No intervention

It seems like a strange thought that the government shouldn't interfere and intervene in the business world. After all the government is pretty much what represents people and the most effective, powerful organizations that's supposed to enforce common interest.

Saying that the economy will sort itself out, seems to be a bit like saying:

"Don't touch the economy, because the economy is magic!"

Why would any system suddenly produce good outcomes for most people? And if it does not, why should our most costly defense system not be allowed to regulate it?

Bacon and Moore at the Ashmolean

I finally found the time to visit the Francis Bacon-Henry Moore exhibition at the Ashmolean. And it was well worth it!

As most temporary exhibitions at the Ashmolean this one is also small: it takes up only three rooms. Therefore it is very important that the selection of works be really good. Also, there is no space to present a lot of context, a very detailed story of the development. But the curators (Martin Harrison and Richard Calvocoressi) have done a good work and selected pieces both by Bacon and by Moore which highlight the major influences on them, connect their work to each other, and illustrate their major themes.

Of course besides fulfilling the above mentioned educational end aesthetic duties the exhibition offers more. In fact, it was a very strange and very personal experience. For some time I was appalled by Bacon's figures.Their grotesque movements, positions, the distorted faces, the flesh and bones made visible...I enjoyed the sensitivity and honesty of these works in a dark way. As statements about humans, as showing equally ferocious and ugly truths hiding below our skins. But today another aspect of Bacon's work struck me. It is the honesty of it. The figures stopped being threatening, although some of the pictures create the illusion that one has just stepped into a room where one is struck by the sight of these people doing there whatever they are doing. From threatening it went into compassionate. It appears now to me that what makes it hard to endure Bacon's works is the need it presents for opening up towards the vulnerability, the need for support and understanding that radiates from these figures.

Francis Bacon Second version of Triptych 1944 (1988, oil on canvas)

What appeared to be hostile monsters in the Second version of Triptych 1944 I suddenly saw as lungs, intestines, throats and mouths grown together in desperate, exposed positions. Why are they there? Who did this to them? Why is it happening? The focus shifted from the feeling of 'what is going to happen to me if I'm left alone with these beings?' to one of 'why would anyone do that to others?'

As I already mentioned, the exhibition created an exhibition that emphasizes important similarities between Bacon's and Moore's work. Some of Moore's statues almost call out for a gentle touch, or seem to suggest that their characters are already entrapped in a situation that is beyond help... In this way they make the onlooker feel powerless and lost, recreating the effect of those maddening situations when one's beloveds or friends need help and one cannot provide it.

I won't go on any longer about my experiences and what the works evoked in me. I suggest to everyone who can to go and see for themselves, and bring home a touching and humbling experience.

In case you are looking for a bit of introduction to their work, this interview with Bacon, and this short film about Moore (featuring himself, and showing how he handles the chisel) might be nice places to start.

Henry Moore Three Standing Figures (London, Battersea Park)

Bullshit worries about 'bullshit' jobs

David Graeber is one of those folks who do not help much to better the reputation of Anthropology, or tenured professors. His article 'On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs' went viral on the internet and every week a couple of my friends put it on their wall as if it would help them achieve some sort of revelation. 'Oh my, I might work in a bullshit job!' 'Wow, we would be so much better off if we wouldn't do all these jobs!' I can imagine them thinking stuff like this. But I cannot imagine that they actually spend one more minute thinking because then they would just close the tab with Graeber's article, blush because at first impulse they agreed with it, and then forget about it.

So, what's wrong with the claims of the article?

On bullshit jobs: Graeber claims that many service sector jobs (including admin jobs, but he also mentions jobs in transportation, PR, health admin, fast food restaurants, etc.) are meaningless, and the people who have to do these jobs are the worse off for this. They do not gain self-respect or self-fulfillment from working in these roles.

