The Types of Work I like Doing

This is a hilarious take from xkcd on the kinds of work I like doing in theology, granted it doesn't apply completely but I'm sure you'll find a good laugh.

http://xkcd.com/755

If that doesn't work.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/interdisciplinary.png

Enjoy

What makes a masterpiece?

Instead of my usual music review, this month I thought I would try something a little different. The reason being is that I picked Pink Floyd's Darkside of the Moon to review and honestly I don't think there is anything I can say that hasn't been said one hundred times before. This album is so critically acclaimed and so popular that there is, if anything too much ink spent extolling its virtues. But that leads to an interesting observation - Darkside of the Moon is both a critical and popular success. It is one of those works of art that truly deserves the title "masterpiece." But why is that? What makes the album so special that everyone one (in a general sense, I'm sure there are some who hate it) is attracted to it.

Art is made up of a few general basic aspects: There is the technical side, the skill and dexterity of the artists hand's. There is what I call the philosophical side - the worldview of the artist or the truth (in a non hard scientific sense) that the art means to reveal to the world. I also identify a third "grab bag" category for all aspects of the art which are more or less subjective. Now for there to be such a thing as a "masterpiece" their implicitly has to be a method or way to rank different works of art as better or worse compared to each other. The existence of the idea of a masterpiece rejects the idea that art can be neither good or bad or is entirely subjective. However because art itself is so complex the idea that we could set up some sort of system to rank art is impossible almost to the point of being absurd, there is no simple system. Because artists are endlessly inventive there are always ways of combining skills and talents into a myriad of different ways. Is it really possible to compare Darkside of the Moon to Beethoven's 9th Symphony so completely as to be able to definitively rank one as better then the other, I'm not sure there is. How could the specific structure of the 40 minute album with it's own (natural) criteria of what is good and not be able to compare to a symphony what has a very different set of criteria that makes it good art.

As such the discernment of a masterpiece can really only be done on a case by case basis or perhaps more generally in a very specific categorical basis (symphonies by Beethoven, albums by Pink Floyd, statues by Michelangelo). Now within art their are both subjective and objective criteria and both must be looked at when discerning a masterpiece. Both technical and philosophical sides have objective and subjective criteria. The lines between what is subjective and what is objective of may be blurry, especially on the philosophical side sense (to my knowledge) mankind has not yet discovered a philosophy that all agree is true in the same way whereas technical skill is relatively uncontroversial in what constitutes being better then others
Art however is one of those funny creations of mankind where the audience has almost as much influence on the outcome of the creation as the creator. Roger Waters (the lyricist for Darkside of the Moon) has a worldview that is very different from my own, but his observations about time, money and airports in Darkside of the Moon are presented in such a way that my own philosophy about each can take what is presented in the lyrics or music and make sense of it.

A masterpiece in a sense is a work of art that has been created in such a way that a great many people can experience it and walk away with a sense that they understand what is being said and yet at the same time feel there is more to learn by revisiting the experience. Certainly simple works can be pleasing and understandable but they are not masterpieces because what they can teach us about ourselves and our world (reality perhaps being the operative word here) is limited. Works that our so complex that they leave the vast majority of people (I realize I haven't defined the scope of people I am talking about - is it global, national, cultural? I don't know if it actually matters too much right now - it certainly must be large enough to include a variety of different experiences) confused or unable to grasp the meaning the art is trying to convey also fall short of masterpieces. There is a great deal more to consider when trying to figure out what makes a masterpiece (for example the thorny problem of popularity which I appear to be leading to even in this definition here.) and I will come back to adjust and add on to this definition as time goes by (as this is a blog post I don't want to make it too long) but for now this seems sufficient.

Omahensis

Movie Review: Invictus

Greetings,

I normally don't do movie reviews, because I normally don't watch many movies, but this movie warranted a review because it has characteristics which need to be highlighted. This work of art takes a good look at a historical event and brings the subjects to life, which in my own opinion, is the most important part of studying history, as the events themselves are influenced by real people.

