writings    ||    books    ||    projects    ||    madvertising    ||    odds & ends    ||    about    ||    bio

Art & Culture

Auld Lang Syne
Frank Stack
PS:  Gallery
Strength in Unity
Hallowe'en Fright
I See Nekkid People
The Muddy Mural
Livin' Large, Kinkade Style
Eliciting an Emotional Response
www.Art
Marie Hunter
Out, Damned Spot
Danielle Eldred
Local Museums Thriving
Art in Stephens Lake Park
JD King
Strike a Blow for Liberty
No Vail of Tears
Ammanford Sculpture Controversy
Bear Creek
Larry Young
The Lowest Common Denominator
A Different Kind of Success
Taking Risks
Out of Her Gourd
Hey, GalleryMan!
Harry Potter and the
    Superstring Revolution
Investment Grade
Giving Thanks
Auctions
One Free Minute
Odds & Ends
Monkeys with Car Keys
Sharon Kilfoyle's Wearable Art
Farewell Betty
Happy Birthday, Naoma
Back to School
Take the Pledge
Canopy Conundrum
Columbia's Stonehenge
It takes a Village
Hope Springs Eternal
Dorrell review
Growing Season
If the Shoe Fits
That's Not Art!
Elite Appeal
The Hunger Artist
Opportunity
What Sells
Gallery Ettiquette

Bookbinding & Conservation

lessons learned from this profession

Humor

ok, I'm not the guy from SNL,
but I still have a sense of humor

'Jim Downey' Stories

mostly true stories from my
adolescence

Personal Essays

more "it's all about me"

Politics

Iím at -7.13/-7.33 on The Political Compass.  Where
are you?

Society

observations on the human condition

Travel

take a trip with me

Published in the Columbia Daily Tribune 18 December 2005


Harry Potter and the Superstring Revolution

One of my favorite String Theory blogs (yeah, I have rather eclectic interests) recently got into a discussion of the new Harry Potter movie.  Even hard-core physicists like to discuss movies in addition to the latest research into 11-dimension supergravity and the advantages of D-branes over M-theory.  Which is good, because when these people start throwing around the advanced math wizardry needed to really understand these concepts I'm just a Muggle.  But if they talk movies or art, I can chime in with the best of them.

Anyway, the discussion of Goblet of Fire turned into a debate of whether or not the Potter books themselves should really be considered literature.  And, frankly, it was rather funny to watch a bunch of really smart people try and wrestle with something so completely outside of their field of training.  Sure, most of them had taken some lit classes while undergrads, but they were working with tools not really suited to the problem.  It'd be like me, with a little bit of math from college 25 years ago, trying to engage one of them on the validity of the Superstring Revolution.  I might have a general understanding of the issues involved, but I'm completely unequipped to contribute anything meaningful to the debate in the language of science.

What was really interesting about this, though, was that none of them saw it that way.  They were all certain that their opinions of literature, as an intellectual exercise, were completely valid.  They had fallen into the trap of thinking that their likes or dislikes in literature was all that was necessary to have an informed debate.

This is a common problem with all the arts.  Non-artists usually think that their personal preferences are all that matters.  If someone doesn't like a Pollock drip painting, then it isn't "art."  If they think that opera is boring, then that's sufficient to consider it outmoded and useless.  And conceptual art . . . well, it's beyond the conceptual boundary horizon for most folks and so doesn't even exist.  Might as well be magic.

Furthermore, if you challenge these opinions people will get really indignant and defensive.  They don't want to hear that an understanding of the issues involved is necessary to appreciate some art.  The old line "I donít know much about art, but I know what I like" will pop up in one form or another very quickly.

And on one level, that's OK.  I wouldn't think of telling someone that they couldn't form an opinion about what they like or dislike in art any more than I would consider telling them what they liked to eat for breakfast.  But if you've never even heard of eggs, how can you have an opinion on the proper preparation of a nice quiche?  It'd be like having strong feelings about word choice in the translation of Rilke's Der Schwan when you don't speak German.  Sure, you can have an opinion, but it's not something I'm going to take particularly seriously.

This isn't to say that only an 'expert' can have a valid opinion about art.  Hardly.  By its very nature art is designed to elicit a response even in the uninformed.  It's perfectly OK to say "I like that painting." Or, "I don't care for opera."  But when someone starts to try and talk about the validity of a particular work of art (or music, literature, et cetera), they need to know what they're talking about.  Otherwise, people will treat you like the guy sitting in the sports bar who keeps yelling "pass the ball" at the TV during the baseball game.  Or, perhaps more appropriately, like the guy at the Quidditch match who keeps calling for a relief pitcher.


contact me:
jim@afineline.org
all work © James T. Downey, 1993-present
photos © Martha K. John, 1994-present
site designed and maintained by:
Coeurbois Graphic Design