That's one of those 'oh, in the past everything was better (big sigh)' type of claims which do not make sense. When were masses of people employed in easy jobs which afforded them a living? In the middle ages? Clearly not. In the Roman Empire? Not really. During the Industrial Revolution? All those happy people toiling in the factories and mines? Or the ones sent off to the colonies? The proud ones in forced labor? In the early twentieth century? And why would everyone find a fulfilling job? If no one cares for sewage and cleaning will we be better off? A happier society with no butchers, because it is kind of hard and sometimes disgusting? Not to mention the early starts!

Graeber also laments the loss of jobs where people do 'real work'. It is true that it often causes problems if a skilled worker is replaced by a machine on the production line. But this is also more complicated than just the personal tragedy of that single individual. Probably the machine is more productive. Hence the company can make more profit. And then it can pay more taxes. And that goes back to public services. Also, people with only one skill-set were never in an easier situation. It was the false promise of the WWII enthusiasm and economic boom when people thought that they will have secure jobs 'til the end of their lives. But that was during the economic upheaval following the war. Not before that, not after that. And not in general terms: one of the reasons for it was that the colonies were still mostly under European control, so, they could pay for much of the losses of the European societies. So, if you do not just concentrate on your own neighborhood, you can easily see that this kind of comfort has a high price.

On the uselessness of service jobs: Graeber is one of those guys who didn't get economics 101. When you are thinking of what you pay for it is not only the material and the product that is involved. No one is - and shouldn't be - doing work for free. People's effort and time isn't for free. If someone prepares your food, walks your dogs, takes care of your kids, prepares your taxes, etc. that person is saving you time. The trick is to make good bargains: try to get the money you need to pay them in such a way as to be better off. If you can save 2 hours of work by getting your meals done, while you can pay for this with money you earn in an hour and a half you are better off. You can earn more in that half an hour, or even better, relax, be with your family, kids, walk your dog, read a good book, visit your parents.

Add to this that someone with good skills can probably earn more per hour - say an engineer - than someone without good skills. So, why would this person spend his or her time preparing food every day for a long time if he can in that same time earn more and thereby 1. she/he can pay someone else who doesn't have skills which are in demand, thereby helping that person earn a living, 2. provide better for her/his family and community, and self. So much about the loss of 'real jobs'.

Then take the rants about administration. People are shocked how there are more and more admin people about. Funnily, they always forget to mention that there are also way more people around, living for a longer time, being in better health (due in large part to well organized and accessible health services), enjoying more and more services. To coordinate all this demands larger admins, and yes, not proportionately larger ones, but exponentially larger ones. Why is that so? First, because the same amount of humans can create more data and do more types of things, have more demands, if they work more effectively. Which is just what technology enables us to do. Also, it enables us to enjoy our free time in many-many more ways then we used to. We get everywhere quicker, can communicate and therefore make decisions quicker, calculate and solve problems quicker, plan quicker, run experiments quicker. Maybe these things aren't easy to recognize for someone being as far from the competitive public sector as possible, but it is still so. These exponential growths in demands, opportunities, work output call for larger admin bodies to run well.

Graeber doesn't cite any statistics or any data confirming that bigger administrative structure makes things run less effectively. What does the decreased effectiveness then consists it? That he himself has to fill out more papers at work? Well, that's life: whereas earlier we used to have privileged positions in society where you weren't really accountable, that is not so anymore. Not as bad as you would think, at least not for the people who pay you, and the ones who you are supposed to serve.

Or that administration is boring? Sure it is. But nobody said it would be easy to live nowadays in a highly developed industrialized society. At least, not that easy that you have only to do what you enjoy and find fulfilling, and even that activity only for as long as you like to do it.

Stoic week!

Look, look! A wonderful idea, and a fun one to. Especially to people who are interested in practical uses of life-philosophies. Handbook, measurements, exercises. Have a great experience and try it out for a week what it is like to be a stoic.

Application and more info here: http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/stoic-week-2013/

Pop psychology and the ideal character

When reading popular psychology and self-help books one often encounters that the aim of the writer is to help the readers 'to get it right'. What this means varies from book to book: it can be about becoming self-confident, more creative, less anxious, making better relationship choices, being less of a slacker, and so on.

