Of Arrogance and Aesthetics

  I watched a very strange movie the other day. A Midnight in Paris, written and directed by Woody Allen. I didn’t like it because it was sophisticated. I don’t mean sophisticated in the common use of the word, where it is to distinguish someone with honor. I employ it with the intent to summon the memory of the Greek Sophists, who impressed people with their words and rhetoric, but lacked real substance and rigorous argumentation. We do not look kindly upon them, and that is more or less what Woody Allen is doing here in this move. 

The story is basically this: an aspiring American writer moves to Paris, France, and while there, embarks on a magical journey to the past to meet famous aesthetes such as Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, and many others. He falls in love with the beauty of the atmosphere and is excited to have met all his heroes, only to eventually realize then even these giants stand on the shoulders of giants, so he too should aspire to be the giant for his time. There is nothing wrong with this, but the problem with the movie is that is delivers it with arrogance. 

What do I mean? Well, there is this scene in the movie where the main character is tired of being one-upped by one of the antagonistic characters with his knowledge of art and literature. We could say that the antagonist was sophisticated, however, he uses this knowledge to impress people to puff himself up, which is what the Sophists did. Then, after the hero of the story has returned from his magical journey with Stein and Picasso, he uses an exchange he witnessed between them two to finally one-up the antagonist, thus belittling him. So, what we are supposed to see is arrogance defeated. No such thing has happened, because Allen is doing the exact same thing to the audience. The common American has little knowledge of Stein (who may as well have not been American) and perhaps a little more of Hemingway, but it doesn’t amount to much. So when Allen makes these references to these well established characters of history, he is doing to us what the antagonist is doing to the hero, belittling us if we lack knowledge of who these characters are. If we don’t know who we are, then we are not as sophisticated, and that’s bad. 

The sad part about this is that I’ve seen this encouraged in others. I saw this movie with a group of people. The scene in which Picasso first appears, he is not immediately identified. One of my friends then asks the rest of the group, “You guys know who that is, right?” Of course, that’s a rhetorical question. What he was really saying is, “You should know who that is.” But what if we didn’t? Then what? Well, if don’t know who he is, though we should, then shame on us. We are belittled for not knowing what Picasso might look like or act like. This is, once again, arrogance, and this friend of mine who asked this question was encouraged to act in such a way by the background that Allen has tried to set us in. Allen is displaying his sophistry, and it impressed my good friend, and he wanted to get on Allen’s sophist level, which is not, if history has taught us anything, something we want to be. 

Funny thing about this particular incident was that I was the only other person in that group who could identify who that character was. This was only because I had to read some of Stein’s works in High School, and her Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas twice, which was really her own autobiography, so I knew that she had a close relationship with the artist, so it wasn’t difficult to induce who this character was. But inductions are akin to educated guesses, so I didn’t “know” with certainty who this was. In fact, the only reason I even know about Stein is that my teacher told me she was a lesbian author, so I decided to pick up some of her books expecting to read hot steamy sex scenes. 

Now, does this mean to say that those who can actually keep up are arrogant? That to have such knowledge is arrogant? No, not at all. I knew who most of these people were. But I didn’t club people over the head with it. There is an appropriate situation for these things. I learned this when I was watching another movie with two other friends. I don’t remember what movie it was, but one friend had mentioned that it was filmed in a house that Frank Lloyd Wright had designed. The other friend did not know who this person was, to my surprise. My other friend then briefly explained that he was one of America’s more well known architects and inventors. The other then replied, “Man, I’m going to have to read a lot to have to keep up with you” to which I thought, that isn’t much to keep up with. How is it that he doesn’t know who Wright is? Who didn’t learn about Wright in middle school or elementary school? What I realized is that people who have such knowledge can be puffed up because they are relatively learned. It really isn’t impressive to say that one knows about the Wrights. However, that is no reason to look at him with incredulity like I did. Why? Because I am reminded of my ignorance. 

