Art

For some reason in a discussion I noticed in myself a frustration when hearing mention of Art (in this sense I'm purely talking about art displayed in galleries). Whilst I've certainly never found myself enamored with the medium I didn't notice such strong, stark, negative feelings in me before.

I suppose this post will most likely constitute a bit of a rant, but there are certain elements of my vastly unfair and irrational criticism that might have some legitimacy. Let me be clear, my problems with the medium lie less in its value as creative expression, but rather with the 'art world'.

It's perhaps best to start with the oddity that put me down this road of thought in the first place. In art I feel there is a great need (seemingly greater than any other medium) for uniqueness. Galleries pay millions to hang paintings, to show sculptures and to display installations created by the original artist. Whilst it may be worth paying for a first edition or original manuscript of a famous book, the intention is certainly that these works were meant to be distributed - the wider the better. Copying a novel, poem or film doesn't depreciate the value of the art itself, only the physical vehicle by which it is delivered.

Somehow this principle is reversed in the art world. The physical 'vehicle' is seemingly more important than any other identical copy. Even an indistinguishably similar forgery is worth infinitely less than the original, regardless of the emotion it evokes in the onlooker.

Conversely an undetected forgery is somehow worth exactly the same as the original. Only when its authenticity is assessed - using increasingly complicated techniques - does the value ever come into question.

There seems to be a necessary amount of self-denial required to make this system work - a false importance needed to be injected by the viewer, rather than a universal importance.

This question of the importance of authenticity and historicity is addressed - and in my opinion, adequately answered - in the Philip K Dick novel, The Man in the High Castle. The creation of art has greater value than the objects which physically embody this value and the connection we place in the object is subjective: seeing Lincoln's top hat might be significant because Lincoln wore it, but the hat itself has no value - after all, it is just a hat. It did not free the slaves nor perform the Gettysberg address nor die in a theatre. However, it does serve the purpose of an emotional conduit, through which we can feel a connection to its famous owner. We search, perhaps naively, for a connection to the long-gone subject through the object.

For all my ranting, I don't have any problem with this. Ultimately the connection we feel is genuine and important. For instance, I would never take away the mementos of a long dead friend for the purile reason of it not being 'real'.

However, what I do take issue with is the monetary valuing of this commodity; this emotional connection. A process that ultimately strikes me as incredibly undemocratic.

To make a(~nother) preposterous analogy, if Bill Gates, or any other infinitely rich person, were to buy the only copy of a literary work to form part of their private collection, there would be uproar. Ok, maybe not if it were Russell Brands Bookey Wook, but for virtually any text with remote artistic value, this would be shocking.

It is my belief that techonolgy will provide the ultimate liberation of Art from the shackles of oligarchical economic control. After all, it is the invention of the printing press that allow William Tyndale to take advantage and disseminate great works to the public. This act was of course illegal and Tyndale's punishment was infamously dire. We owe much as a society to the sacrifice he and others made.

I also read (rather fondly) that it was acts of literary piracy that allowed the spread of the works of Robert Louis Stevenson abroad to Australian and American readers, where he received his greatest fame and praise.

I am also at this point inclined to once again mention The Man in the High Castle, in which the fictional novel, The Grasshopper Lies Heavy is spread both illegally and widely.

To draw more modern parallels, it is the internet that has allowed widespread distribution of digital media. So perhaps, one day, we will wonder around virtual art galleries, where every man woman and child can hold a great work of art in their hands; barriers of distance or cost long dissolved. Perhaps we will wonder what it must've been like to live in a world so restricted.

Rant OVER and out.

Money and Justice

I feel very uneasy with the regularity with which we use the idea of money as a proxy for all reward and punishment. I much rather systems that provide more tangible, direct consequences. Ultimately money has no intrinsic value - it is purely a means to an end (i.e. to buy something else you need). Taking money out of the equation means that the gains are far more straight-forward.

However, I am certainly not against money per se. It is an incredibly useful system that in fact forms one of the major foundations upon which civilisation has been built. Without money and the universal value of goods and services, long-distance trade is near impossible. As a society and civilisation we owe a lot to money.

Nevertheless, I do believe there is a case to be made in highlighting an over-reliance on money, to the point where real value is lost.

As you may have guessed from the title, this thought process led me to thinking about the fundamentals of our justice system (good segue!). It's no real shock to highlight the illogical connection between money and justice.

Our legal system is supposedly based on ideals of fairness. Yet, there are of course many other factors in determining the success in any case - many of which can be greatly improved by having a baJILLion dollars! Rich people can afford better lawyers, they can pay higher fines and (with enough money) they can even bribe the judge...These may not all be strictly legal, but they are certainly possible.

I don't see it as my place to comment on the more criminal solutions to legal problems as I'm sure condemnation is unnecessary, but I do wonder about the other two - particularly the idea of fines and legal payments in general.

My first thought was to question what the purpose of fines actually is. There are three major reasons I can see for fines being useful. On the more pragmatic side the money can be used to repair any damage caused by the original offence and cover any legal fees. There's also the fact that fines can be a significant deterrent to those who wish to commit crimes and finally, the fine can serve as punishment to those who commit the crime.

It's in these last two that I see a real problem. Assuming the fine for a crime is flat, surely someone with more money is simply less affected than others with less. I can't imagine a £50 fine being anything less than a slap on the wrists for someone with enough money to pay. Upping the fine only exaggerates the effects. For say a £50,000 fine it might mean bankruptcy to some and pocket change to others.

It is perhaps inappropriate to apply the principles used in one's personal life to such a large scale problem, but on the rare occasion when I have to lay the smackdown, I would almost always tailor the punishment to both fit the 'crime' and the individual. A mismatch between the two can often lead to suboptimal smackdownage and increased reoffending rates.

Forgive me for taking the analogy so far, but I do feel unconvinced that the principles driving the use of fines are best fulfilled by flat rates. The punishment for the same crime can be arbitrary and miniscule for some and life-changing for others.

The idea that subsequently popped into my head was 'means-tested fines'. Ok, so I'm not totally serious about this idea, but it does strike me as interesting. Even more so because I've heard no mention of anything similar. If fines were 'means-tested' they would be adjusted to be more in-line with a proportion of income/assets rather than fixed values. The punishment would be in line with the amount of difficulty it causes for the perpetrator.

I see several problems with this idea. It relies on accurately calculating the income of the defendant in any civil/criminal case. This would most likely be costly, lengthy and widely open to loophole abuse. The very people the change is meant to target would also be best equipped to evade excess payment.

Nevertheless, on a more theoretical level, it seems to make a lot more sense. It would certainly feel more 'fair' to pay proportional to your income.


ADDENDUM:

Just to illustrate what kind of poorly researched toss I write, here are two articles illustrating the existence of the principle in Finland and also previous proposals to have it introduced here. I'm not sure whether it ever was implemented, but the Telegraph complained about it (no surprises there).