This article

February 10, 2002 6:38 AM

This article was mentioned briefly in another thread several days ago, but I thought it was time it had its own forum, since it's quite possibly the stupidest, most infuriating article you'll read all year (and it's only February). Let's see: poverty is positive because, "hey, I'm a writer!" Right. Now go get a job. (Scalzi has a fine piece about the article).
posted by sassone (98 comments total)

um, it's theStranger, the publisher who brought Everett True to Seattle because Kathleen Wilson's writing style wasn't acerbic and cynical enough. Home of Dan Savage, republican door knob saboteur.

Don't make me write an I Anonymous about you!
posted by roboto at 6:50 AM on February 10, 2002

I must also say that I love the Stranger for giving me my favorite comic MAAKIES. And that though both are known for their acerbic cynicism, KW is hated for her honesty, while ET's heart light is up his ass.
posted by roboto at 7:04 AM on February 10, 2002

Why should he have to "get a job"? Don't we have enough fucking sararimans in this world?
posted by rodii at 7:09 AM on February 10, 2002

It would have been nice to link to the previous MetaFilter mention of this.
posted by NortonDC at 7:12 AM on February 10, 2002

I have no problem with people being poor by choice, and think it even noble if done for love of art. I have a big problem with such people consuming tax dollar supported welfare and other services which rightly should go only to those who are poor despite their best efforts to remedy the situation.
posted by MattD at 7:43 AM on February 10, 2002

If you've read this far, you're probably poor enough to be familiar with Metro Transit. Fares range from 25¢ to $1.50 depending on the time of day and how old you are. Yes, riding the bus is just plain awful, and the only advice I can offer is to buy a Walkman.

I have a job, pay $54.00 monthly for a Metro pass, and am glad Seattle has good public transportation. "Just plain awful"--what routes does she ride?
posted by Carol Anne at 7:54 AM on February 10, 2002

> Why should he have to "get a job"? Don't we have
> enough fucking sararimans in this world?

It's a she - Hannah Levin. She's broke because her idea of work is being a rock-critic wannabe:

In the two years I've been working as a freelance arts writer, it's become apparent that this is the only type of work that leaves me with a clear conscience, a sense of purpose, and the desire to work harder.

The trade-off of living this close to the bone for the joy my career choice provides is worth it, and being able to make such a choice is a privilege in and of itself.


Speaking as one of mefi's resident fascisti, I point to this babe as just exactly what I imagine when I think of "welfare chisler". Why on earth should the people who pay most of the taxes in this country (hint - it isn't the rich, or the corporations) fork it over so she can deal out advice about how people who grew up reading The New Yorker can elbow their way onto the foodstamp roll and into Washington State's subsidized medical care system (thereby displacing someone who is disabled and can't get a normal - oppressive, exploitative - job even though they're willing?)

If what you need is a low-cost or free abortion, be happy you live in Washington. When you get pregnant, the state automatically counts you as two people (creepy, but true) for the purpose of obtaining emergency medical coupons, which you can use to pay for an abortion. (Voilà! You're one person again!)

Gosh, how clever and resourceful. And independent!
posted by jfuller at 7:54 AM on February 10, 2002

geez, are you people having mid-life crises? Jealous of a starving artist? then go be one. Don't like the idea of living like that? Then don't. Your taxes are going to be the same whoever gets the benefits, and the amount of money you personally pay out to all starving artists combined is infinitessimal.
posted by mdn at 8:05 AM on February 10, 2002

That's not the point. Here's the point (from John Scalzi's article, linked above):

Third, any person who can work enough to stay off the support net should do just that -- and in fact they owe it to the people who actually need the support net. This is no joke: Some woman struggling to feed her children is going to wander into a food bank and miss out on something good for her kids because someone like Levin came through and took it first. Short of Levin's library card, there's hardly a service she mentions in her article that her using does not entail someone else losing out. I'd like to see her try to explain her "need" to that person.
posted by jfuller at 8:11 AM on February 10, 2002

Interesting that it takes a double post to prevent those who feel cheap livers are scam artists from having a flame fest with the cheap livers in the original thread.

Supposedly Herbie Hancock's caseworker felt all artists deserve food stamps and cheap housing, because the one out of hundreds who makes it big more than pays for the rest with their income taxes ... Has America reached the point where there are so many poor starving children that there's no room left for poor starving artists anymore?

Yesterday's League of Women Voter's meeting brought out a surprising fact, that the intellectual property of movies, sound recordings, etc. is a substantial chunk of our export revenue, and plays a measurable role in maintaining our balance of payments. Despite this, I see very little interest in investing money in the arts to "prime the pump," except, perhaps, at organizations like RAND, which says: "Professional artists are also becoming more polarized between the masses who make little money and the few who make it big. The number of professional artists in America doubled between 1970 and 1990 to 1.6 million, about 261,000 of whom are performing artists. On average, performing artists earn considerably less, work fewer weeks per year, and face higher unemployment than other professionals with comparable education levels ..."

troll
Those with a Taliban-style attitude towards supporting artists may eventually get the Taliban-style culture they deserve!
/troll
posted by sheauga at 8:38 AM on February 10, 2002

"Third, any person who can work enough to stay off the support net should do just that -- and in fact they owe it to the people who actually need the support net."

I don't know. For example, people who work for Salvation Army spend their days (or nights) helping people, receive a low wage, and thus sometimes need extra support themselves, but are doing a great deal for others (including, in my country, running some of the food distributions centers)

The fact is that if these two people were as good at sports as they are at their chosen fields in the arts, they probably wouldn't have a worry. We reward sportspeople with an insane amount of money and we don't reward artists.
posted by lucien at 8:41 AM on February 10, 2002

Lucien,

We reward a very small percentage of sportspeople with insane amounts of money. Most either don't get paid a dime or are earning a lower middle-class salary. It seems to me that art is actually pretty similar. The stars make a ton of money, and the average artist doesn't make much.

Anyway, I think it's a bit unrealistic to suggest that each of the possible career fields should have an equitable pay scale. Except to the _truly_ enlightened, the work of an expert, wonderful art historian or something is simply not worth as much as the work of an expert, wonderful lawyer.

With certain exceptions, in our current society (and it's distorted a bit by the glass teat and the marketing miracle) but this principle of "you get paid what you're worth" seems to me to to be fairly ubiquitous.
posted by dr_emory at 9:00 AM on February 10, 2002

jfuller, the original post of this thread was so heavy handed I didn't even bother to read the Scalzi piece initially, expecting it to be about the power of corporate capitalism or something. But it's pretty sensible, and I appreciate his points. However, we can argue endlessly over who on welfare deserves the help more - anyone on welfare can work (or they'd be on disability), and having children is a decision, or ought to be. And I think there are plenty of rich (or just upper middle) kids living off their parent's money while they pursue their artistic interests, who never think twice about what they've given back.

So I don't think it's a big deal if this woman takes advantage of some available benefits for which she is eligible. The sort of suggestion I might make is that she involve herself with a food cooperative where each member puts in some number of hours weeding, picking, boxing veggies, so that you earn your food, instead of just taking freebies, as she must have some extra time.
posted by mdn at 9:03 AM on February 10, 2002

> troll
> Those with a Taliban-style attitude towards supporting
> artists may eventually get the Taliban-style culture they
> deserve!
> /troll

Bait taken. If supporting your art with a day job was good enough for T. S. Eliot (who was a low level apparatchik at Lloyd's Bank, as well as the greatest poet of the 20th century,) it's good enough for any artist - and especially good enough for any artist-wannabe or "freelance arts writer" (by which I read "jumped-up groupie.")
posted by jfuller at 9:07 AM on February 10, 2002

ARGH!
posted by davidmsc at 9:25 AM on February 10, 2002

i totally disagree with the original post, as well as scalzi's whatever article...

first of all, those 'handouts' are available to anyone who needs them, provided they're willing to go through the ridiculous and humiliating process to do so. that means ANYONE. and they were initially designed to get people off the ground and moving on their own...

furthermore, who's to say 'who needs them' and 'who doesn't'? there are millions of people who thrive off welfare and 'hand-out' systems just because they know they can, and will never endeavor to rise above them, simply because they're free and available...

eventually, i think, most artists hope they'll actually get supported for their work - by sales, by grants (oh more handouts! shame!) or by commissioned works... but if you don't have the time to focus on excelling at what it is you do best, you can't get where you need to be.