The success of these works relies in their capacity to make people believe that they can actually offer them what they (often mistakenly) think they need. As with all simple solutions, these ones are also bullshit. But their popularity lies exactly in this. They do not do the careful analysis needed for proper treatment, they do not adjust for individual differences, and they do not tell their readers that what they seek is not achievable, or that for moral reasons they shouldn't achieve it. Although this might often be the case.

The idea behind this claim is always one of the following: (1) that everyone, independently of personal differences has the same potential to be (x) - substitute the desired trait in question in place of x; (2) that there is a norm of behavior and of feeling which everyone should aim to achieve - say, there is a norm of being social enough, of not being anxious, of being a happy person for most of the time, etc.

These assumptions then get coupled up with (3) the illusion of there being one more-or-less complicated recipe. You only have to think through it. And don't think too hard! God forbid, that you should actually think hard and long. The book isn't gonna sell if it can't be read on the train or in the evening before going to sleep. Also, it won't be popular if you have to think in a way that you aren't used to.

We can point out the following problems with the above: regarding (1), it can and should be admitted that there are individual differences both in emotions, in the reactions people have, in their interpersonal relations and skills, and in a host of other important personal qualities. Why then assume that (1) is true? Because it makes readers believe that they don't have to accept themselves, or work hard on realizing what would make them happy. Instead, they are led to believe that it is fine to want to live in the same way that others do or popular stereotypes suggest. These books do not make people reflective and make them think about whether their preferences are the ones they should stick to. They just affirm that they are, and they can actually be fulfilled, by everyone, in the same way.

The problem with (2) is similar. It suggests that it would be normal for everyone to have the same feelings towards the same things. We all should like funny series. We all should like dancing. We all should appreciate deep thoughts. We all should find poetry a bit dull and outdated, except if it is really easy to understand and is about love or emotional suffering. But why would this be true? Is there any harm in having very different preferences in social matters? If one co-worker is happy being silent, thinking about his own affairs, should she adjust herself to the preferences of the talkative people? Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the talkative, community seeking ones. And I can also see reasons for fostering community centered activities. They help exercise abilities which work well only in groups (like reasoning and planning), they help a lot for the more socially inclined people, the more insecure people can get reassured, and interaction also fosters a sense of community and leads to commitment. But does this mean that only these things matter or these things can only be achieved in one way? Of course not.

I'm not going to waste much effort on (3). Any person of a more mature frame of mind knows that there are no magical overall solutions. The interesting thing about life is exactly the multitude of little social-engineering tasks we are faced with. And of course if we don't like to bother with these we can devise good strategies on how to get into the sorts of situations we are comfortable with. But how you can do that while still getting good results for yourself will have to be figured out by you.

Doris Lessing passed away

Doris Lessing died. See the news here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24979129

I read her book The Fifth Child a year ago. It was a shocking experience and very humbling. It actually helped me to understand those people - among them a very close relative - who cannot let the hands of their children go, even if this cripples their own and their families lives. It is a touching and terrifying account of the strength of attachment, and I think in a sense speaks well for the claim that a mother would belie her self if she would abandon her child in that way.

In the novel the father character grows distant and alienated from the child. Is is sad that he cannot help in supporting him, but the good side is that he is still there for his wife and is a firm financial support - don't underestimate the value of that in such situations.

A wonderful writer is gone now, and I hope many will take up some of her books and remember her in the best possible way: by reading her work!

Signs of getting tired...

Suddenly longing to read works which are totally unrelated to my research and I don't find generally useful or entertaining...
Suddenly being angry at people in the library who have a not-so-typical voice...
Suddenly starting to plan my holidays...

...are all sings that I'm getting tired of work for today.

Coetzee on Humanities and Universities

The link is here, it makes a good read during lunch break:

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-01-universities-head-for-extinction/

I agree with Coetzee very strongly that a certain amount of universities should be financed in keeping up decent humanities units. The question how many and how many students should be supported by the state to study there is a more difficult question.