This ignorance, or at least the humility to accept this ignorance, will keep one in balance. It will not prompt people to say, “You know who that is, right?” For example, Stephen Colbert interviewed James Franco, and Colbert was impressed with Franco’s credentials, calling him a Renaissance man. Franco denied it, and said that this said more about the state of the society around him rather him Franco himself. Another friend who watched this interview accused Franco of going ad hom with the American people. But he did no such thing. He doesn’t flaunt these credentials in people’s face. He isn’t exclusive with his roles either. I honestly think he sucked in Spider-Man., but he did a good job playing a pot-head in Pineapple Express. Would such a sophisticated man play such an unsophisticated character? He would if he’s humble. 

My point then is simply this: you can have an aesthetic overload to which you actually defeat the purpose of having anything aesthetic to begin with. This Allen movie is a perfect example of such an aesthetic overload. I am not criticizing aesthetics, but its abuse. 

When it comes to aesthetics, things need to be given (and taken) in moderation. Those that overindulge in things that are good and pleasing (and these are sensations we experience when we experience beauty) are also known as gluttons. To eat is good. It provides nourishment. To eat for pleasure is fine too, when done in moderation. But to over do it is gluttonous. To seek and participate in beauty is fine and should be pursued. Those who seek it to do it without moderation and with no cognizance of the context is foolish. For example, think of St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow Russia. It looks like a beautiful Cathedral and it exemplifies Slavic architecture. However, it is highlighted not by it’s own intrinsic beauty, but by its setting as well. In the pictures I’ve seen, it is usually accompanied by wide open space and snow. Sometimes you can see the Kremlin in the background, but that compliments it. It compliments it because the Soviet Union was antagonistic with religion, so it really stood out as a dualism. That religion and its landmarks could still persevere in the face of cold hard atheistic communism is a beautiful message. So in that way, it is appropriate and can make it even better. Now, imagine someone took St. Basil’s Cathedral and dropped it in Times Square, New York. Is it beautiful now? Well, looking solely at the Cathedral, maybe. But that would be to ignore it’s environment or its context. If it is still beautiful, it is too beautiful and as the cliché goes, it sticks out like a sore thumb. But who wants to look at sore thumbs? In this case, such beauty is not appropriate, thus defeating the purpose of having something beautiful to begin with. The thrust of the thought is this: Times Square is not ugly. It has it’s own beauty and it’s own rules of urbanization, which it follows appropriately, which is why we consider it very appealing to look at. 

Another example: I was at a birthday party at TGIF. Most people were drinking soda. A person came up to a friend who was sitting next to me to recommend to him a wine. My friend is relatively knowledgeable about wines, so there was nothing wrong with this. However, as everyone else was drinking sodas out of cups, wine and a wine glass would stick out and bring attention to itself. However, this is like sticking a cathedral in Time Square. It is inappropriate. To appropriately stick out, I would recommend getting a beer or a margarita, as they are served in similar cups and may even contain some soda in it. It blends in well with the environment, which was a group of college students, yet it stood out just enough to be pleasing to the eye. That is not to say beer is wrong to have or right to have, or that wine is wrong to have or right to have. Both are fine, but you wouldn’t drop a monocle-wearing French wine connoisseur in the middle of Oktoberfest or a lederhosen-wearing German in a French wine-tasting event. 

Therefore, in the same way, such knowledge about literary or artistic characters is not bad to have. However, such knowledge must be delivered in an appropriate setting, or else you’re just a jerk. The Sophists spewed their sophistry everywhere, and Socrates exposed them as frauds. But what made Socrates brilliant at it was that he sustained his humility. He was in fact more skillful and more knowledgeable than the Sophists, but he never bragged about it. This is why the oracle called him the wisest man, because of his humility, or his sober judgment. There is no sobriety in this Allen movie. It’s an aesthetic overload. I would have enjoyed this movie as an art professor. I would have enjoyed this movie in a class about post WWII literature. I did not see this under those circumstances. Allen has no intent on this audience. His audience is just the layman. But does he expect the layman to get the subtle references and the quasi-inside jokes? No, it’s just stroking his ego, letting us know that he is much more cultured and much more sophisticated than most of us, bathing in his esoteric pride. He, and those who would mimic his attitude, would never pass through the mind of an oracle.