the last time i talked to the IRS, i realized i wasn't and probably wouldn't ever be a 'productive member of society' - i have no assets, no children, no husband, no savings account, no health insurance, and basically, not much income anymore (i used to, oh did i used to, but i was also 50 pounds overweight and miserably depressed - now i'm poor, forcefully in poverty, and 'useless', but a whole lot happier and in much better shape, that's for damn sure).

at any rate, i don't see anything wrong with living in 'forced poverty', learning to be much less of a consumerist or how to save pennies, or learning to exercise ingenuity or the skill of 'recycling' - our apartment is furnished primarily from dumpster-dive finds, although you'd never know it - the same furniture we have in our place is sold for hundreds of dollars at the stupid hipster furniture store down the street, where people with jobs go to waste money on furniture a little bit of effort could have gotten them for free...

we can cook fifty dollar dinners for pennies right here in the kitchen, and last night we added a forty dollar bottle of wine to the mix thanks to another umemployed artist friend who has a one-night-a-week job in which he gets paid in fancy wines - he saves some, he drinks some, and spends the rest of his time going to art galleries and exhibits, and making art.

a little bit of creative thinking means you don't have to 'get a damn job' if you don't want to, and ain't a damn thing wrong with it. think of all the time you'll have to do something meaningful and gratifying instead while you have the opportunity. that, and without a job, you have an awful lot of time to volunteer your services to organizations and projects that need it and give back to some of the people who give you handouts when you need 'em.

dori

dori
posted by cadence at 9:30 AM on February 10, 2002

Seems like a lot of work being poor. I would personally refocus my efforts and finding other means of income and keep writing as a hobby.
posted by howa2396 at 9:34 AM on February 10, 2002

> a little bit of creative thinking means you don't have
> to 'get a damn job' if you don't want to, and ain't a damn
> thing wrong with it.

I haven't the slightest problem with being poor by choice. You go, girl! As long as that "creative thinking" doesn't include the brilliant idea, "Aha, I can avoid having a nasty old job by clinging to the social safety net."


> without a job, you have an awful lot of time to volunteer
> your services to organizations and projects that need it
> and give back to some of the people who give you
> handouts when you need 'em.

I also have no problem with this. I'd want to see an independent time audit on it, though, to make sure the person using this particular conscience sop isn't kidding himself about how much time he actually gives. (Note: working volunteer in a local soup kitchen where you have a good chance of picking up TB counts as "giving back" to the safety net. Working volunteer for the local little theater counts as amusing yourself.)


On the subject of who "deserves" social services (such as they are) and who doesn't, I'd like to reach back for this hair-raising and heartbreaking link about children living on the edge and this mefi thread about it, and state flatly that any able-bodied employable adult who uses up social services that could otherwise be available to a needy child, even one single needy child, is a particularly nasty parasite. The person doing this may be so impressed with his own frugality and virtue in living small that he doesn't think of himself as a parasite but that's willful blindness. Tapeworms aren't much troubled by guilt trips either.

As always, anybody out there is free to disagree with me; I'm content just to be correct.
posted by jfuller at 10:14 AM on February 10, 2002

"We reward a very small percentage of sportspeople with insane amounts of money. Most either don't get paid a dime or are earning a lower middle-class salary. It seems to me that art is actually pretty similar. The stars make a ton of money, and the average artist doesn't make much."

Our best sports players earn millions per year. Our best writers often scrape by on ten to fifteen thousand dollar grants every second or third year or so when they are lucky (Peter Carey made his fortune in advertising) When I was at school, kids who were good at sport got, at the very least, free tuition. Several got scholarships to the Sports institute of fitness. Some footballer acquaintances of mine got paid so much playing one game of country footy a week they quit playing professionally. Granted, I live in a sports mad country.

I can't recall any friends who were good at the arts getting anything except high grades in those subjects.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to suggest that each of the possible career fields should have an equitable pay scale

OK, I see you're having a bet each way here. If you believe in your first comment, the second should be unnecessary. Just to clarify, I didn't suggest anything, just stated a fact. And whilst we may not agree on the numbers, we seem to agree on this point certainly; that it is insane.

"If supporting your art with a day job was good enough for T. S. Eliot "

However “great” they are, one artist’s experience or viewpoint does not tell us anything about the bigger picture. Eliot would have told you that Shakespeare was the greater artist. Shakespeare devoted most of his productive life to his art. Perhaps one of the interesting facets of life that Eliot contemplated whilst attempting to recover from the nervous breakdown which was partly was brought about by over-work ( as was kafkas’, and Raymond Carvers’, and so on down the line)

It's nearly impossible to know which of our current artists will become 'great' Many of the artists we now think of as "great" were, in their day, hardly recognised for their talent at all 'artist-wannabe' was probably one of the kinder insults that were thrown their way.

I would personally refocus my efforts and finding other means of income and keep writing as a hobby.

I expect you are right. I wouldn't blame you one bit for doing just that.
posted by lucien at 11:28 AM on February 10, 2002

I would personally refocus my efforts and finding other means of income and keep writing as a hobby

Real writers write, whatever else they do. Don't know if it's art; don't know if it's work; don't know if it will be published or sell or be read. Samuel Johnson's famous remark - that only a blockhead would write for any reason except money - is widely used by philistines to degrade the writing vocation. Forgetting to mention that Johnson himself disproved his own witticism.

You cannot be an unemployed writer. Either you're a writer or you're not. I am and I hate this modern mania of calling everybody who writes - journalists, rock critics - a writer. Writers can't do anything else. It's not as if there was a choice or something. Of course it's wonderful to be paid for part of what you write but long before you received your first dollar you were already writing, putting it all down, lest you went crazy keeping it in.

It's something to be pitied, if anything. Writing, for a writer, is as natural and necessary as peeing. The fact that you mostly look upon what you write as you would on a gallon of piss is neither here nor there. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:34 PM on February 10, 2002

> Shakespeare devoted most of his productive life to his art.

Only if you count being an impresario, producer, troupe manager and theater-owner as "art," along with writing and performing. If you don't count these other show-biz (accent on "biz") activities as art on the same footing as writing King Lear then he did lots of stuff to make money in addition to creating the body of work for which he is remembered. Id est, he had day jobs to help pay the bills and make him a good, solid, property-owning member of the bourgeoisie.
posted by jfuller at 12:50 PM on February 10, 2002

Right on, Miguel.

As a sell-out writer -- working 40 hours a week elsewhere so I can eat, then another 20-30 hours a week writing (and I wish it was more) -- I envy rather than ridicule the author of this article. I wish I had enough courage to follow my dream and give up some of the comforts in my life.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 12:58 PM on February 10, 2002

word. I'd do it if I could. I'm putting my wife through film school at Columbia right now by whoring out as a beat-upon UNIX admin and coder. Ugh. The money is good but it is hard to be creative (I am a writer and musician) after slinging perl code 10 hours a day, six days a week. I feel as if I have some limited about of creative thought power that gets consumed by my job. It's like a death-in-life experience. Anyway.
posted by n9 at 1:20 PM on February 10, 2002

From each, according to their abilities
To each, according to their needs...
posted by Mack Twain at 2:00 PM on February 10, 2002

lucien - Our best sports players earn millions per year. Our best writers often scrape by on ten to fifteen thousand dollar grants every second or third year or so when they are lucky

False dichotomy. Your comment compares all sports figures with a single artistic discipline.

And your comment was incorrect even within its own invalid framework, because screenwriters can and do make millions.

And screenwriting is a very close modern day analog for Shakespeare's playwriting.
posted by NortonDC at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2002

"freelance arts writer" (by which I read "jumped-up groupie.")

pardon me, but as a freelance arts writer who likes to think of herself as more than a 'jumped-up groupie' (and i wonder, would you be tossing those accusations around if the author of the stranger piece had been male? something tells me the answer to that question is a large, resounding no) and who would like to point out that writing IN GENERAL is not a mad cash-harvesting operation unless you have a phat conde nast contract - yes, as scalzi points out, you can make a living, but you certainly can't earn bank in the range of, oh, say, programmers - i'll ask that you not make any more half-assed proclamations on what drives others to their chosen profession.

also, equating screenwriters with shakespeare? ha. ha. ha ha ha ha ha.
posted by maura at 2:38 PM on February 10, 2002

Maura, didn't you see i am sam?

Oh. Well no, of course you didn't. Silly me.
posted by dong_resin at 2:50 PM on February 10, 2002

like i have the money to go to the movies?
posted by maura at 2:53 PM on February 10, 2002

> 'jumped-up groupie' (and i wonder, would you be tossing
> those accusations around if the author of the stranger
> piece had been male?

jfuller points to Lester Bangs. Oh yes! Oh yes indeed I would!


