Because I'm Blind II
We visited the UCR Museum of Photography today. I can recommend the honest and upsetting portrayal of the physiological after-effects of the chemical weapons deployment in the Vietnam War. That particular exhibit is on the third floor, and it's called, appropriately enough, Agent Orange. Go see it. Remember, if you can, that all art relating to the past or the future is in fact a comment on the present, and look at those images. Then convince yourself that war is a necessary evil. That somehow all that fighting and disease and deformation and death is somehow necessary to protect our freedoms. Go on, try. I dare you.
However, what really caught my eye (groan) was the Sight Unseen Exhibit:
Well, Douglas, "at the risk of over-simplifying", it's total bullshit.
Call me Simon Simpleton if you like, but I refuse to accept any pretentious jabber that blind people can take photographs. And it is nothing more than pretentious jabber. I blame Jacques Derrida.
*** !WARNING! TL;DR Postmodernism ***
Jacques Derrida had a good idea (although he didn't come up with it). His idea was, when you boil it down, that when you read a book, you're not necessarily reading a book. You're reading every book you've read. Your mind will make connections based on what bits of culture you have been exposed to - you create your own masterpiece (well done). This is called postmodernism, and because of Jacques Derrida, it's almost impossible to create a new piece of art without being aware of the inferences that your audience will make based on things they've already seen.
For instance, in a popular episode of the Simpsons, Maggie drops a can of red paint onto Homer, causing him to fall over. The paint spirals around him to the sound of some pretty distressed violins. Those who have seen Psycho will immediately recognise the precise layout and music of the first murder scene in that movie. Crucially, those who have not seen Psycho will at the very least realise that they are watching something that requires having watched something else to fully understand it, and at most they will understand that this scene references Psycho. Even if they haven't seen that movie at all. This is postmodernism.
The problems arise when you try to apply literature theory to real life; when you try to put a system which was designed to deal with metaphors and push it onto your actual life. It's like trying to use a computer to eat your breakfast. Computers are wonderful things - you can send a photo of yourself to China in four seconds, but you can't use it to send a cup of tea four inches. In the same way, you can't expect postmodernism to tell us anything about reality. But many philosophers have tried. They have tried to demonstrate that our experience of a certain reality is dependent on each of our individual experiences of reality up to that point - and that hence, reality is fluid. But it's not. A three-year-old throwing a rock at your head will fix that silly notion pretty quickly. Gravity moves at 9.8 m/s/s whether you're the President of Canada or a hunter gatherer in Borneo. And if you are blind, you can't take photographs.
*** TL;DR ENDS ***
I'm not saying blind people can't lead rich and full lives. I'm saying that when it comes to something for which the ability to see is a pre-requisite, blind people won't be able to do that. And if they do it well (some of the photos in this exhibition are actually wonderful), either it's coincidental, or they're getting help, or they're not as blind as they're pretending.
See, this is total bullshit. First of all, there's the weird assertion that not only can blind people take valid photographs, but they might be better at it because they can't see. That's like saying a man with no legs might be better at running because he has no legs. This can only be true in a metaphorical sense, like if a guy with no legs "runs" for office. Ha ha, we all have a giggle at the headline, and go home.
Granted there is a strong metaphorical tradition in literature since the dawn of history about blind people being able to see better than others - but only in a metaphorical sense! In the real world, they still have to grope their way around and they'll still fall over things you've cruelly placed in their path.
I think this exhibition is a result of this terrible confusion between a highly useful tool for literary analysis and reality, based on the often very confused writings of Derrida, amongst others. And these poor bastards think their works means something - that it represents empowerment for blind people, that it will be inspiring, that somehow their lives are worth more than if they didn't do this. But how can this be true? There are literally millions of things blind people could be doing that are more useful to society and more meaningful than taking photographs of the wide dark that is their lives.
Because I'm Blind
However, what really caught my eye (groan) was the Sight Unseen Exhibit:
Well, Douglas, "at the risk of over-simplifying", it's total bullshit.
Call me Simon Simpleton if you like, but I refuse to accept any pretentious jabber that blind people can take photographs. And it is nothing more than pretentious jabber. I blame Jacques Derrida.
*** !WARNING! TL;DR Postmodernism ***
Jacques Derrida had a good idea (although he didn't come up with it). His idea was, when you boil it down, that when you read a book, you're not necessarily reading a book. You're reading every book you've read. Your mind will make connections based on what bits of culture you have been exposed to - you create your own masterpiece (well done). This is called postmodernism, and because of Jacques Derrida, it's almost impossible to create a new piece of art without being aware of the inferences that your audience will make based on things they've already seen.
For instance, in a popular episode of the Simpsons, Maggie drops a can of red paint onto Homer, causing him to fall over. The paint spirals around him to the sound of some pretty distressed violins. Those who have seen Psycho will immediately recognise the precise layout and music of the first murder scene in that movie. Crucially, those who have not seen Psycho will at the very least realise that they are watching something that requires having watched something else to fully understand it, and at most they will understand that this scene references Psycho. Even if they haven't seen that movie at all. This is postmodernism.
The problems arise when you try to apply literature theory to real life; when you try to put a system which was designed to deal with metaphors and push it onto your actual life. It's like trying to use a computer to eat your breakfast. Computers are wonderful things - you can send a photo of yourself to China in four seconds, but you can't use it to send a cup of tea four inches. In the same way, you can't expect postmodernism to tell us anything about reality. But many philosophers have tried. They have tried to demonstrate that our experience of a certain reality is dependent on each of our individual experiences of reality up to that point - and that hence, reality is fluid. But it's not. A three-year-old throwing a rock at your head will fix that silly notion pretty quickly. Gravity moves at 9.8 m/s/s whether you're the President of Canada or a hunter gatherer in Borneo. And if you are blind, you can't take photographs.
*** TL;DR ENDS ***
I'm not saying blind people can't lead rich and full lives. I'm saying that when it comes to something for which the ability to see is a pre-requisite, blind people won't be able to do that. And if they do it well (some of the photos in this exhibition are actually wonderful), either it's coincidental, or they're getting help, or they're not as blind as they're pretending.
See, this is total bullshit. First of all, there's the weird assertion that not only can blind people take valid photographs, but they might be better at it because they can't see. That's like saying a man with no legs might be better at running because he has no legs. This can only be true in a metaphorical sense, like if a guy with no legs "runs" for office. Ha ha, we all have a giggle at the headline, and go home.
Granted there is a strong metaphorical tradition in literature since the dawn of history about blind people being able to see better than others - but only in a metaphorical sense! In the real world, they still have to grope their way around and they'll still fall over things you've cruelly placed in their path.
I think this exhibition is a result of this terrible confusion between a highly useful tool for literary analysis and reality, based on the often very confused writings of Derrida, amongst others. And these poor bastards think their works means something - that it represents empowerment for blind people, that it will be inspiring, that somehow their lives are worth more than if they didn't do this. But how can this be true? There are literally millions of things blind people could be doing that are more useful to society and more meaningful than taking photographs of the wide dark that is their lives.
Because I'm Blind