This is that

Have you ever listened to the CBC radio show called "This is That"?   It is quite funny and really well done.  It is set up like a news program and they explore wacky little fictional stories from all around Canada (like the episode where there was a move to rename Saskatchewan because it is too hard to spell).  They also have these great segments when people supposedly call in to comment on the stories they cover, which are as funny as the segments themselves.

On my way home yesterday, I heard the broadcast of a story about a woman who creates invisible art.  It was hilarious -- they played a bit of when her latest show was being installed in some fancy-dancy gallery in New York and then the commentary from patrons of the gallery who couldn't actually see any of the work.  Some of them, like the little boy in "The Emperor's New Clothes", said that they thought it was a load of hoakum, but others bought into it and looked at the bare walls and spaces and discussed how it made them feel.  And of course, the artist was able to make some sales and one of the buyers was asking, "is it a sculpture then?"   At a climactic point in the piece, she freaks out and says that one of the pieces has been stolen, but then the gallery owner calms her down and tells her that the name plate had just fallen off the wall.

I laughed at it, but it does raise that great topic about what art is.  People will say that it's an art to make a great beer or to build a great car.  Is that an art?  Can you say that a beautiful car is on an equal footing with "Twelfth Night" or "The Nightwatch" or "A Little Night Music"?  (See my little theme there?)  Obviously, there is a sensory component to art, especially to music which appeals to our senses first, I think, but in my opinion, there has to be another component as well and that is that a work of art is attempting to communicate something to you.  It has a message and a great piece of art carries an important or urgent message.  I am interested in what anyone thinks about it.  Do you have to "get" the message?  If you get a different message than the artist thinks he or she is sending, is the art unsuccessful?  What if the message changes over time?  (Like "The Merchant of Venice"?)  What if you think there is a message, but you're not sure what it is?  What about with music, where the sounds create an emotional response, but perhaps not an intellectual one?  Is that superior to something more didactic or inferior?  All interesting questions to ponder, but certainly hard to answer.

I'm reading Free Will by Sam Harris.  He makes the point (with which I agree) that free will is an illusion.  He answers all the naysayers pretty nicely and extends the argument to discuss the inefficacy of a punitive justice system (which Canada appears to be embracing).  If people are the product of their environment and their biology, how can we focus on punishment for crimes they commit?  Much better to focus on rehabilitation than punishment, in my opinion.  He says, if we could, we would probably lock up earthquakes (and cancer, maybe), for the "crimes" they perpetrate and that would have as positive an effect as locking up a thief for stealing, because the thief is just as unable to choose his action as a force of nature is.  He makes a very strong case, I think.