> i'll ask that you not make any more half-assed
> proclamations on what drives others to their chosen
> profession.

Request noted; we'll think about it.


> also, equating screenwriters with shakespeare? ha. ha.
> ha ha ha ha ha.

Now you're not talking about any of my posts, so I'll let whoever performed this equation respond. Though I don't recall anyone else doing so either. You aren't perhaps? remembering sheauga's

> Yesterday's League of Women Voter's meeting brought
> out a surprising fact, that the intellectual property of
> movies, sound recordings, etc. is a substantial chunk of
> our export revenue, and plays a measurable role in
> maintaining our balance of payments.

...which when it says "intellectual property" is certainly talking about Britney and Friday the Thirteenth Part XXXVII and not, say, James Merrill.

posted by jfuller at 3:00 PM on February 10, 2002

Here's a clue for you, maura, Free Of Charge: laughing isn't going to impress anyone here, nor will it convince anyone.

I assume that if you had a case to make, you would have made it.
posted by NortonDC at 3:32 PM on February 10, 2002

This is all too reminiscent of Say's Law, a theory that in some circumstances, supply creates demand. In this case, of government benefits.
posted by dhartung at 3:49 PM on February 10, 2002

As a former rock writer who was under-paid, under-employed and trying to live without claiming welfare - I can tell you that it's a hard slog. For about six months I was living on noodles, rice and hand-outs from people I knew. I lost about 20KG in weight as I literally had no money to eat properly. It was a tough gig, man!

But I actually think my writing was better then than it is now. I was certainly a hungrier person (pun intended) and I was full of emotion about everything.

Nowadays I find it hard to get it together to write. I get home from work (proper job), have a nap and then do the domestic thing.

Being poor, trying to be an artist and living on welfare is a really tough gig. Don't go around criticizing unless you've been there.
posted by skinsuit at 4:53 PM on February 10, 2002

It doesn't take 40 hours a week to make 800 bucks a month. When I was a struggling writer, I'd temp for two weeks, then write for two. I was still poor, but I didn't need food stamps.

I also believe that anyone who signs up for a creative writing course should have to take a bartending class concurrently.
posted by chino at 5:46 PM on February 10, 2002

This post concerns equating "being a rock critic" with "being an artist."

What maura said.

No, that's not good enough. I have to quote it verbatim.

ha. ha. ha ha ha ha ha.
posted by jfuller at 6:01 PM on February 10, 2002

jfuller points to Lester Bangs. Oh yes! Oh yes indeed I would!

If what Lester Bangs was doing was so useless or pointless and non-artistic, then how do you know anything about him?
posted by raysmj at 6:14 PM on February 10, 2002

Which, jfuller, is not to say I agree that anyone should go on welfare to be writer of any sort. You're just going to far there.
posted by raysmj at 6:22 PM on February 10, 2002

it's good enough for any artist

There's so much about T.S. Eliot's personality (as a writer and otherwise) that is reconcilable with working in a bank. But his fellow modernist Ezra Pound couldn't do it, but scraped by on writing his rants (and finally poems), finding himself kicked out of reputable jobs that would have him.

And there's any number of equally great writers who needed (and celebrated) a certain "laziness" in their lives. In America, even 19th c. writers such as Twain and Melville who at times struggled in unpleasant tasks to provide their families with comforts had a strong inclination towards "lazy" poverty (Twain often penniless and an expert evoker of the pleasures of irresponsibility in his comic writings; a letter of Melville, after describing his minimal daytime efforts to tend a few animals: "My evenings I spend in a sort of mesmeric state in my room—not being able to read—only now & then skimming over some large-printed book...").

More power to the talented and talentless who want to pursue this life, even on the taxpayer's dime. Without BOTH groups doing it, we wouldn't have a culture worth crap. If ALL our poets were elite snobs working in banks (TSE) or embracers of the idea that they had no right to reap the intrinsic rewards of a life of the mind, we would be poor indeed.

The article would've lived up to its FPP billing as "most annoying ever" if it dwelled on questionable judgments about the poor, etc. But it was just a good-natured account of the author's predilections and methods.

I guess it comes down to whether one sees it as a self-evident moral truth that you and all your compatriots have a responsibility to be a useful cog in your nation's economy. I'm way dubious.
posted by Zurishaddai at 7:01 PM on February 10, 2002

> then how do you know anything about him?

Same way I know about hundreds of other ancient obscurities like Origen and Wendel Wilkie and Thomas Dekker, namely high IQ and monstrous amounts of random reading.

As for Lester, his output was so meager in actual page count and in scope (about 50% of it consisting of making calf eyes at Lou Reed), his More Primitive Than Thou aesthetic so simple-minded and his OH GHOD I WISH I WAS HUNTER THOMPSON prose style so predictable that wringing every single available drop of juice out of him took about two hours of crapper time (not all at once, so don't jump to conclusions.) The phrase "jumped-up groupie" couldn't possibly be a better fit.

As for Thomas Dekker:

Golden Slumbers kiss your eyes,
Smiles awake you when you rise.
Sleep pretty baby, do not cry,
And I will sing a lullaby.

-- Paul McCartney, Abbey Road

Golden Slumbers kiss your eyes,
Smiles awake you when you rise.
Sleep pretty wantons, do not cry,
And I will sing a lullaby.
P.S. kiss off, Paulie

-- Thomas Dekker (1572-1622)
The Oxford Book of Children's Verse
Oxford University Press, 1973
p.17
posted by jfuller at 7:05 PM on February 10, 2002

Zurishaddai - No, they're saying these authors are choosing to deprive poor children of food so they can avoid the tedium of paying their own way. That's a far cry from demanding they contribute to the general welfare; they just want them to stop taking food out of starving childrens' mouths.

There is a difference.
posted by NortonDC at 7:11 PM on February 10, 2002

If ALL our poets were elite snobs working in banks (TSE)

Er, you'd have - heck, we'd all have - the greatest literature on earth.

Have you ever read T.S.Eliot, Zurishaddai? Or poetry of any sort?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:31 PM on February 10, 2002

> There's so much about T.S. Eliot's personality (as a
> writer and otherwise) that is reconcilable with working in
> a bank.

There's so much about every artist personally known to me (including myself) that is reconcilable with flipping burgers. Nevertheless jfuller tips hat to 10-ring thought and well turned phrase.

It's 10:30pm local. Fuller says good night now, to 1) all and sundry; 2) obvious peer Zurishaddai, and 3) other obvious peer and possible superior Miguel. Miguel, get the fuck off mefi and go do some real writing. For your clipbook: "I avoid writing letters. It resembles too much writing itself, and gives me a headache." -- E. B. White. Fuller will be back mañana, usual slings and arrows receivable in due course, get in line now.
posted by jfuller at 7:43 PM on February 10, 2002

jfuller: Wow. Glad to hear you have a "monster IQ." I really needed to know that. Actually, Thompson didn't come upon his "gonzo" style until the publication of The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved in Scanlan's in mid-1970. Bangs had been working in a similar vein in the late 1960s. But really, they started (in a certain first-person, stream of conciousness style) around the same time.
posted by raysmj at 7:45 PM on February 10, 2002

jfuller: Wendell Wilkie ran for president against FDR in 1940, and later (an unthikable thing for our partisan times) became FDR's personal emissary abroad. He published a best-selling book about the need for international cooperation, One World, during this time. His life's work wasn't pointless or silly, which is why you even hear his name, even if he's still a relatively obscure figure. He died at age 50, I believe, which is another reason for the obscurity part.
posted by raysmj at 8:10 PM on February 10, 2002

This is getting weird. For the record, I've probably read as much T.S. Eliot as the next overeducated mefi'er, and I didn't disparage his poetry... But the man himself did not take any pains to conceal his snobbism, so there's no point turning that into a debate, is there? And as for my claim that he had a natural and specific affinity for working in Lloyd's bank, well, a man who would voluntarily take on himself, late in life, the titles of High Church Anglican and British subject—the least he can expect is to have after generations suppose that he fit comfortably enough in a London bank (relative to other poets). And surely, again, we wouldn't actually choose to have American poetry made up wholly of this cloth—though it never will be, since no efforts to coerce (talentless hacks and) artists into a responsible existence will stem the great stream of the down-and-out prideful artist tradition of our world.

But since we're on the subject, I'll go ahead and take issue with the original suggestion that TSE is the 20th c.'s greatest poet. I'll nominate Rilke as better and point out that here's a guy who knew how to freeload off the aristocracy, which I have a hard time telling apart from the FPP article author's alleged "taking bread out of the mouths of the destitute."

