Pixabay

I've not updated for a while as we were away for a bit. I took quite a lot of photos during our travels, so I decided to upload some of them to Pixabay. This is a site that I've used for a while, because pictures can freely be used even for commercial purposes, without attribution, which is ideal for lecture slides. I figured that, having used pictures from this site, I should give something back by uploading some of my own.

 

I'm still figuring things out over there. I'm not a professional photographer, so my pictures aren't as good as many of the others on the site. Still, it may be a handy way for me to organise photos that I may want to use again, even if no one else does. If you're interested, my pictures can be found on my profile here.

Layne Staley Day

 Today marks the second anniversary of Layne Staley Day. (I use this phrasing because it seems the day was a one-off in 2019, rather than an annual thing.) In any case, here's a tribute:

Unusual Marriages 1: A Bridge

I'm teaching a module on the Ethics of Public Policy this semester which will cover, inter alia, marriage. Naturally the focus is likely to be on gay marriage, though we'll also discuss other things such as polygamy and arguments for the abolition of marriage. But one of the readings will be this piece by Ralph Wedgwood.

In this article, Wedgwood is concerned with the essential social meaning of marriage - a meaning which, he claims, does not restrict marriage to being between a man and a woman. However, he has to grapple with whether other, decidedly more unusual, cases of marriage might also be possible. In particular, he mentions examples of people marrying their dogs or their cars (p. 233) or one man marrying another man's left foot (p. 239). The problem, for a liberal view of marriage, is whether it can be permissive enough to allow gay marriage (and, perhaps, polygamy) while excluding such cases (assuming that we want to disallow them).

Wedgwood claims that, so far as he knows, no one actually wants to enter into these alternative forms of marriage (p. 239). It seems that this isn't entirely true, as the following example illustrates.

Artist Jodi Rose 'married' the Pont du Diable (Devil's Bridge) in France. Her account, in which she describes her and her bridge as "Officially *symbolically united" can be found here. The story was covered by the Metro and Huffington Post, both of whom make clear that the union is not legally recognised in France.

I think there are questions here as to whether there's any real (i.e. literal) sense in which this can be described as a woman marrying a bridge, as opposed to some fanciful make-believe. Further, before this could be a problem for Wedgwood's case, we'd need to consider whether or not she really wants this marriage to have the significance usually attached to other marriages. Perhaps, for instance, it was more of an excuse for a wedding party or a way to publicise her bridge singing party. Nonetheless, I think it's an interesting case to consider, especially when some people insist that marriage must - by definition - be between a man and a woman.

Newsnight

I was on TV tonight. Admittedly, I was only in the audience, I didn't speak, and in fact you only catch a very brief glimpse of me as the camera pans across the audience (I was sat back left), but I was at the BBC studio in Glasgow for the filming of an episode of Newsnight Scotland focused on the arts. (I believe anyone in the UK can watch for the next week here.)

I was surprised how much waiting around there was. We were told to turn up around 5:45 and certainly by 6:15, for filming to start at 7:30. I assumed we'd get some extensive briefing or something but for the most part we did nothing until around 7 (though those who had been pre-selected to ask questions may have received some further advice).

What Is 'A Song'?

It seems that BBC 6 Music recently produced a listener-voted poll of the Top 100 songs of the last ten years (the time the station has been in air). I'm not going to dispute the choices (de gustibus non est disputandum), but it did seem odd to me that the Top Ten included at least one cover version, specifically Johnny Cash's version of 'Hurt' (originally by Nine Inch Nails).

I don't know what the identity conditions, or ontological status, of a song are. But ordinarily I'd describe Cash's 'Hurt' as a new version of the same song, not as a new song. And, if it is the same song as the one NIN released in 1994, then it doesn't seem that it should be eligible.

Perhaps this is over-restrictive. Perhaps new (re)interpretations should be counted as new songs, rather than variations on old ones (though I don't think it's how we ordinarily speak). But, if this is so, I wonder how much has to change for the song to become a new one.

Nine Inch Nail's And All That Could Have Been live album was apparently released in March 2002, so also too long ago, but had that been a year later would that have counted as a new song of the last ten years? Taken to the extreme, is every new performance a new song? If so, I'd suggest that there are some real classics missing from this list of songs...

Legal Territorial Jurisdiction

I have a paper - hopefully forthcoming, details to follow - in which I claim that the law subjects everyone globally to coercion, because (for instance) a law requiring that people drive on the left in the UK applies equally to all persons driving in the UK. I think an awful lot of political philosophy/theory gets things wrong by focusing on people, rather than territory, though I understand that there have been recent moves to redress this (for instance Chris Bertram's Territory and Justice network).