Graphics: The art is the first thing one should talk about in discussing this movie. The viewer sees a lot of things in this movie in South Africa, from Nelson Mandela's mansion to the poorer areas of South Africa. The camera views at times can be awkward especially during the Rugby scenes, but all in all, what you see in the movie overtakes the bad camera angles at times. (P.S. I don't know a lot about graphics and how to make things look good so more comments on good editing would be helpful.)

Characters: This is the strength of this movie. Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) comes alive on screen; you see his strengths and also points where one would realize that Mandela could be a hard person with whom to get along. One sees this in how his secretary and his daughter react to his sometimes hard and aggressive tendencies in speech and in leading South Africa. Matt Damon's character has a wonderful transformation from a frustrated leader to one who gains inspiration upon encountering Mandela. His reaction is typical of many people who encounter Mandela, he brings out a tough challenge to the person wants the best for his country, and each individual. In doing so, people have a warm respect for him, though few are personally close to Mandela. The people in this movie interact believably and very well with each other sharing tension, trust, joy, and many other feelings. These interactions make this movie a piece of art which is to be cherished.

Story: This movie is based on a true story of a South African rugby team who plays in the 1995 World Cup of Rugby, which was hosted by South Africa. The story tracks how Nelson Mandela worked with a rugby team to unite South Africa after its struggles with apartheid. Other readers will have more expertise than myself on the history of South Africa but from my limited understanding, apartheid was racism in South Africa between white and black South Africans. The whites were a vast minority in South Africa but used oppressive government power to oppress the blacks. (I apologize for not knowing a more politically correct term in advance.) This story tells of a struggle for forgiveness, reconciliation, and a true building of community based around a common purpose, being the country of South Africa.

Ethical lessons: Of course, one did not think they were getting a blog entry which was completely about a movie right... Hehehee, so ethical ideas which come from this movie. First, it is a good examination about racist leanings, even if not always expressed in the most explicit manners. This challenge is notable in the relationship between the white and black security guards for Mandela in the beginning of the movie. Even though both sides do not make an explicit "I don't like you, or trust you." there are plenty of snarky side comments and glances which suggest internal tension and distrust. Mandela also talks about the reality of these fears when he addresses the National Sports Council about how one needs to have respect for the white South Africans and let them have something, namely the rugby team, colors, and logo, which they love. This leads to the second challenge of the movie, which is building real community. Oftentimes, in society (both secular and religious), people like to sort themselves out with those who think uniform to their own thoughts and actions. (The Big Sort is a book which was mentioned by Dr. Richard Gaillardetz in a speech given at the St. Cloud Newman Center on this topic, further side note, Richard Gaillardetz is really accomplished in the field of ecclesiology, if anyone has an interest in reading on the meaning of Church, he is a good author to find.) South African community; however, as portrayed in this movie, does not work in this manner. This kind of community embraces difference around a common purpose, and appreciates the beauty in that difference. The different celebrations by each group in response to good things happening in the tournament or in the country are portrayed well in the movie. In the stadium, amongst the people and security guards, there is racial intermingling, which for South Africa just getting through apartheid would have been a big deal. Community in difference is an important lesson as it applies to everyone with whom we sort ourselves. Do we see the unique gifts in each person, and work to draw them out? Or, do we want to build people like ourselves? One type of community is healthy and lifegiving, the other seeks power and possession of other people.
Every good piece of art should challenge being in some way, and this piece does that by causing introspection looking at an external event. Though difficult, the reflection for our own lives can change our behavior, and in response being itself. Because when love is allowed to flourish and grow, people are affected by that love, and seek to follow that example themselves, or it touches them in some special way. The people that really love you, for being yourself, those are the ones you'll always remember. In this movie, we learn that we have to be that for others around us because everyone deserves to have that influential person who loves her. Mandela exhibits this beautifully both in his compliments to his co-workers and also his desire to remember the name of everyone on the rugby team.

All in all, this is a great piece of art which I highly recommend people go and see. And maybe I should write a movie review more often, this is actually a fun genre of writing.

Aristocrates

Certainty vs. Assurance

Is it more important be know one exist, or to have one affirm you exist? The difference between the question exercises two different parts of the person. To know with certainty one exists engages an exercise of the mind, but to be assured of one's existence requires a body (Marion cites this as "flesh" in The Erotic Phenomenon from where the philosophical ideas originate.) Each exercise is important at different times in one's life, and times of joy, boredom, or fear will question our existence and why we're here at all. At these times, Descartes and Heidegger become useful case studies because they ask the essential questions of being. But this is not always a sufficient answer for existence questions. Because there are times that we ask something greater than whether we simply exist as a "thinking thing" (Descartes, Meditations). This meditation creates an isolated existence because it finds the existence of a self outside the self, or hidden inside the body in a surreal mind, which even at the end of the Meditations, it's extremely unclear what the mind looks like, though the essence of thinking is clear.

But sometimes human persons need more than this certainty. Sometimes we all need to have others affirm our existence as a good, as being loved by others. Without this affirmation (Marion cites this as "assurance"), life becomes lonely. The next question one must ask is whether certainty of existence is enough. Is it enough to live life alone, but be certain of one's existence? Common experience would tell us this answer is no. A life alone means that one is not assured in the good of their existence, and thus is not really loved. People who don't have love in their lives start losing themselves, others, and their mental certainty of their existence.

So the next step, is asking how to promote love in their lives? How can people find a love which satisfies them and also deal with the risk of not receiving love in return? This is Marion's best point so far in his work "The Erotic Phenomenon". He moves between two stages of love which are commonly seen in society. The first he labels "reciprocity" meaning a love which seeks exchange, doing things and interacting with the other but not stepping out of one's way unless it's either convenient at that moment, or there is an expected return in some way. This is a common way of relating with people, we see it in businesses, acquaintances, and many sectors of life. People are objects in this stage because people are useful but not really lovable. The second stage of love is the one which requires more risk, because this is the stage where one steps out, even if there is no person to love. A person in this stage becomes the lover, and starts to act in a manner which does not care about reciprocal action. The lover slowly finds a beloved and the beloved becomes a person (namely, the person becomes real, the person is always a person with certainty but the person does not seem a real person because in the first stage of love people are focused on what they can get out of the other person, and don't see the person behind when they are doing so.)

With a paraphrase of Marion's work (this is all Marion's idea if this post hasn't made it clear already), now let's apply this a bit. What do we phenomenologically see in being in response to this philosophy presented above? And also, what do we do in response?

The first thing which is noticeable is that there are so many friendships that never get out of the first stage of love. Culture and society does a lot to encourage this first stage of love, because there are bar scenes, dance clubs, movie theaters, sports games, etc. where people can meet each other in a social setting. In a large group setting, it's hard to get to know a real person, all one can see is maybe, "I have fun with this person, this person does x and y and z, which is fun." But do we know the other real person besides I have fun with this person? At this stage, one cannot say that; however, most people do not move out of this stage, even in their most intimate relationships, and we see this based on what happens when people are a little different.

When there are those people who do not like the massive social setting, and begin to ask people about themselves and what they think about life, it ruffles feathers. Most people do not want to engage the deeper questions of life because it can cause anxiety and challenge people's beliefs. But real love grows from intimate conversation, because that is where a real person becomes apparent. Until there is real conversation, then love cannot form at least in the sense of having a deep, personal love. Hanging out in a social setting is easy for many people, and it creates a social atmosphere where a lot of people can have fun in a short amount of time, but these times do not last, when the burdens of life come and one needs someone who is really there for them, the friends you have fun with at massive parties tend not to be the ones to whom you go if there are difficulties. (Unless you've gone outside the massive social group setting.)

However, the difficulty in this thinking comes with how society seems. Many people do not see not having this deeper love as a problem. Many people don't see the difficulty in not having real people in their lives. This causes difficulties for people who want that deeper love because they have to navigate a market of people in order to find the kind of deep friendship they want, whom many just want for the sake of their talents and not their person. In doing this, there is a serious risk of emotional damage for people who are sensitive to being treated as something different than a person. So what's the joy of risking oneself in love when there are so many emotional hazards and an overall culture who does not want love. Eventually, when one finds that love, they find a treasure they can cherish, especially when one finds the stability of a real love. To get there though, one has to take the risk and become "a lover" (Marion). Without this risk from any individual person, our world (I'm including Church and secular society, this is a problem in both) does not find that real love, and the best example of that real love is the witness of Christ.