What I've witnessed so far is that most Humanities disciplines are too difficult for a great many of the students attending, who then tend to blame their education instead of realising that they are not cut out for it. Of course I'm not saying that failure is only their fault. It might be the result of many components: engaging in these disciplines is hard, one needs a good background in culture and history, one needs to be motivated and willing to work hard (you cannot pick literature to learn a bit about good books, or German to learn the language). At the same time many of these diplomas are not preparing you for a specific job, so you will have to gather other skills after or besides your education if you want to land a job not related to your education.

Also, due to terrible financing schemes on the part of the government many uni's needed to accept huge numbers of students to finance their departments. This is very destructive for humanities. Instead of valuing a good academic stuff tutoring few quality students, and doing important work on culture, social issues, education, and cooperating with local communities and government on such issues, the teachers have to conduct mass classes to people who don't really know why they are there and often do not read the compulsory texts.

All in all, I would opt for retaining larger research and public engagement oriented humanities units, with less students.

Structure in Jude the Obscure

An interesting structural feature of Hardy's Jude the Obscure that I have just discovered, being half-way through the book:

1. Part first, chapter 2: helping animals (letting the birds feed on corn) - leading to problem (loss of job at farmer Troutham).

2. Part first, chapter 10: helping an animal (killing the pig quickly, instead of letting it bleed out) - leading to problem (Arabella gets mad at him).

3. Part fourth, chapter 2: helping an animal (killing the rabbit caught in a trap on the night of his aunt's funeral) - leading to problem (getting into a conversation with Sue at night and telling her that he'll give up his religious goals) - which then leads on to further problems (he loses even the small amount of motivation he had so far to resist his urge to be with Sue). 

The help Jude offers is quite ineffective in all cases, but it throws light on his compassionate and kind character. At the same time his acts of mercy symbolize that he is trespassing constraints: he ought not let the birds eat the farmer's crops, he ought to kill the pig in the best way for making money out of selling its meat, he ought to let the rabbit that someone else caught alone - the last one meaning the rabbit and Sue at the same time; Sue being caught in the marriage with Phillotson. A bad catch, so to say: the trap causes her much pain. But Jude ought no to interfere.

I do not yet know the outcome - I can make guesses. George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss keeps coming to my mind...Hardy depicts his characters in a similar way to Eliot as being driven to their fate by their passions. Both seem to point out at the same time the irrationality and pitiable lack of self-control of the character, while also criticizing social structures and institutions which do not give people like them the chance to fulfill their desires.

The fact that Jude's misfortunes are in parallel with his acts of mercy can also be interpreted as a criticism of lack of justice in the world. Those who follow the right moral principles will be frustrated in life because the dominant concept of what counts as rational, what is allowed does not leave room for the tender and gentle.

Help channels for typhoon victims

CNN has compiled a useful list of organizations that try to alleviate suffering and help the needy after the typhoon. See here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/world/iyw-how-to-help-typhoon-haiyan/index.html

As usual with donations, every little helps - 5-10 dollars can make a difference.

Karoly Kernstock's paintings

Kernstock was a member of the group called 'The Eight', active at beginning of the Twentieth century in Hungary. They were a revolutionary group, and Kernstock played an important role in holding the eight differing characters together. I won't go into the details - partly because I'm still tired from being sick, partly because I have some friends and colleagues who know so much more about The Eight than do I that it would put me to shame if they read this. If you want to get a taste of what the exhibition was like in Budapest, at Museum of Fine Arts check out this nice account based on first-hand experience, by Stefan Van Drake. What I do want to share with you are some of my favourite Kernstock paintings.

Park detail (1908-1910?)

On the way home

Cardboard of the Glasswindows in the Schiffer Villa (1911)

The cold season

Being sick is a strange thing. People with the same disease lament different things sometimes. Or then again people with different illnesses have the same issues. For me the worst is the sense of being crippled. I don't mean this in the physical sense. Of course a cold, a flu, or even a more sever lung inflammation doesn't make you unable to move around and get things done. But in those periods my attention span becomes much-much shorter than usual. It is just hard to get things done.