Anyway, I was struck by this case, reported on the BBC. The case centres on George 'Star Wars' Lucas suing the man who originally made Storm Trooper helmets (Mr Ainsworth) for selling them, on the grounds that he (Ainsworth) no longer owned the copyright. As the BBC reports:

"Lucasfilm sued for $20m in 2004, arguing Mr Ainsworth did not hold the intellectual property rights and had no right to sell them - a point upheld by a US court.
But the judgement could not be enforced because the designer held no assets in the US, so the battle moved to the UK."

The interesting point, made explicit in an earlier version of the story, but not as clear now, is that the UK court upheld the US decision that Ainsworth could not sell the helmets in the US. This, I think, raises interesting issues, though I'm insufficiently clear on either the details of the case or the necessary legal theory. It looks to me though as if the UK court's decision binds a British citizen not to do something in US territory...

Longest Piece of Music

It's another old philosophical question: if a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? (It's one relatively easily answered, unlike this variant.)

Here's a new one though: if a composer creates a 1,000 year long piece of music, then no-one will ever hear the whole thing, so what's the point?

Can Maggots Create Art?

We've all heard the one about chimpanzees typing out Shakespeare. I'm not so sure that maggots, of their own accord, could create a piece of art. Nonetheless, if a human decides to use them to create a piece of art, then I guess that makes him still the artist...

The Simpsons on Art

I only caught the last ten minutes or so of The Simpsons last night (which I rarely watch at all these days, due to not watching a lot of TV at all and it being a bit early for mealtime, even on C4+1). It was this episode, in which Homer becomes an 'outsider artist.' I may have to see whether I can work a reference to this into my Aesthetics lectures; particularly this quote:
[Homer floods the town as an art project]
Bart Simpson: Are you sure this is art, not vandalism?
Homer: That's for the courts to decide, son.

Copycat Killing

The murder of a Norfolk teenager was based on the movie Severance. One for my lecture on art and society...

Culture and Reality

I've just finished writing a lecture on Plato's views on poetry. One thing that really needs to be understood is that, for the Greeks, poetry was their mass entertainment, something like East Enders today, as well as being regarded as providing education in moral values (not for nothing do poets feature prominently in the first two books of the Republic).

It's gratifying to once more see similar concerns raised in contemporary society - this time teachers complaining about the effects of reality TV on children.

Sex and Art

A while ago I commented on findings that men are less able to recognize cute babies than women, saying "I am... curious as to how this finding was reached, as opposed - for example - to the idea that the babies aren't actually cute or that the standards/criteria of cuteness employed by men and women differ".

Maybe I was on to something, because now it seems that men and women judge whether art is beautiful in different ways as well!

In unrelated news about sex and art, teenagers who listen to sexually explicit/degrading music seem more likely to be having sex. I guess this could be another excuse to wheel out the Plato and censorship debate, although we'd really need to establish causation rather than mere correlation.

Music as Torture

It seems that music, from AC/DC and Nine Inch Nails to Britney Spears and the BeeGees is being used as a means of torture. Says one interrogator: "These people haven't heard heavy metal. They can't take it. If you play it for 24 hours, your brain and body functions start to slide, your train of thought slows down and your will is broken." (via Eloise)

Also, performances of Wagner are still unofficially banned in Israel, raising questions about the place of moral judgements in art.

Plato Would Condemn Soaps

I've talked at length before about Plato and censorship (e.g.: one, two, three). The aim is not to settle questions about freedom and limits of speech but to show that the measures spelled out in the Republic are not completely crazy and, in fact, are reflected in a number of contemporary concerns.

Myles Burnyeat's Tanner Lectures are, I think, really great at showing how Plato's concern is the pervasive effect that society's mass art has on its culture. You have to remember that banning or censoring Homer would not just be like applying such treatment to Shakespeare - Homer was a staple of education, but also part of mainstream culture and entertainment. Burnyeat interprets the allegory of the Cave as a statement about how most people are not only detached from higher reality (the Forms), but enthralled by the shadows and images of poets.

If he was alive today, Plato's concerns would no doubt extend to TV. Bupa has recently condemned soaps that portray characters living unhealthy lifestyles - drinking, smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise - without suffering the likely health consequences. This is a very similar concern to Plato's: he criticizes stories that, essentially, show that cheats prosper, rather than portraying the real effects of injustice - which he likens to an illness of the soul. In both cases, the worry is that members of the public will be led into bad habits by popular media that portray the benefits of vice without the cost.

(I am not, of course, suggesting that Bupa want to censor soaps; merely that they share a similar concern. They suggest that scriptwriters should include stories emphasizing the harms of unhealthy lifestyle; Plato prefers to excise cases where the unjust profit - the result is much the same).

