The original comparison that i know is not Rabbit for chicken,
but " Gato for Lievre" (Cat for Hare), which is more devious and
harder to distinguish their taste. So the experts tell me.
mando
On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
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?