Maybe, according to a reasonable and correct political and economic analysis, our author is taking food from the poor. My point was, her article doesn't read as a justification for this, so I remain surprised by how necessary it seems for us to translate her essay's ideas into those terms...

P.S. I didn't actually hang on the FPP article's every word, so maybe, when I leafed through it and formed my impression of its spirit, I missed the part where it turned callous and political. But I'll stand by my general defense of the idle lifestyles of great artists and poseurs alike.
posted by Zurishaddai at 8:26 PM on February 10, 2002

Oh, and I meant to add something witty about Eliot's Prufrockian persona, and the way his formal and musical obsessions in verse—his genius—can be seen as a reflection of the staid personality he presented to the social world. You get the idea...I mean, come on, if there is a personality 100% opposite to Walt Whitman's, Eliot had it, right?

It's a shame "printer's devil" is no longer as viable an early career choice for aspiring American litterateurs. It served Franklin, Whitman, Twain, and so many others so well!
posted by Zurishaddai at 8:34 PM on February 10, 2002

"jfuller: Wow. Glad to hear you have a "monster IQ."

I have one of those. I keep it under my bed in a velveteen-lined box, and take it out when important company comes to visit.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:45 PM on February 10, 2002

I guess it comes down to whether one sees it as a self-evident moral truth that you and all your compatriots have a responsibility to be a useful cog in your nation's economy. I'm way dubious.

[So are most of us women who were raised back in the old days when Christian values were still considered more important than money.]

So was Eddie the Eagle. At one point in his quest to become England's greatest ski jumper, he took a room in a mental institution as it was all he could afford. Now, if everyone with a strange passion like Eddie the Eagle straightened up and flew right as some of you insist, wouldn't the world be a much sadder and grimmer place?
posted by sheauga at 8:51 PM on February 10, 2002

Have you ever read T.S.Eliot, Zurishaddai? Or poetry of any sort?

Cheap shot. One can love poetry, for god's sake, without loving Eliot. What was Eliot without i miglior fabbro? The librettist for "Cats."
posted by rodii at 8:54 PM on February 10, 2002

I guess it comes down to whether one sees it as a self-evident moral truth that you and all your compatriots have a responsibility to be a useful cog in your nation's economy.

Now that jfuller's gone to sleep, a less weird and more relevant comment. William Faulkner spent most of his life in obscurity, and probably in poverty most of the time, even with such a handsome estate. He also railed against dependence on the government a lot too, by which he meant welfare, farm subsidies, grants to local governments, etc. What is also notable is that he railed against cheap tract housing, the coarsening of modern life in general, the despoiling of the environment and the like. (Check out this "Sound and the Fury" analysis). He hated writing for Hollywood, although he was amused by the place. He was a modernist, but railed against modernity - very much like Frank Lloyd Wright. The larger point to be made here, however, is that he railed against the forces in American life that he thought were degrading to people and the world around them. The comment posted above made me think of him.
posted by raysmj at 9:25 PM on February 10, 2002

Now, if everyone with a strange passion like Eddie the Eagle straightened up and flew right as some of you insist, wouldn't the world be a much sadder and grimmer place?

Just don't do it on the public dime, I want my tax bucks to go and help people that in reality have less control over their circumstances. (this also goes towards the rich who siphon from the system as well)
posted by owillis at 9:30 PM on February 10, 2002

Zurishaddai: Sorry for the fuck-up. You obviously love poetry. I misinterpreted your comment about Eliot. Rodii: No, one cannot love poetry without loving Eliot. Eliot is the author of Four Quartets and a lot more. Wallace Stevens sold insurance. So what? He's a great poet too.

There's this common assumption - common in every sense -that good poetry is a question of taste. It is not. It's a question of genius. It may be a difficult notion but it doesn't make it any less true.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:27 PM on February 10, 2002

I don't think the question is so much whether it's important to be a "functioning cog in the economy," although work/self-sufficiency has a very high place in the morality of Americans (hard working immigrant ancestors, bootstrapping, etc.). Nobody would care if these people were idle rich or mooching off their parents. It's more like, is it moral to take government benefits not intended for you? I would indeed rather my food stamps go for the working poor who are too unskilled to get a better job, especially since there's so little money to go around anyway. It seems in some sense to be an abuse of the system.
posted by Charmian at 10:40 PM on February 10, 2002

It seems strange no one has mentioned that Eliot seems to have married into his bank job, and that he institutionalized his wife because he couldn't deal with her vivacity. He's not a shining example of an artist too proud to be supported by others, and he wasn't a very good person either. Still, he was a genius, and I have to admit that as his reader I couldn't really care less what he had to do in his personal life to get himself to the place where he could write Prufrock. And, come on, he would have hated Cats as much as a sitcom based on The Waste Land.

There is an idea that some artists have...and, talented or not, I'm one of them...that the creation of a piece of truly great art is an advance for all of humanity. It's like a scientist discovering a new element, or a mathematician uncovering a new kind of calculus. If the work is truly good, then another piece of a vast invisible schema has come to light...we've learned a tiny bit more about The Way Things Are. Your personal life will someday end, and all the people you may have mistreated will be gone, but your art (hopefully) will remain, and it will represent another step forward on a journey into a space that is very real, even if it cannot be quantified in material terms.

It sounds immoral...or even amoral...and it is. It's a philosophy of life driven by the idea that aesthetics are more important than morals, or even, to some, more concrete. And even if you're not that talented yourself, but you love the masterpieces that your favorite artists have created more than you love other people, then living a life in pursuit of creating something like they did, at any cost, is the only way to go.
posted by bingo at 11:13 PM on February 10, 2002

If society's market appraisal of your dream scheme is zilch or next to nada, your choices dwindle to these: die, stop dreaming, dream part-time, or grab the government cheese. Take the cheese. Dream till you drop. Or join the rest of us in the drizzle.
posted by Opus Dark at 11:28 PM on February 10, 2002

bingo: If you think great art leads to the advancement of humanity, then you're as much or more concerned with morals than aesthetics. The advancement of humanity is a moral end.
posted by raysmj at 4:37 AM on February 11, 2002

Rodii: No, one cannot love poetry without loving Eliot.

That would come as a surprise to William Carlos Williams, who (along with me) is a shining counterexample to your proposition. Williams devoted his life to poetry, and his desultory career as a physician was always a distraction from his real occupation--and he despised Eliot and his clunky iambs. And rightly: the stodginess and abstraction of Four Quartets is an sign of how Eliot's ear and imagination deteriorated as he embraced his inner banker and settled into his eminence grise persona at Faber and Faber. The difference between Stevens and Eliot is that Stevens spent his life constructing imaginary Floridas as a refuge from his stultifying life, while Eliot yearned for the respectability of the three-piece suit and tried to expunge every embarrassing whiff of the raw son of St. Louis he had once been. Eliot was a walking Henry James character, only less interesting, if that's possible.

But *cough* I digress. Sorry, I have this button here labelled "ELIOT," see?
posted by rodii at 5:39 AM on February 11, 2002

Only if you count being an impresario, producer, troupe manager and theatre-owner as "art,"

Yes of course I do Jfuller. You don't?

This literary discussion has come out of a very loose assumption that adults who use food banks are stealing from children. There is no evidence to support this. Are we doing children a favor by refusing to feed their parents? By telling them they grow up in a world whereby they can get food if they are hungry when they are little and cute, but withdraw public help when they are older but perhaps (and as is often the case) still in need of help? Are we telling children who dream of doing anything that perhaps doesn't earn a high wage, that they are "stealing" food from the general public if they dare to follow that path? Children need food, and they also need to know that they are allowed to dream, and follow their talent.
posted by lucien at 6:13 AM on February 11, 2002

lucien - This literary discussion has come out of a very loose assumption that adults who use food banks are stealing from children.

Wrong. Nobody accused them of stealing. Try again.

Are we doing children a favor by refusing to feed their parents?

Neither author of the frugal living pieces has children.

Are we doing children a favor by [...] telling them they grow up in a world whereby they can get food if they are hungry when they are little and cute, but withdraw public help when they are older but perhaps (and as is often the case) still in need of help?

Yes, we are. We'd be doing them more of a favor than having them grow up believing the lie that everything will magically turn out happy and shiny with no preparation or work on their part. It's all part of growing up. The biggest favor we could do is to let whatever charity help is out there for adults be a surprise, because it is a tremendous disservice to them, the children, to let them expect others to fix their problems, provide for them, and meet their needs throughout their lives.