Censoring Music

Plato on purifying musical modes:

Ban lamentations and music fit for drinking parties. "[L]eave me, then, these two modes [Dorian and Phrygian], which will best imitate the violent or voluntary tones of voice of those who are moderate and courageous, whether in good fortune or in bad... [W]e won't need the craftsmen who make triangular lutes, harps, and all other such multistrigned and polyharmonic instruments" (Rep 399a-d)

'Ultra-Orthodox' Rabbi Luft:

Rabbi Luft has drawn up a black-list of musicians and bands - music that he says that is not kosher and cannot be played at ultra-orthodox weddings or public events because of its decadent nature... "The main part of the music should be the melody. Percussion should be secondary. They should not bend notes electronically and should not use instruments like electric guitars, bass guitars or saxophones in Jewish music," he says... [T]he "purpose of modern music - its influences - is to distract young people and change good characters into bad"... such music, even Jewish rock music, "where the dangerous beat plays more of a part than the melody, has no place in a society where people are trying to keep their moral standards high.

Is Plato "really totally in another league as far as insanely illiberal policy preferences go"? If he is, it certainly isn't a league of his own...

Censorship in Society

I've recently been having an exchange with my friend Rob, on this older post of mine about censorship in education. As he quite rightly points out, the example I use in that post is of a particular poem being removed from a GCSE anthology because of its bad influence, and this restriction of context is quite different in kind from a total ban on the poem itself.

Nonetheless, the point that I wanted to make is that we do care what we expose children to - controversy over 'Gollywogs' in Enid Blyton being another example - and, if this is our general concern, then there has to be a worry that context restriction will never be enough. (Of course, there's a balancing that goes on here: we may think that context restriction sufficiently limits harm with minimal loss of liberty, while a total ban - as Plato proposes - would be too great a price to pay to prevent undesirable influences).

Here, it seems, is an example where concern goes beyond mere context restriction. The controversy surrounds whether it is ok to use the term 'retard' in satire. That could be a matter of context, because there are some things that we think it ok to discuss but not make fun of; but as I read it, the suggestion is that the term - like, perhaps, 'nigger' (with the possible exception of between blacks) - should be taboo and not to be used at all, even in comedy (which is sometimes exempt from certain restrictions).

Note, in particular, the BBC headline: The path from cinema to playground. The concern is, in particular, the effect on the young, but the proposal is censorship far wider than school textbooks or even the school context. As Myles Burnyeat puts it, in his Tanner Lectures, "Plato’s insight is that if you are concerned about the souls of the young, it is no good simply laying down rules for parents and teachers, or agreeing to keep sex and violence off the TV screen until after 9:00 P.M. His conclusion: for the sake of the young, the entire culture must be purged" (p.47).

Censorship in Education

Plato is often criticized as totalitarian for his willingness to censor vast tracts of Greek poetry, including Homer, in his ideal city. Of course, it is important that he proposed total censorship, rather than merely restriction of context. Nonetheless, when it comes to educational contexts, his proposals seem to differ from modern practice only in degree rather than kind.

I previously has other examples, such as fuss over Gollywogs in Enid Blighton, but this BBC story brought my attention to the recent removal of a Carol Ann Duffy poem about knife violence, 'An Education in Leisure' from GCSE anthologies. The Guardian's report reproduces the poem, while there's an analysis of it here.

The Guardian report quotes Michael Rosen, the children's laureate [not the ex-Oxford philosopher], as saying: "By this same logic we would be banning Romeo and Juliet. That's about a group of sexually attractive males strutting round the streets, getting off with girls and stabbing each other."

Maori Heads

This piece from the NY Times about return of Maori heads from France to New Zealand obviously raises a number of ethical issues. Also interesting in light of what I've been reading and thinking about recently though is the question whether they can be art.

Many tribal artifacts that were not intended as art, such as decorative shields intended to scare the enemy, are exhibited as art in Western galleries. Arguably their status is akin to Duchamp's readymades - i.e. they were not art until someone decided to exhibit them as such. Is this possible with human body parts?

I did have the idea that one could exhibit a human being (just a normal, living human - not doing anything special) with accompanied by Hamlet's "What piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world!" Would that be art?

Is it Art?

I've been thinking a bit about aesthetics lately. There was one piece - that I remember being told about in lectures and that recently came up in conversation with a friend - where Michael Craig-Martin turned a glass of water into an oak tree with the sensible properties of a glass of water. It's in the Tate Modern, and you can read more about it here.

Just yesterday I read about another new exhibit at the Tate Britain, featuring people running about. The press release quotes artist Martin Creed as saying “I like running. I like seeing people run and I like running myself… running is the opposite of being still. If you think about death as being completely still and movement as a sign of life, then the fastest movement possible is the biggest sign of life. So then running fast is like the exact opposite of death: it’s an example of aliveness” - which doesn't sound like quite the deep, intellectual justification you might expect from someone like Duchamp.

I remember a fairly standard exam question being 'could X be art?' where X might be, say, natural scenery, graffiti or a faulty lightswitch. I suppose the answer are fairly formulaic: a run through problems defining art, Wittgenstein on language games, the institutional theory, and a vague conclusions - perhaps it could be.