Difficult Art Is Like Spinach for the Brain

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/06/09/Melbourne_Festival_of_Ideas_Kate_Grenville

Kate Grenville discusses the crucial role of art in teaching people to deal with difficult issues. She draws upon Shelley and Cicero in lamenting the obsessive labeling and watering down of works of art in today's culture.

-----

We all know what we could be doing to help the environment. We could install solar panels, or drive hybrid cars, or use fewer plastic bags. But there's often a big gap between what we know we should do, and how we actually behave.

Delivering this keynote address at the Melbourne Festival of Ideas, novelist Kate Grenville argues that it is the role of artists and writers to inspire and move people to act on important issues like climate change.

Kate Grenville is one of Australia's best-known novelists. Her books include Lilian's Story, The Idea of Perfection and, in 2008, The Lieutenant. Her 2006 novel The Secret River won the Commonwealth Writers' Prize and two NSW Premier's Literary Awards.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• visual
• artwork
• artists
• interpretation
• music
• film
• cinema
• aesthetics
• audio
• video
• expression
• pop
• culture
• public
• politics
• psychology
• literature
• writing
• books
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[notToast]

0:17 audience laugh fail

[murderofcrows06]

Hey guys...the whole "THE WORLD IS THINKING" gets fucking old after about 867945 fucking videos. Especially when you watch a few in a row,

So...yeah, we know. The world's thinking, hooray...now make up another intro or do like The Young Turks and just make one without audio. Because this one's starting to drive me batshit!

[easymike]

No shame here. It's what I pointed out in the first place. Read my first post. You should have accepted it and learned from it Mrmoc7.

You seem to feel that you can win an argument by making false claims whether its against her or me. It just does not work.

Your ad hominem nonsence is rather obvious and puerile.

[Mrmoc7]

"now you...claim to know what she would "like" to say even though she did not say it."

That's the problem isn't it? I'm not just now trying to claim that. This is what I have claimed since the beginning, but you are now just seeing it after I called your attention to it, and like an imbecile, you're trying earnestly not to look like the complete buffoon you are by asserting "I've just "proved [your] point." I'm surprised that this kind of rubbish is coming from a 64 year old; SHAME on you.

[easymike]

You've just proved my point. First you called her an idiot with absolutely no evidence to indicate idiocy of any kind and now you have the temerity to claim to know what she would "like" to say even though she did not say it.

What you are doing is called projecting not comprehending. I read exactly what you wrote that is the basis on which you were challenged Mrmoc7. No paradox at all.

She simply did not say what you claimed, period.

[Mrmoc7]

Reread what I wrote.

Notice how i used "emotionally balanced/capable" differently than the way you're taking it. Is this intentional?

Notice how I never claimed this woman said anything about "education of the emotions." In fact, my exact words were "...as idiots like her like to say, that art is education of the emotions."

Isn't it paradoxical that I'm being accused of having a comprehension problem by a fellow who is unable to read plain English, let alone critically assess an argument?

[easymike]

There is no GENUINE point of disagreement Mrmoc7 . You have a genuine comprehension problem. There is nothing in your  quotes that would connote seeking "emotional balance" or "education of the emotions". All of your selections are either poetic, intellectual or analogous to deliver both.

IF such an attempt had been made it could be argued that it could be possible that some works of art could accomplish it. But since none was made that argument is moot and you are either wrong or deluded.

[Mrmoc7]

As you can see from my two previous posts, my argument that she believes those who have been exposed to *difficult art* to be more emotionally capable/balanced than the rest of us is not unwarranted and unsubstantiated. I hope you will honor the efforts it took to piece together these various excerpts from her speech and not bother prolonging this argument further unless you STILL have a GENUINE point of disagreement on this topic.

[Mrmoc7]

allowed art to "get into [their] vitals and turn [them] inside out, those who were fed this "artistic spinach" at a young age and have it as a reservoir to "draw on in later life," those whose brains have been challenged by difficult art to "make new pathways," are best disposed to deal with this "appalling stuff that's going to happen in our future," compared to those that don't "have any practice at dealing with it," that is, those who haven't been exposed to *difficult art.* (......end....)

[Mrmoc7]

"What exactly did she say that proves otherwise?"

She said that people who have more practice and experience with *difficult* art, the "artistic spinach" of the brain, those who have experienced the "humility and exhilaration" of a puzzling artwork, those who have not impulsively resisted the entry of Art into "places in [their] psyches that are not comfortable to be in," those who have (continued, see next post.....)

[easymike]

Opinion? Hardly, I say it is fact. What exactly did she say that proves otherwise?

At best you have made an unwarranted and unsubstantiated assumption Mrmoc7

[Mrmoc7]

Well, that is one man's opinion...