic vision of a real thing.

Expression & Medium: Art is the expression of the artist’s interpretation. That expression can take many forms (mediums): music, paint, sculpture, cinema, dance, literature. There is always some medium of expression to Art. Expression is the bridge between artist and consumer; it is how the artist, and the art, speaks to us.

Artists are those who are driven to express their interpretation of reality. Artists are people who have a need to create Art.

As mentioned above, there are some very important lines to draw with regard to art:

  1. What is art, and what is not art.
  2. What is good art, and what is bad art.
  3. What is art you like, and what is art you don’t like.

These are all separate questions. They all can be difficult—perhaps impossible—to answer objectively. The last one is obviously entirely subjective and subject to your personal tastes (and not at all the topic of this article). But there might be some objective criteria that help us answer the first two.

If something can be objectively identified as art, perhaps we can also find objective criteria to distinguish between what is good and what is bad. The line can be blurred by artists with great artistic soul, but who have poor technical skills (or meager resources). In such cases, sometimes the inner artist shows through (or not).

We see this if we go back to the earliest art among humans: cave paintings. These artists were re-creating reality as they perceived it. That they are evocative still shows the soul and heart put into these works. This seems to remove technical skill as a criteria for drawing a line between good art and bad art. (But the second question is also not the topic of this article!)

As mentioned above, I define art to be created by a mind. This eliminates sunsets and the Grand Canyon, but might allow shuttle launches. What eliminates those is that a shuttle launch has a utilitarian function. The reason behind its design and construction are utilitarian. It is not intended as a work of art. My definition of art requires it be intentionally created as art.

Is paint thrown a distance onto a canvas art? How about a painting of a Campbell’s soup can? Is a “sculpture” consisting mostly of a urinal with an ironic title art?

I think the answer lies in the intent and expression of the artist. Randomly applied paint can be intentionally selected for its color. The application of each color may be random, but the overall expression may not be. Consider Jackson Pollock‘s work, for example. Repeatedly applying random splashes may result in something the artist intends.

Andy Warhol‘s famous soup can paintings had a specific message; they were intentional statements. The artist had a perception of his reality, and he expressed that using his command of his tools. Definitely, the soup cans were art.

Weird sculptures also can be an interpretive expression of an artist’s reality. A difficult trick here may be determining whether the statement is genuine or banal. The oddness of the medium can distract from the content. If the perception, interpretation and expression brings something new to light, then maybe even that urinal is art.

There has been a bit of a battle between film critic Roger Ebert and lovers of video games as to whether video games are art (as Ebert perceives film to be). I think there’s no question that these games contain visual and musical art. The question really boils down to whether the game itself is art. I am increasingly of the opinion that they can be.

Ebert’s point, perhaps, is that no matter how artistic the chess pieces might be, the chess game is not art. I think that the video game itself may be the chess pieces (and therefore art). Playing the game is no more art than playing chess is.

In the end, we may simply return to the beginning: Art is in the mind of the creator and the consumer. Is it art? That’s up to you. Some things clearly are not art, but there seems to be plenty of gray area that leaves it up to personal choice.

1 comment   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in Basics, Philosophy

July 10, 2011

Sideband #7: Down with 3D!

By Wyrd Smythe

I completely forgot to rant about 3D when I wrote about the Green Lantern movie. Part of the reason I did forget is that I didn’t see it in 3D.

Except for certain special cases—basically occasionally checking to see the state of the art—I will never willingly see any movie in 3D.  Number me, along with film critic Roger Ebert, as a hater of 3D.

I’ll write a much longer rant later, but I just wanted to get that out there in case anyone was going to ask about how I liked the 3D in Green Lantern. I have no opinion about the 3D (except to despise it in general), because–thankfully–I didn’t see the 3D. (I hate to think a time could come when I won’t have the choice to see the 2D version.)

On rare occasion, I will see a 3D movie, as I said, to check out the state of the art. Also with the idea of “know thy enemy.” But I would never do that with any live-action film. The only sort of film I would even consider seeing in 3D would be an animated film that was created and rendered in 3D.

The main reason for that is that 3D is necessarily darker. It has to be, because it’s a filthy trick being played on your eyes. The only way it works is to provide each eye with separate images your brain tries to merge into a 3D image. There’s various ways of doing this, but they all involve reducing the light that reaches each eye.

There’s a lot more to this, and I will write rant about it later, but for now, please, “Just say NO to 3D!”

Leave a comment   |  tags: , | posted in Movies, Sideband

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers