It's not hard to predict how Dutton will handle this issue. Even if a forgery is perfect, the evolutionary psychology of sexual selection has left us with "the ever-present voice that is whispering to us that one kind of truth always matters" will make humans feel like they have been victimized by someone who pretends to be someone who he isn't.
Three very different -- and fascinating -- examples of forgery are presented. First, there's Han Van Meegeren, whose clumsy efforts were just enough to make his first attempt pass as a Vermeer -- which then established a new standard for Vermeer, allowing all of his subsequent attempts to easily meet that standard. His deceit was only discovered when he confessed in order to avoid prosecution for selling a national treasure (that he himself had painted) to the Nazis. Then there's Eric Hebborn, who manufactured old master drawings that went into the collections of major museums. Dutton describes him as much more talented than Van Meegeren, and he was only discovered when a curator noticed that identical paper had been used by two different 15th. C. artists whose work was sold by the same dealer. Hebborn went on to become a celebrity, publishing several books on his career and methods until 1996 when he was murdered in the streets of Rome. Finally, there's Joyce Hatto, a concert pianist who retired from the stage at the age of fifty, but whose husband decades later, began a record label to issue over a hundred new recordings. Now in her eighties, the media picked up the incredible story of an old woman, fighting cancer, but still playing like a virtuoso. After her death in 2006, a perceptive listener noticed that one of her recordings had missed exactly same chord that another pianist had missed 30 years earlier -- and finally it was revealed that all of her recent albums were remixed versions of other people's records. (BTW - her husband's record label had limited distribution, and mostly served the niche market of piano music lovers, including, as it turns out, Dutton himself) Why do humans object to forgery? This question has appeared on our list several times in the past -- and the usual reason given is that people don't like to get fooled about ANYTHING. "Selling rabbit as chicken" is not wrong because the chicken would taste any better, but because the sale was dishonest. Have humans evolved a psychological concern for honesty? Dutton introduces musicologist, Leonard Meyer, whose "position implies that if our culture set less store by inventiveness and originality, we might come to accept forgery as a normal practice" Countering this, Dutton argues that if our culture tolerated forgery, there would be no incentive to do it But how would he handle China, which still has a very hazy notion of intellectual property rights? In traditional Chinese painting, forgery is more of a tribute to a predecessor than an economic opportunity -- indeed, a gentleman who paints for money is that much less a gentleman. Dutton points out that the issue of "misrepresented achievement" is present especially in sports. Does Sammy Sosa belong in the Hall of Fame if he had been taking steriods while hitting all those home runs? Should a heavily doctored recording be credited to the musician or the recording engineer? (the only scandal with which I am familiar is the sad story of Milli Vannili - the "musicians" who never performed on their own recordings) Dutton seems to be personally more concerned with the display of "thrilling keyboard virtuosity" than with "beautiful sounds", and his theory of evolutionary psychology accounts for that preference. But a lot of people -- maybe even the majority (including myself) -- don't feel that way - and what would account for our preferences ? Dutton then brings back Kant to argue on his behalf. "Kant argues that even the experience of the beauty of nature requires that we accurately understand exactly what we perceive". So if one hears a "nightingale" sing by the light of the moon, the charming effect would be lost if the "nightingale" were proven to be a boy playing the flute. However, even Dutton makes clear that Kant "does not extend to what he called the fine arts the idea that an art performance must be accurately represented in terms of achievement" So I'm afraid that Kant is not really in his corner. Finally, Dutton introduces us to the work of social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, who "has identified a complex association of universal emotions that he regards as innate responses..that are built into human sociality. He calls them "other-praising" emotions" --- like gratitude and admiration. "Darwin himself actually defined admiration as an emotion:"surprise associated with some pleasure and a sense of approval"" And again -- since Darwin spoke it -- it must be true. All of which brings Dutton to his conclusion that: "Authenticity, which in the arts means at the most profound level communion with another soul, is something we are destined by evolution to want from literature, music, painting and the other arts. This sense of communion exhilarates and elevates the spirit" And this where Dutton finally is making his theory clearly prescriptive -- i.e. it's not just that evolution has left humanity with certain tendencies -- but those tendencies, at least regarding the arts, should also be considered as proper goals. Which, as you might recall, was the charge leveled against against him by Deresiewicz in the essay that Cheerskep brought to our attention. The same charge that is leveled against all social Darwinists who use evolution to justify a status quo. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=GSnEz13DsFDmwRI1g6p4nQAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
