Category: The Arts
Virginia Postrel has a new book coming out
The Power of Glamour: Longing and the Art of Visual Persuasion, due out in November 2013, and I thank Yogesh for the pointer. It has a nice cover, as it should.
David Burliuk, father of Russian futurism
Experimental economics and Moliere’s *Tartuffe*
From Bertrand Crettez and Régis Deloche, forthcoming in JEBO:
Numerous papers show how game theory can improve our understanding of literature. There is no paper, however, using experimental economics to arrive at a new understanding of a play. We fill this gap by using experimental evidence to compare the last two versions of Molière’s Tartuffe. In the final version of the play, there are two stag hunt games, one without pre-game communication and one with. In the first game players fail to coordinate to the efficient equilibrium but in the second one they do, which is consistent with experimental evidence. In the penultimate version of the play, there is pre-game communication in the first stag hunt game but players fail to coordinate to the efficient equilibrium, which is not consistent with experimental evidence. By removing the pre-game communication from the first game, Molière adapted his play as if he had been a student of modern behavioral game theory.
Why isn’t there even more nepotism in Hollywood?
Alan Crede emails me the following:
It seems there’s a lot of nepotism in Hollywood (the Sheens, Clooneys, Douglases, Arquettes, Goldie Hawn-Kate Hudson, Aaron Spelling-Tori Spelling, etc.).
But it seems for every Angelina Jolie with industry connections, there’s someone like Brad Pitt (an outsider from Missouri).
My question is why is it not *all* nepotism?
I’m struggling to think of a bit of a theory of economic theory that could explain the equilibrium that we see other than the (question-begging) contention that, in order to maximize profits, Hollywood producers cast the ablest actors available to them.
Imagine a talent selection system with many different levels of filters and many, many applicants and also few winners. The first level could be something as simple as “does anyone even look at your photo shoot or ask you for an audition?” Let’s also say that nepotism gets you past the first filter, or maybe a bit more, but not past the final filters. They won’t let you star in a movie just because you’re Goldie Hawn’s daughter (by that time most of her clout is gone). Nonetheless relatives of famous actors, actresses, etc. still will end up considerably overrepresented on the screen.
There is also someone known who can vouch for you, albeit not always with perfect credibility: “Believe me, if you give my brother this role, he won’t ruin the movie promo efforts with a cocaine addiction.” And so on.
You will be remembered more easily: imagine a director saying “hey for this bit part, why don’t we get what’s-his-name, you know the brother of [xxxx].” It is then easier to work your way up.
Being the brother, sister, etc. of a famous actor gets you publicity and makes for a good story. It draws interest from viewers, just as I was keen to have met Alex’s brother in Toronto last year. That will help your chances too. At the same time, talented outsiders still will make their way through the process and achieve stardom.
Nepotism and focality are closely related and they often reinforce each other.
My favorite things Oklahoma
1. Humorist: It is hard not to pick Will Rogers. But was he funny? You tell me. I’ll go with Chuck Norris.
2. Jazz musician: Charlie Christian, and as runner-up Chet Baker.
3. Folk music: Woody Guthrie, here is Do Re Mi.
4. Popular music: Eddie Cochran, and overall the music categories are turning out better than one might have expected. I feel there should be lots in country music but I could not tell you who that might be.
5. Musical, set in: Duh. A favorite of my favorites.
6. Novelist: Ralph Ellison.
7. Painter: Ed Ruscha.
8. Outlaw: Pretty Boy Floyd.
9. Movie, set in: I can think only of Rumblefish.
Here are images of Tulsa Art Deco.
People, this is an underrated state. I hope to end up there later tonight.
*Shylock on Trial: The Appellate Briefs*
That is the new eBook by Richard Posner and Charles Fried, and I just bought my copy and expect I will be adding it to my Law and Literature syllabus. The book’s home page is here.
A longer book, edited by Bradin Cormack, Marthua Nussbaum, and Richard Strier will be coming out as well, Shakespeare and the Law, containing this piece among others.
What is the deadweight loss from museum art collections?
Steven Kopit, a loyal MR commentator, asks:
Tyler –
Let’s have more on the economics of museums. That’s actually an interesting topic.
Only a very small portion of the collections of the Louvre other major museums is on display at any given time. I think it would make a great deal of sense to provide additional venues for shows–including in China. In the end, holdings of art (like income, per SS) only matter is someone actually consumes them, ie, gets to see them.
I say the deadweight loss here is not so large. Most art exhibitions are not self-financing from the side of the viewers, which suggests that the demand to see the pictures is not higher than the costs of mounting the exhibit. Arguably you can throw in philanthropic support as another part of “market demand,” but I consider that a separate valuation issue. Maybe our current artistic institutions are under-providing marketing opportunities for businesses and foundations, but that still won’t get you a major pent-up demand to view the pictures, again not relative to cost. The very popular pictures, such as the good works by the Impressionists and post-Impressionists, are shown quite frequently, including in traveling exhibitions.