Earlier when I became ill I just tried to ignore it as long as it was possible. This was okay around 10-12 years ago when my body somehow managed to draw an unknown resources and get through such periods. But nowadays I have to pursue a different strategy. When I notice that my immune system is in trouble again and won't hold against the attack I just switch to defense. I do minimal work - only the absolutely inevitable. I stay at home, have tea, do relaxing things like reading a good literature book, talking a bit with friends, have a proper cooking afternoon or read a few good poems. And sleep a lot. And hope that the storm will pass soon, the sky will clear, and I wake up feeling energetic and ready to complete all the items in the notebook.

Sadly, these passing sicknesses also affect my blogging. As much as I would have loved to update more often and finish three entries (one on the Hungarian exhibition at the Venice Biennale, one on philosophy of action, and one on feminism) I had to postpone writing them.

Your goals in life and your diploma

For a long time I bought into the currently dominant story with which governments are enforcing change in university finances. That is, I subscribed to the view that the universities should be used 1) to train people who can contribute to GDP, or 2) to train people who can do research on generally important topics, such as engineering, water cleaning, heart and lung diseases, etc.

I think this was a mistake and it was caused by a very one-sided view of things. Here is the stuff left out: the most often targeted courses and programmes for cuts are Humanities and Arts programmes. Critiques say that people finishing with such diplomas very often don't get jobs in the field in which they were trained. Thus, they spend years in the uni system, which is costly to the government, even if people pay high tuition fees.

But here is the deal. If a person is interested in a field, that means that he or she thinks the field important. If then that person studies the field she probably enjoys what she does. Even if she does not get a job in that field, a proper training might very well be necessary for properly enjoying works in that field (this is definitely true of literature, painting, music, but probably also of many other things). At the same time, many fields in the Humanities (teaching, pedagogy, linguistics) have lots of practical applications and there is need for well trained people in these fields.

Now, even if the people who received such training didn't get a job with it, it is very possible that 1) they acquired useful skills, and 2) that they can practice something that they like. Since money is not the only and most important thing for many of us, one can live a nice life with an average job, if one can at the same time do things in one's free time which one likes or loves. If the education has enabled one to do this in a fulfilling manner then it has bettered that person's life, and thereby also of those around her.

I think the main mistake that can lead us to forget that this might be a worthy goal of education in itself is that often in the media such people are represented as somehow having failed - they went to uni but they don't earn the big bucks. But many of us know since a long time: that's not necessarily what one wants to study for.

Frayn's 'The Tin Men'

Michael Frayn has written a funny and, according to P. G. Woodhouse, 'brilliant' book about the absurd workings of the modern university, where academia and administration are merged into a strange mutant. The Tin Men is a competent, workmanlike novel...Now, enough of this. What was it really like to read The Tin Men?

The book is short and witty, a good easy reading for long and tiring periods. Frayn's humor is great, but the novel becomes at some points monotonous. The plot doesn't propel itself forward, rather it is noticeably driven by the need to make more puns.

Some of the scenes would probably work better on film, being shorter and quicker and aided by mimicry and gestures from a good author. This is surely true of the ending of the novel, which is mostly filled with the running around of high-profile people, who are act like lunatics. Maybe in a movie one would be inclined to laugh all the way through, but during the slower experience of reading through the pages at some point one cannot resists asking the question: is this still funny? I mean, these aren't confused people, these are madman.

The lack of satisfaction I felt after finishing the book might have been caused by too high expectations on my part. I read Frayn's 'Copenhagen' with great pleasure, and that's much more the sort of work I prefer. I thought a book by him, that picks up the topics of ethics and artificial intelligence, would contain a much more sophisticated treatment of some of the main problems in these fields, even if only at the level of mentioning them in jokes.

Some of the passages where Frayn makes fun of the wannabe-writer Rowe are hilarious: Rowe begins by writing the reviews that will appear about his work first, and then goes on to write the novel itself, and subsequently commits all the mistakes typical of ambitious amateurs.

Altogether I would recommend the book, but it's not the sort of classic in humor that Douglas Adams is, nor the vivid painter of still human absurd like Joseph Heller, nor the genius of short grotesque like Istvan Orkeny, or the intellectually very fine-tuned works of Thomas Bernhard.