Are we telling children who dream of doing anything that perhaps doesn't earn a high wage, that they are "stealing" food from the general public if they dare to follow that path?

No we're telling them to take responsibility for themselves. The sentiment expressed in here is that people capable of supporting themselves have a responsibility to do so, to leave charity for the many who are incapable of supporting themselves.

And again, you are the only person calling it "stealing." Nice strawman.

Children need food, and they also need to know that they are allowed to dream, and follow their talent.

And children need to know the world will not cheerfully provide for them no matter what they do. To tell them otherwise would be to do them a tremendous disservice.

Children are free to dream and free to follow their talents. Adults are not free have a clear conscience as they parasitically compete with those that have no immediate alternative for scarce handouts, especially the children.
posted by NortonDC at 7:22 AM on February 11, 2002

There is an idea that some artists have...that the creation of a piece of truly great art is an advance for all of humanity...Your personal life will someday end, and all the people you may have mistreated will be gone, but your art (hopefully) will remain, and it will represent another step forward on a journey into a space that is very real, even if it cannot be quantified in material terms.

J.R.R. Tolkein has a story called "Leaf by Niggle," in which he provides alternative ideas about the nature of art and the life of an artist and how he balances the call of art with life's other priorities.

I really like the story; I found a few reviews via Google, but I'm not linking to any of them, because none of them do it justice (and most were spoilers, to my mind). It's short and in most libraries.
posted by straight at 7:25 AM on February 11, 2002

NortonDC, I don't really need any clues on how to make an argument here—thanks for offering, though. The reason I laughed & said nothing more is because, well, time spent writing words = (meager) money, and that equation's even more crucial to my well-being these days, since I got canned from my job. Suffice it to say that my experiences with screenwrting students at the university I attended, & hearing about their post-college exploits, made any stretches between screenwriting (and I'm talking about big-money screenwriting here for the most part—you haven't lived until you've heard 9 friends of yours tell you their idea for latest their X-Files spec script) & art sorta laughable. But then again, I think corporate rock (& by extension most corporate rock writing) sucks, so what do I know about today's "make profit in any way if you want your life to be worth living" world?

(Also, I was pissed about the 'groupie' allegation—and I still think that Lester Bangs wouldn't be termed a groupie specifically because, let's face it, how many male groupies do you know of who aren't in that Go-Go's bootleg tape?—and my dinner was getting cold.)

What is getting lost among all the sputtering and Eliot-praising and moralizing (which seems to be real trendy around these parts these days - I certainly don't condone looking for govt assistance unless you absolutely need it, but who the hell are you to know what else this woman's doing, what her entire situation is? Aren't most of you people webloggers, the types who would say "My site is not me" if someone were to judge you solely on what you put up at your URL? Think about it.) here is this story's most interesting aspect: It's turning the idea of lifestyle journalism on its head for real, and not in a 'buy this organic product to make your life Real Simple' sort of way. You see stories like this all the time about consumption, consumption, where to find the most fabulous new thing that you have to have RIGHT NOW THIS WEEK! (and if you don't like them, don't worry, because next issue will have another batch) and this is basically telling you how to pull back, spend less. I really wonder if and how the advertisers in The Stranger reacted to this piece—lifestyle stories do, after all, serve a function for local businesses.
posted by maura at 8:48 AM on February 11, 2002

maura - Point taken, but the crux of the problem many people have with it remains: instead of just advocating consuming less, the pieces also promote consuming charitable resources many feel are better used by children and those at least momentarily incapable (instead of unwilling) of providing for themselves.
posted by NortonDC at 9:06 AM on February 11, 2002

And not that it should matter, but my own past in such matters is that after being laid off twice in 2000 (each time the company folded underneath me), I never so much as filed for unemployment benefits, even as my second unemployment period stretched months into 2001, and despite (to this day) being stiffed by one of the companies for months of salary.
posted by NortonDC at 9:16 AM on February 11, 2002

Most people have few goals beyond 401Ks and personal security. They are the diligent foundation upon which the whole artificial, top-heavy structure rests. Studies show that they like their jobs. They like their lives. They are content. They are also abundant, and the market currently rewards them with vastly more than their contributions merit. If they can be collectively (and painlessly) tapped to provide meager and ragged subsistence for an astonishingly tiny number of malcontent alternistas, it seems to me that the social ecosystem is humming right along. We are harvesting excess resource generated by the majority's aberrant behaviour to sustain the minority's aberrant behaviour, and as a bonus, we are providing squabble fodder. So-ci-ety.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:36 PM on February 11, 2002

raysmj: If you think great art leads to the advancement of humanity, then you're as much or more concerned with morals than aesthetics. The advancement of humanity is a moral end.

That depends on why you think we're on this planet to begin with, and in what direction you think humanity ought to be advancing.
posted by bingo at 3:25 PM on February 11, 2002

Opus Dark - Unnecessarily using up scarce charity resources isn't soaking the rich, it's soaking the poor.
posted by NortonDC at 4:34 PM on February 11, 2002

I think that depends on whether you believe the poor have an inherent right to that money, which is coming from the rich, as well as your definition of "unnecessarily."
posted by bingo at 5:49 PM on February 11, 2002

I refer back to this:

those at least momentarily incapable (instead of unwilling) of providing for themselves

That's the definition.
posted by NortonDC at 6:03 PM on February 11, 2002

I know that it's your definition, but I disagree with it in this context. For some people, "necessary," even "absolutely necessary," means something more than "necessary for survival." I refer back to the third paragraph of my first post on this thread.
posted by bingo at 6:09 PM on February 11, 2002

Bingo, grinding up live human children to make unique paint hues would be wrong even if it allowed the creation of a masterpiece.

That's the obstacle you've got to overcome for your point to be valid.
posted by NortonDC at 7:09 PM on February 11, 2002

Creation is not a moral imperative. It may sometimes feel that way, if you have the spark. But it's only a feeling, not reality.
posted by kindall at 7:14 PM on February 11, 2002

What's reality? Definition?
posted by raysmj at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2002

reality = maslow's hierarchy. "Needs" = food and shelter. Anything you'd die without. I agree with Norton DC. People that take advantage of social services are sacrificing someone else's "basic" needs to meet their own "aesthetic" needs. You're talking about someone's ability to physically sustain themselves, vs. your ability to enjoy your existence. I think the former takes precedence.
posted by lizs at 8:07 PM on February 11, 2002

People that take advantage of social services are sacrificing someone else's "basic" needs to meet their own "aesthetic" needs.

Not at all proven. (Which is not to say I agree with what the woman's doing, but she's not starving some poor child. The current welfare reform law leaves that possibility open, though, even though full employment is impossible.) Maslow also clearly states that it's not a set hierarchy. Some people who don't have their needs met at one level can have it met at a higher level. It's not common, but it happens.
posted by raysmj at 8:19 PM on February 11, 2002

I mention the part about the hierarchy not being set in stone, by the way, because I don't see this woman as having her basic needs absolutely taken care of. She's barely making ends meet, and that sounds as if it's taking up a lot of her time and causing her a great deal of stress. Whether her ego needs are being satisfied is harder to say. She says she feels like a loser, but here she making her story public. Meantime, she's still shooting for self-actualization.
posted by raysmj at 8:28 PM on February 11, 2002

see, when you reach the top of the pyramid :) nothing!
posted by kliuless at 8:32 PM on February 11, 2002

What's reality? Definition?

Reality is a consensus.
posted by kindall at 10:25 PM on February 11, 2002

NortonDC: [G]rinding up live human children to make unique paint hues would be wrong even if it allowed the creation of a masterpiece. ..That's the obstacle you've got to overcome for your point to be valid.

That's an interesting take, but it doesn't work for me as a real representation of the problem. You're positing a choice between two different systems of thought, one of which is morality, but you're putting forth the choice itself as (I think) a moral dilemna. I hear that argument a bit like a good-hearted Christian might hear the question "But what if God told you to rob a bank?" In other words, I'm not going to pretend that I would personally grind up children to make paint. But I can't really see the situation as more than hypothetical. I believe in an objective standard of aesthetics, but not of morality; that does not mean that I'm denying the fact that people have morals, or that many people share similar morals, or that I personally have them...they are part of human nature, but that doesn't mean that they were given to us by God, or that we should always listen to them. In my own process and lifestyle, which I will admit involves a certain level of what is sometimes perceived as moral insensitivity on my part, I could not imagine having to make such a choice. And the artist who would choose to make the paint...well, it's hard for me to believe that someone so out of touch with some of the most basic and widespread human moral (but still not linked to an objective Right) instincts, would really be capable of creating a masterpiece to begin with. Self-indulgent artists (real artists, who produce quality art) are not unfeeling automatons; on the contrary, they tend to be highly emotional people. The emotions they experience are not elite emotions reserved for artists; it's just that the artist cares more about dealing with his own set of emotions than those of the people around him. If your hypothetical painter can arbitrarily murder children without a second thought, the "self" in which he indulges is so far out of sync with nearly-universal human feeling that it seems unlikely that he's capable of creating a work of art that is going to make much of a connection with other people. And such a connection is needed for the art to be a masterpiece; art created by humans has to do with being human.