Context matters a great deal in this setting. Currently most of the Louvre is not being viewed at any point in time, as the crowds tend to cluster in a few very well-known areas. Many people would want to go see anything they are told they ought to go see. What is underfunded is some kind of “demand for participation in a public event,” not the viewing of art per se. If only they could create more hullaballoo around the more obscure Flemish painters.
Almost all museums have large stretches of empty walls. I would put up many more pictures there, as indeed I do in my own home. That museums do not do this I find striking and indicative. Nor do I see viewers and visitors demanding this, if anything the unspoken feeling might be to wish for a bit less on the walls, so that one may have the feeling of having seen everything without exhaustion.
The costs of storing art are high. Perhaps the Louvre should sell some of its lower-tier works to private collectors. But the general public just doesn’t want so much more art to see, not if they have to pay for it and maybe even if they don’t.
Cultural vouchers in Brazil
This old idea from Alan Peacock will be implemented:
Despite the economic crisis, Brazil announced Thursday it planned to give workers here a 50-real ($25) monthly stipend for cultural expenses like movies, books or museums. “In all developed countries, culture plays a key role in the economy,” Culture Minister Marta Suplicy said in an interview on national television. She recalled that popular former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva created “Bolsa Familia” (Family Grant), the program of conditional cash transfers to the poor which his successor, President Dilma Rousseff, expanded. “Now we are creating food for the soul; Why would the poor not be able to access culture?” the minister said. Suplicy said the new incentive, approved by Congress and endorsed by Rousseff late last month, is expected to be introduced some time this year.
What has San Diego contributed to American culture?
In honor of the AEA meetings I was going to do “My Favorite Things San Diego” but frankly I came up with what is more or less a total blank. Eddie Vedder? I like Tom Waits. Lots of athletes. What else?
San Diego, by population, is the eighth largest city in the United States. Yet it seems to have had hardly any cultural influence. What gives?
Movie, set in: Almost Famous, or perhaps A Day Without a Mexican.
End of story, unless you can tell me more. I’m sure to enjoy the weather, though I’ll look longingly at Tijuana just across the border.
Merry Christmas!
My favorite things Israel
1. Film: A rich and rapidly improving genre. My favorites are Lebanon or Waltz with Bashir, with a sentimental nod to Yana’s Friends, which isn’t great but I saw it on my second date with Natasha.
2. Movie, set in (non-Israeli): I don’t like Exodus, so can I cite the Mel Gibson movie? Are we totally sure that it is indeed set in Israel? What else am I missing? “Painting, set in” would be a fun category, but too hard to choose.
3. Actress: Natalie Portman is excellent in Closer.
4. Classical musician: Daniel Barenboim, Yefim Bronfman, Ivry Gitlis, and Eliahu Inbal would be at the top of a pretty long list. Perlman has a style too aggressive for my taste, at least as it comes across on disc.
5. Fiction author: I very much admire and enjoy David Grossman’s To The End of the Land.
6. Philosopher: Joseph Raz, especially his The Morality of Freedom.
7. Non-fiction author: Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow is splendid. Tom Segev could be a runner-up.
8. Co-author: Amihai Glazer, from UC Irvine.
9. Other economists: Donald Patinkin, Ariel Rubinstein, Ehud Kalai, Jacob Frenkel, Dan Ariely, Robert Aumann, Sergiu Hart, Elhanan Helpman, Reuven Brenner, Zvi Hercowitz, Oded Galor, Michael Bruno, and Stanley Fischer would be a few others. Overall the country is strong in game theory and monetary economics, as well as economics more generally.
I strike a zero when it comes to popular music. I don’t like Kiss/Gene Simmons, and Israeli popular music I don’t know well but from a distance I do not expect to like it much. The visual arts are also not obviously strong, though perhaps you can enlighten me in the comments.
The changing economics of youth subculture
From a Metafilter discussion, here is one comment:
Music distribution, music purchasing and the ethics around them have changed. When I was a mere slip of a girl, it really mattered whether one was on a major label or not, and everyone knew someone who ran a tiny label out of their bedroom, etc etc. I can’t get over how my fellow anarchists listen to, like, Beyonce. That would not have gone over well in 1996. As a result, fashion/music subcultures are, I think, more permeable and fluid, and there’s less oppositionality associated with music.
Also, fast fashion and big changes in the distribution and status of vintage and thrift store fashion. I’d argue that up through the nineties, second hand clothes were a little bit declasse; they aren’t anymore. Clothes more than 20 years old were easy to find in the thrift stores and were of fairly high quality. Now even the last of the union-made eighties clothes are hard to find and can be quite pricey. (I mean, I remember when I bought a 50s silk-satin Dior dress – not atelier, but still – for $5.99 at Saver’s.) So style changes faster and it’s harder to associate style with oppositionality and with a stable ‘style tribe’.
“Style tribes” themselves are pretty well commodified, too – you can make a nice living catering to goths or VLV folks or whatever. So there’s less, I guess, libidinal investmentthere.
