
Out of the Cell - fern12
https://granta.com/out-of-the-cell/
======
jessriedel
> As a little boy in Oxford, I was encouraged to worship the mind. I and my
> friends, often sons of professors, were being drilled in French and Latin
> and Greek before we turned seven,

> ...

> Marcus Aurelius had given me all kinds of wisdom for dealing with loss –
> impeccable in theory – and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar had taught me about
> the fury of the irrational. But when I thought of texts like that, I was
> back in the mind of my schoolboy days, and that was the structure that now
> lay in rubble.

> ...

> As a writer, I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers
> is not dazzling argumentation, or references to the classics, but those
> moments we all know when we sit, helpless, before ravenous flames, or sense
> that we can only bow before those turns along the road, harrowing and
> uplifting, we will never begin to understand.

Is the author really claiming that all that fancy book learning is overrated
because it didn't emotionally prepare the author for having his house burn
down? Does he really think reading the sorts of emotional retrospectives like
the present one would have prepared him?

I hear this argument all the time from artists: "Oh you analytical types, you
spend all this time with sophisticated theories and discussion, but you don't
really understand X because you haven't experienced it." Which is fine insofar
as they only argue that analysis cannot fully replace first-hand experience in
some human affairs. Duh. But very often they continue by arguing (either
explicitly or implicitly) that _consuming art_ somehow prepares you better.
This is something that I've just never understood. Of the dramatic emotional
experiences I've had, I've never thought art prepared me. Rather, I've very
often thought "Wait, _this_ is what they were talking about? This is what all
those love songs (or whatever) were written about? It is _completely_
different than I expected."

If artists were serious about accurately communicating experiences (either to
prepare the viewer for ones they would later have, or to allow the viewer to
know about something they could never experience), the practice of art would
look a hell of a lot different. For instance, there would be much more effort
made to _check_ to see if various artistic works actually communicated things
accurately by (say) studying whether viewers who had an experience were
surprised by aspects of the experience despite having previously consumed the
relevant art. (This is useful even if most viewers never have the true
experience.)

Instead, the practice of art looks much more optimized for giving viewer
intense compelling experiences _without_ trying to maintain accuracy at all.
And that's fine if that's the end goal. But they shouldn't pretend it's
somehow about preparing you for life.

~~~
carbocation
> For instance, there would be much more effort made to check to see if
> various artistic works actually communicated things accurately by (say)
> studying whether viewers who had an experience were surprised by aspects of
> the experience despite having previously consumed the relevant art.

This is a fascinating idea. Imagine Facebook injecting various works of art
into the timeline of 1 billion people (since the effect size will almost
certainly be minuscule, you're going to need a large N). Then, as these people
report various life experiences (ended relationship, etc), their
happiness/despair/resilience scores (which are probably already being
computed) could be assessed and the relationship to the art, if any, could be
ascertained. ( _Caveat_ being that conducting a trial in the fashion I
described would be pragmatic, but at least arguably unethical.)

~~~
Spooky23
That’s an amazing idea and example of what something like Facebook could be,
versus the more banal reality.