Creation is not a moral imperative. It may sometimes feel that way, if you have the spark. But it's only a feeling, not reality.

I don't think it is a moral imperative. It's an amoral imperative that can override moral concerns. And I think that "moral imperatives" are, to use your comparison, "feelings," or, really, side effects of feelings. Having those feelings are a part of being alive, but that doesn't mean that they, or the morals that we draw from them, are necessarily leading us in the right direction, nor that acting on them should always be our highest priority.

Reality is a consensus.

I'm sorry to break up your consensus, but I disagree. :)
posted by bingo at 3:51 AM on February 12, 2002

bingo - it's hard for me to believe that someone so out of touch with some of the most basic and widespread human moral (but still not linked to an objective Right) instincts, would really be capable of creating a masterpiece to begin with.

That's a dodge, and nothing more. You are denying the existence of an absolute while weighing it against something you say is "hard for me to believe." That something is hard for you to believe is no qualification as an absolute either. Pot; kettle; black.

It's an amoral imperative that can override moral concerns.

No, it's an impulse, and the ability control impulses is one of the defining characteristics of humanity.
posted by NortonDC at 4:07 AM on February 12, 2002

Indeed, the fact that something is "hard for me to believe" does not mean that I'm sure that it could not possibly be. I used the subjective wording deliberately. I do believe that aesthetics are connected to an objective standard. But that standard, even though it's ultimately part of a closed system, is still not fully revealed, and I certainly don't claim to understand it all myself. In fact, the "aesthetics before morality" paradigm I was arguing above is not about obeying the principles of aesthetics (they are not guidelines on how to live) so much as revealing those principles (they are rules dealing with the way art works).

I believe that, like the laws of physics, the truths of aesthetics are part of the fabric of things. As an analogy, I'll paraphrase Richard Feynman's justification for uncovering a process that would produce an atomic chain reaction. He believed that one of the reasons people are alive is to uncover the laws of nature; any significant step forward in the acquisition of that knowledge is inherently worthwhile. Apologies to Feynman scholars if I'm not representing him fairly.

However, one difference between physics and art, that is significant here, is that the laws of physics will be manifest whether people are around to study them or not. The laws of aesthetics will (obviously) only manifest in works of art. To create art, you need human beings. And one of the things that great art does is to tap into the basic emotions and drives that most people have in common. The problem you pose involves the brutal murder of innocent children. I think you chose this example because you believe that most people could never bring themselves to do such a thing, under any circumstances, because it would be Wrong according to a universal moral standard. Is this standard, like physics, built into the fabric of things, waiting to manifest itself in human behavior? I suspect you would answer Yes, while I would answer No. But that answer doesn't mean that people driven to reveal more pieces of the aesthetic scheme don't have the same basic emotions and drives that everybody else has. Actually, as I was arguing above, many of the best artists are very much in touch with their own most basic, primal feelings. They have to be, because at our centers we are all still jumbles of those feelings, and a lot of great art expresses something about the most universal human feelings that cannot be put any other way. Morality and art both deal directly, in different ways, with our most basic instincts. That does not say anything about the subjectivity or objectivity of either morality or aesthetics. But it does suggest that there is nevertheless a relationship between morality and art in many cases.

It seems unlikely to me, based on these ideas, and based on my knowledge of various artists I admire and the apparent relationship between their primal instincts and their work, that any artist who would grind live children into paint would really be in touch with his identity as a human being enough to make the kind of connection to other people that artists have to make. But yes, I can't prove that it could never happen. Maybe it can. But for me personally, the idea of going against my genetic drive to protect children from harm and simultaneously create a work of art that I thought was meaningful, is inconceivable. Based on my experience with my own creative process, I'm really not worried that I'm going to run up against any such insurmountable conflicts between my nature as a human being and my nature as an artist.

No, it's an impulse, and the ability control impulses is one of the defining characteristics of humanity.

Call it an impulse if you like. That particular impulse (the impulse to create art) is also one of the defining characteristics of humanity. And it's an impulse that sometimes overrides our ability (or our desire) to control our other impulses. So be it.
posted by bingo at 6:35 AM on February 12, 2002

bingo - I think you chose this example because you believe that most people could never bring themselves to do such a thing, under any circumstances, because it would be Wrong according to a universal moral standard.

No, I chose it because it's a distillation of the exact same moral concern as the topic of this discussion: the denial of food to children by an adult who is able but unwilling to provide for himself/herself when it interferes with their chosen means of pursuing their art.

it's an impulse that sometimes overrides our ability (or our desire) to control our other impulses. So be it.

Rape happens. So be it. Murder happens. So be it. Genocide happens. So be it.

Say it explicitly: you are willing to excuse any moral lapse in the pursuit of pleasure, aesthetic pleasure.
posted by NortonDC at 8:01 AM on February 12, 2002

Rape happens. So be it. Murder happens. So be it. Genocide happens. So be it

No. Either you're baiting me, or you're refusing to really understand my argument, or I'm writing it poorly.

Say it explicitly: you are willing to excuse any moral lapse in the pursuit of pleasure, aesthetic pleasure.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all, and your statement assumes things that I do not believe, namely that a) there is such a thing as a moral lapse to begin with, and b) that the world is the kind of place where the sort of grand conflicts you're imagining (genocide fot the sake of art, etc.) even come up to begin with. And I don't think I once used the word "pleasure." Artistic creation has very little to do with pleasure; on the contrary, it's often quite unpleasant.
posted by bingo at 3:13 PM on February 12, 2002

Either you're baiting me, or you're refusing to really understand my argument, or I'm writing it poorly.

I fully understand what you have written. You have failed to acknowledge the full implications of what you have written.

Artistic creation has very little to do with pleasure; on the contrary, it's often quite unpleasant.

Artistic creation exists in service of aesthetics, and you have characterized your own argument as "aesthetics before morality."

aesthetics
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty
2 : a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight (modernist aesthetics) (staging new ballets which reflected the aesthetic of the new nation -- Mary Clarke & Clement Crisp)
3 plural : a pleasing appearance or effect : BEAUTY (appreciated the aesthetics of the gemstones)

beauty
1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit : LOVELINESS

Aesthetics and pleasure are inseparable. Your reasoning explicitly places pleasure ahead of morality.

>Say it explicitly: you are willing to excuse any moral
>lapse in the pursuit of pleasure, aesthetic pleasure.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all, and your statement assumes things that I do not believe, namely that a) there is such a thing as a moral lapse to begin with, and b) that the world is the kind of place where the sort of grand conflicts you're imagining (genocide fot the sake of art, etc.) even come up to begin with.

I shall restate my challenge:

Say it explicitly: you are willing to excuse any act in the pursuit of pleasure, aesthetic pleasure.
posted by NortonDC at 6:50 PM on February 12, 2002

No, my argument is not about the pursuit of pleasure at all. The artist seeks to create the art, which is often not a pleasurable act; if all he wanted was to experience aesthetic pleasure, he could just go to a museum. Yes, the people who experience the art as viewers/readers/whatever experience aesthetic pleasure. When I said "aesthetics over morality," I meant that the pursuit of aesthetic creation is more important than obeying moral laws. The topic after all had to do with an artist taking money so she could create instead of work, it was not about a crazed fan who stole in order to watch her favorite movie over and over.
posted by bingo at 8:36 PM on February 12, 2002

bingo - When I said "aesthetics over morality," I meant that the pursuit of aesthetic creation is more important than obeying moral laws.

that brings you right back up against this:

Bingo, grinding up live human children to make unique paint hues would be wrong even if it allowed the creation of a masterpiece. That's the obstacle you've got to overcome for your point to be valid.