Also, life is more precarious and it’s harder to get work. Back when I was properly young in the nineties, if you didn’t have a job you could just temp. It wasn’t fun (remember that zine Temp Slave) but you could keep a roof over your head. A lot easier to do subculture stuff then. Even the serious anarchists I know now scrabble a lot more for work, food and money than back then.
Rents are higher – where in 1995 you could run a whole anarchist community center on $300/month plus utilities – which could be paid with three people who had jobs and could chip in $100 each, now you’re looking at $1200/month plus utilities and fewer people who can kick down $100.
I mean, there’s still plenty of youth fashion, music and neat stuff going on – it’s just that the support structures are more fragile and temporary and the borders between things are thinner.
That is from Frowner. Hat tip goes to @NatashaPlotkin, the most underrated tweeter I know of, with only 76 followers.
Sentences to ponder
Natasha later said she saw nothing strange in a musician’s ability to express emotions she has not experienced. “Had I experienced them, that wouldn’t necessarily help me to express them better in my music. I’m an actress, not a character; my job is to represent something, not to live it. Chopin wrote a mazurka, Person X in the audience wants to hear the mazurka and so I have to decipher the score and make it apprehensible to Person X, and it’s really hard to do. But it has nothing to do with my life experience.”
Here is more, from Andrew Solomon, mostly about prodigies, interesting throughout. I also like this bit:
…Marc sat on a phone book on the piano bench so his hands would be high enough to play comfortably and launched into Chopin’s “Fantasie-Impromptu,” which he imbued with a quality of nuanced yearning that seemed almost inconceivable in someone with a shelf of Cookie Monster videos.
Anthem: Ayn Rand’s Dystopian Masterpiece
Rod Long offers a very insightful reading of Ayn Rand’s Anthem:
The book’s most striking feature, both stylistically and in the substance of the story, is the absence of the first-person singular. The idea of a totalitarian state suppressing subversive ideas by banning or distorting the language needed to express or even formulate it has been made generally familiar by George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, with its fictional language, “Newspeak”; but Rand’s treatment precedes Orwell’s by more than a decade (and may possibly have influenced it).
In Rand’s dystopia, the first-person singular pronoun — the word “I” — has been abolished in order to prevent people from thinking of themselves as individuals with identities distinct from that of the collective. The struggle of Equality 7-2521 (Rand modeled her characters’ names on telephone exchanges of the “Pennsylvania 6-5000” form) to discover his own individuality is mirrored in his, and the text’s, struggle to move from “we” to “I.”
…If the book’s linguistic center is the first-person pronoun, its imaginal center is light — the guttering candlelight of the collectivist dystopia, contrasted with the electric light that the protagonist reinvents, the latter symbolizing the fire that Prometheus of Greek myth stole to give to the human race, and, consequently, symbolizing as well the creative fire of the unfettered individual mind.
…Rand was a dedicated Aristotelian and a lifelong critic of Plato, and many of the features of Anthem’s dystopia, such as government assignment of professions, state regulation of breeding and reproduction, and abolition of private property and the family, seem drawn from the recommendations in Plato’s Republic. The prohibition of the word “I” in favor of “we” is likewise a natural development of Plato’s dictum in the Republic that all citizens should say “mine” and “not mine” about the same things — a proposal criticized by Aristotle, who warns in his Politics that the attempt to give a community the same degree of unity as a single individual is doomed to disaster.
…Moreover, Equality 7-2521’s journey down into an abandoned subway tunnel to discover an artificial light source turns on its head Plato’s allegory of the cave, in which the wise man ascends from the cave of physical reality, lit by the artificial light of the senses, to discover the “real” world of abstract Forms, lit by a sun of pure ineffable intellect. By reversing Plato’s parable, Rand, in Aristotelian fashion, reorients the pursuit of knowledge away from the supernatural and back to this world, to empirical reality.
Read the whole thing.
*Glittering Images*, the new Camille Paglia book
The subtitle is A Journey Through Art from Egypt to Star Wars and according to Paglia “The format of the book is based on Catholic breviaries of devotional images, like Mass cards of the saints.”
It presents powerful works of art and tells the reader to submit to them; for that alone it is better than most other books. The influence of Harold Bloom, Paglia’s earlier teacher, is strong throughout. The interpretations seem unsure as to whether they are summaries or revelations, bold challenges to orthodoxy or obvious truths. I am glad I bought the book but still my itch for the Paglia of Sexual Personae — say the Edmund Spenser chapter (the book’s highlight in my view) — remains unscratched.
Here is Paglia on George Lucas, an excerpt from the latter part of the book. I do not feel the need to criticize her main claim (Lucas is the greatest artist of our time), still her obsession with mythology and cinematographic technique to me misses the import of Lucas’s saga of glorious collapse, discussed only briefly, though I do like this bit: “Lucas crosscuts to the delirious destruction on Coruscant of the Great Rotunda of the Galactic Senate, with its thousand round balconies in cool tonalities of gray and black. This twinned ruination of industrial and political architecture is an epic Romantic spectacle…”
Recommended, but we are still waiting for the last three installments of Camille’s ouevre.