The inseparability of aesthetics and pleasure is established. Since that fact is set whether or not you are willing to honestly acknowledge it, I'll restate my challenge yet again:

Say it explicitly: you are willing to excuse any act in the pursuit of aesthetic creation.
posted by NortonDC at 4:34 AM on February 13, 2002

I get the impression that your goal here is to get me to say that even though I think aesthetics are governed by an objective standard, and morals are not, there are some cases in which I would not condone aesthetic creation because that creation would conflict with my morals. And after I make such a confession, you're planning to say that my morals, because in at least one case they override my desire for aesthetic creation, must somehow, at least in my mind, be more important to me than aesthetics. I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth; maybe this isn't what you're getting at. But I think that it is.

As I explained before, both aesthetic creation and morals are connected to the same basic human drives, emotions, and instincts. A person's emotions, even though they are not actually a part of the aesthetic schema itself, are still tied directly to the artistic process.

Since I believe that people who are out of touch with their basic humanity cannot create good art, and your hypothetical situation assumes a situation in which someone obviously not in touch with his most primal emotions and instincts is also creating good art...there really isn't much I can say, except that the same set of beliefs I'm arguing for make your hypothetical situation seem...well, impossible to ever be more than hypothetical.

But fine. I'll answer your questions as directly as I can anyway. What if it really happened? Well, I would have to find out about it after the fact. If a painter friend of mine told me that he planned to grind up live children to make paint, and that he needed to do so in order to create a masterpiece, I would a) be quite sure that he was not capable of creatiing an artistic masterpiece, and b) I would try to stop him from trying, because as a person who is in touch with the drives that are part of being human, I would be repulsed by his plan.

But let's take the situation to the extreme that I think you're shooting for. Let's say that the victims are already dead, the painting is already painted. The artist shows is to me, and I agree it's a masterpiece.

Then he explains what he had to do to make it, and let's say that I realize that yes, he absolutely had to kill innocent people in order to create this art, there was no other way. I again have a problem believing that this situation would come about, because artists capable of creating a masterpiece are also capable of creating great work from any materials at hand; the qualities of the work that make it a masterpiece, according to the aesthetic schema I believe in, have no more to do with the specific materials involved than the law of gravity has to do with the specific apple that supposedly fell on Newton's head.

But let's just say, in the interests of getting this argument done with, that I agree with him when he says with his painting, he has revealed a new part of the aesthetic schema, and that he could not possibly have revealed the same aesthetic principles without killing innocent people.

Well, then, I must say that under those circumstances, my ideas of what art is all about and what kind of people it takes to create it, would have to change. And I'm really not sure how. Maybe my whole paradigm would collapse.

The hypothetical itself takes place in a universe which I believe is not the universe that we are living in, the same universe that contains and defines the values. truths, and principles that I have been talking about. And the person you have imagined into being could not, I believe, exist in that universe either. But if I turned out to be wrong, well, yes, I might start singing a different tune. But I'll have to see it to believe it.

What if the moon cracked open tomorrow, revealing that it is actually the egg containing the spawn of Godzilla? That would probably change the way I thought about the world as well. But I don't feel particularly obligated to dwell on the dilemnas that such a situation would bring about, and how I would solve them. I am not an omnipotent being. I have a set of ideas that I believe. If they are revealed to be founded on nothing, then I will be surprised.

So, just to be as clear as I can be, let me look at the sentence that seems to lie behind the situation you constructed:

Say it explicitly: you are willing to excuse any act in the pursuit of aesthetic creation.

I disagree with the assumption behind the word "excuse," which suggests an idelogical framework in which morality is the standard by which all actions are to be judged; I also disagree with the inherent assumption that, given the right context, any act under the sun might also be an act "in the pursuit of artistic creation."

You seem to think that I really do have a "yes" or "no" response to that sentence, and I'm concealing it; I think that the statement itself falls outside the reality of nature, art, and humanity; to even come up with an answer for it would involve denying reality (in fact, denying the same principles of reality that I have been arguing).

I suggest that we just agree to disagree on this. Your morally-defined priorities may compel you to help me see the supposed error of my ways; my aesthetically-defined priorities are compelling me to spend less time on this argument, and more time "in the pursuit of aesthetic creation."
posted by bingo at 7:17 AM on February 13, 2002

I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth; maybe this isn't what you're getting at.

My motivation does not define my reasoning, nor does my reasoning depend upon my motivation, but since my motivation seems to be an interest of yours let me say that for me it's about fundamentalism, specifically the placement of abstract principles above concern for humanity, which is what you are espousing.

I would a) be quite sure that he was not capable of creatiing an artistic masterpiece

It's not about his ability or inability to create a masterpiece, it is about the pursuit.

But let's just say, in the interests of getting this argument done with, that I agree with him when he says with his painting, he has revealed a new part of the aesthetic schema, and that he could not possibly have revealed the same aesthetic principles without killing innocent people.

Well, then, I must say that under those circumstances, my ideas of what art is all about and what kind of people it takes to create it, would have to change. And I'm really not sure how. Maybe my whole paradigm would collapse.

Then it is time to begin that questioning since, as we have already covered, the exact same principle is already in play. The artist who authored one of the pieces in question is denying food to hungry children by consuming scarce charity resources because she is unwilling to let the tedium of supporting herself interfere with the pursuit of her art. Her direct actions, consuming charity resources because she is unwilling to support herself, placed her pursuit of her art ahead of the lives of children.

Say it explicitly: you are willing to permit any act in the pursuit of aesthetic creation.
posted by NortonDC at 8:15 AM on February 13, 2002

Rape happens. So be it. Murder happens. So be it. Genocide happens. So be it

You all have gone off the deep end. Applying for money from government agencies when you're not making enough money in your chosen field does not make you a criminal. And it's a false dichotomy to suggest that either the artist or the poor dear adorable child get fed. The government is not going to turn away a poor dear starving child. There is not a quota of how many people can receive welfare. They approximate how many will be eligible and set aside a sum of money, but all who are eligible receive benefits.

If you really think this woman has got herself a good deal, remember that you can make the same decision. But you probably won't, because it's not that easy, and it's not that great a situation.

We each have one life. We should all pursue what is important to us. If having a family etc is what makes it all worthwhile, or if success and comfort make you happy, or if the career you love also happens to support you entirely, then you're all set. But if the work you love doesn't pay the bills, and also taps all your energy, I don't see why a little help from the communal pot is beyond the pale. If you're doing drudge work to get by and feel it's unfair this woman is taking advantage of your taxes, get over it. Follow your own dreams. Seriously, you could die tomorrow. Don't spend your last day on earth worrying about the electric bill.

Yeah, I know, you could also die in 50 years, and it's no fun having your electricity turned off. But just make sure you don't spend those fifty years miserable at a job you hate out of a sense of duty when there are other things you'd love to be doing (unless you're doing it for someone else & that makes you happy, or something like that...). This woman has the right idea. Live the life you want to live.
posted by mdn at 8:41 AM on February 13, 2002

mdn - You and lucien are the only people using the language of crime to describe this. And for the most part, government assistance is not the source of the help under discussion. And, again, it's not about taxes or soaking the rich, it's about soaking the poor because you are unwilling to support yourself. That's what we're talking about, competing with those at least momentarilly unable to support themselves by those merely unwilling to do so.

You say it's not that big a deal, and it's probably not. It is wrong, but it's probably not that big a deal. bingo says it's right, and that's a much bigger deal.
posted by NortonDC at 10:49 AM on February 13, 2002

bingo says it's right, and that's a much bigger deal.

I didn't say it's right. "Right" is a moral judgement word. I said, to paraphase the end of my first post on this thread, that for some people, the pursuit of creating art is the only way to go, at any cost. You obviously have a problem with my use of the phrase "at any cost," and are challenging me as to whether I really mean it.

First of all, yes, I enjoyed the article, identified with the writer, and the section about the use of food stamps brought a smile to my face. There is no doubt that I would do something like that myself if I needed to. Second, the idea of grinding up live children is not compatible with my idea of the pursuit of art, not because of a moral conflict, but because of the nature of the artistic process, and it's connection to basic human feeling. Third, there are a broad range of possible moral/aesthetic conflicts we could come up with, somewhere in the spectrum between taking food stamps so you can write magazine fluff, and grinding up children to make paint, and I have no doubt that you and I would disagree about the solutions to, and the natures of, those conflicts. We have different ideas about why we're on this Earth to begin with, that's all.

for me it's about fundamentalism, specifically the placement of abstract principles above concern for humanity, which is what you are espousing.

See my very first post on this thread, in which I specifically mention the welfare of humanity in relation to art.

The artist...is denying food to hungry children by consuming scarce charity resources because she is unwilling to let the tedium of supporting herself interfere with the pursuit of her art. Her direct actions, consuming charity resources because she is unwilling to support herself, placed her pursuit of her art ahead of the lives of children.

I don't think that the starving children are her problem. I don't think that they are my problem, either. I would be happier if the government wasn't giving money to the starving children to begin with.

Say it explicitly: you are willing to permit any act in the pursuit of aesthetic creation.

Yet again, the thing that you are trying to get me to state explicitly about my system of beliefs, itself contains an idea that falls completely outside my system of beliefs. I do not believe that I am in a position to "permit" or "not permit" people to do anything. I am not a philosopher-king or a god. I believe that we are living in a complex world full of relative morals, and mine are no different. If something happens in my immediate sphere that upsets me, I may do something about it, but that's pretty much as far as it goes. The only person I can "permit" to do anything is me; the world is not some big game of Sim City, with me as the player. I can only just live my own life.

And...maybe this is the most significant part of this disagreement...I don't believe that there is some massive system of moral checks and balances, where we all have so many marks in the plus or minus column. My moral compass is easy enough for me to read it on my own; for you to disagree with something it says is a non-issue.
posted by bingo at 12:08 PM on February 13, 2002

The artist...is denying food to hungry children by consuming scarce charity resources
No she isn't. That's what I was referring to.

That's what we're talking about, competing with those at least momentarilly unable to support themselves by those merely unwilling to do so.
What exactly defines unwilling vs. unable? The author of this piece clearly tries to support herself; it's simply that the field in which she works doesn't pay very well. If she'd been born into a rich family, or if her cousin edited a national magazine, perhaps she wouldn't have to apply for free food now and then. Of course, if that welfare mother had just used birth control, she wouldn't have to apply for gov't help. A lot of people could probably get off welfare if they were willing to work as porn stars, which is legal... should they be forced to go into work they find distasteful simply because they're able to?

It is wrong, but it's probably not that big a deal. bingo says it's right, and that's a much bigger deal.
I disagree that it's wrong. It's not like she's living the high life. She makes sacrifices for something she loves, and gets a tiny bit of help from the government, which she has to go through unpleasant trials to get. To be eligible for food stamps in NY, you have to make half as much as a person on unemployment gets. If a person is living on that tight an income, they deserve some help. You can go on about everyone having the responsibility to cover their own ass etc, but the truth is, the ground is ridiculously uneven from the get-go, and I think it's far more important that people try to follow their dreams, try to create, try to live adventurously, than that they maintain a standard income that keeps the wheels turning.

Yes, it's a little bit ant/grasshopper, and I understand your POV, but as I said, you only live once, and you shouldn't waste it being a drone, unless, for some reason, that makes you happy.
posted by mdn at 4:07 PM on February 13, 2002

bingo defends it, and that's a much bigger deal.

bingo - I don't think that the starving children are her problem.

When she chooses to directly compete with them for needed charity resources, she shares responsibility for their welfare.

I do not believe that I am in a position to "permit" or "not permit" people to do anything.

Say it explicitly: you are willing to defend any act committed in the pursuit of aesthetic creation.

And...maybe this is the most significant part of this disagreement...I don't believe that there is some massive system of moral checks and balances, where we all have so many marks in the plus or minus column. My moral compass is easy enough for me to read it on my own; for you to disagree with something it says is a non-issue.

Strawman. My comments do not describe or require such a construction.

mdn
>The artist...is denying food to hungry children by
>consuming scarce charity resources

No she isn't.

Yes. No. Yes. No. That was fun, no?

What exactly defines unwilling vs. unable? The author of this piece clearly tries to support herself; it's simply that the field in which she works doesn't pay very well. If she'd been born into a rich family, or if her cousin edited a national magazine, perhaps she wouldn't have to apply for free food now and then. Of course, if that welfare mother had just used birth control, she wouldn't have to apply for gov't help. A lot of people could probably get off welfare if they were willing to work as porn stars, which is legal... should they be forced to go into work they find distasteful simply because they're able to?

If she'd been born into a rich family, or if her cousin edited a national magazine, perhaps she wouldn't have to apply for free food now and then.

This is not a parallel situation, as she would not be directly competing with the posited child. Again, we're discussing soaking the poor, not the rich.

Of course, if that welfare mother had just used birth control, she wouldn't have to apply for gov't help.

Not established at all.

A lot of people could probably get off welfare if they were willing to work as porn stars, which is legal... should they be forced to go into work they find distasteful simply because they're able to?

Finally an interesting question. I don't know. I'll think about that.

She makes sacrifices for something she loves, and gets a tiny bit of help from the government, which she has to go through unpleasant trials to get.

Once again, I'm not discussing in the government angle on this (though if you want to focus on that, remember that she was apparently turned away for having too many assets, which does not enhance a claim of "need" as opposed to "desire"). The only charitable source of food she says she used accepts no government money. So, again, it's about soaking the poor, not the rich (nor the government).

And I'm not concerned about the sacrifices she chooses to make, but rather the sacrifices her choice is directly forcing others to endure.
posted by NortonDC at 6:59 PM on February 14, 2002

Yes. No. Yes. No. That was fun, no?

Seems to sum up our whole argument here, as well
Say it explicitly: you are willing to defend any act committed in the pursuit of aesthetic creation.

No, because it isn't true.

When she chooses to directly compete with them for needed charity resources, she shares responsibility for their welfare.

You and I have different ideas of responsibility.

NortonDC, I respect you and I think we've had an intelligent argument. But I think it's pretty polarized at this point. Why don't we just agree to disagree, instead of continuing it forever?
posted by bingo at 6:21 AM on February 15, 2002

sorry, can't let it go yet.

" ... those at least momentarily incapable (instead of unwilling) of providing for themselves."

aaRGH. nothing but more rape murder genocide and a life as a drone in the great machine. i am perfectly capable of raiding the parental refrigerator for sustenance but i am UNWILLING to do so anymore because there's clearly no point to it ... i am going to starve myself properly for the sake of art as your moral code requires ... :) not!! have a nice day in your dreary world of corporate-sponsored aesthetic experiences, taxpayers!! should you ever yearn for beauty which is not britney spears, tough patooties! we are capable of pursuing our immoral amoral artistic inclinations to their unpalatable conclusions, we are unwilling to provide for ourselves or lead our lives on your terms. we get one incarnation, and it's some people's destiny to be an artist.
posted by sheauga at 7:02 PM on February 18, 2002

And apparently, sheauga, it's some people's destiny to go hungry and/or starve because you find supporting yourself too mundane and inconvenient.

Depravity, absolute depravity.

And bingo, let me be perfectly clear: after reading your comments in the shoplifting thread, I do not respect you. I have nothing but disgust for your self-righteous attitude toward only your own thievery and "Fuck everyone else, me first" attitude.

Despicable and far lower than I had let myself suspect throughout this exchange.
posted by NortonDC at 8:37 AM on March 2, 2002

Interesting. I say that I respect you, and you tell me that I have a "fuck everyone else, me first" atttitude. Do you not think there's any kind of conflict there? Do you think I'm lying about my respect? And why would I?
posted by bingo at 10:30 AM on March 2, 2002

I do not doubt your willingness to fuck over those you respect.
posted by NortonDC at 12:43 PM on March 2, 2002

but rather the sacrifices her choice is directly forcing others to endure.

Once again, there is not a set amount of aid available which is given out on first come first served basis. Everyone who is eligible will receive the help which they are due. The specific terms of eligibility and the budget of various welfare agencies will change, but an artist applying for food stamps will not push someone else out of the group. She is NOT forcing others to go without. That is a completely false statement.

What you could claim is that she's increasing the needed budget of the department and therefore increasing taxes or portions of taxes that go to welfare as opposed to X, but the percentage of artists who are willing to live this way and who apply for government or charity aid is so small that this argument seems based purely on a weird kind of negative jealousy, where you wouldn't want to live like her and yet you feel she doesn't deserve to live that way. Really there's no point in being envious of someone you also feel sorry for. It's a tangled reaction and one which should be reconsidered. (I'm not trying to be bitchy either; I've had similar reactions and currently think they were mistaken.)
posted by mdn at 1:33 PM on March 2, 2002

Actually, I'm not an artist myself, I'm someone who likes artists. I agree that it would be great if everyone could become functional enough to be financially self-supporting. Every moment spent in recreation is a moment we are not helping clear bombs in Laos, feed children in Eritrea, or making more money to send to needy relatives / spend on our own support. As someone who has a tendency to take life way too seriously, I'm hoping to develop the courage to lighten up a little bit and take time for things like art.
posted by sheauga at 11:22 PM on March 2, 2002