« 1st Annual
Slouching Towards Alphaville Award |
Main
| The Pleasures of City Life »
Monday, May 17, 2004
News from the Stars
Brad Pitt is reportedly going to stop acting for a year in order to work in Frank Gehry's office and learn more about architecture and CAD. In the current Vanity Fair he quotes Gehry: "If you know where it's going, it's not worth doing."
"That's become like a mantra for me," Pitt says."That's the life of the artist."
That's the ego speaking. Michaelangelo and Rafael made more beautiful work than the very talented Mr. Gehry because they realized there is something greater than the ego and put their work at the service of that.
Mrs. Pitt, Jennifer Aniston (in case you didn't know that), might have a different view on this. She went to the Waldorf school in New York City, which teaches the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, a philosopher, educator and mystic from the early 20th century.
One of Steiner's fundamental beliefs is that in order to progress we must learn the ability to drop the ego when required. This is part of the philosophy behind the introductory quote on the school's website:
Our highest endeavour must be to develop free human beings, who are able of themselves to impart purpose and direction to their lives.In the context of Steiner's work, that is in some ways the opposite of Gehry's quote. And not unrelated to the ideas in Christopher Alexander's new books.
Of course we're still in the age of Vanity Fair, and in Hollywood there's a large contingent that thinks the Ego is solely an unmitigated good.
May 17, 2004 in Architecture, Classicism, Culture, Film, Religion & Metaphysics, Urbanism | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/11457/742294
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference News from the Stars:
Comments
In the case of Michaelangelo, the thing more important than ego was money: all of the major pieces were commissioned by the either the Pope, or by merchants needing to save their souls from the sin of having profitted by their business.
While the execution is exquisite, the subject matter of Michaelangelo's work was, as with most Italian Renaissance work, the result of negotiation between the artist and the patron - with the patron by far the most powerful. Michaelangelo may well have been a very religious man, but he painted the Sistine chapel as a career move. In fact he didn't want to do it, and it was only when he realised that Raphael was setting him up for a couple of years of seclusion by continually suggesting him to the Pope, that he decided to show his rival what he could really do. This is partly why he did the whole thing himself, without a studio to colour in the big bits - it was a big f-you to his rivals, and a great career move with respect to the Pope, the richest Patron of the time.
Posted by: Ben Hammersley at May 18, 2004 4:49:06 AM
It's all a matter of emphasis. Life and people are complicated, and we know Michaelangelo had an ego too, because everyone does.
I don't disagree with anything you said, except perhaps in the relevant emphasis of what was more or less important. Your ranking seems to be more of the standard of the 20th century than the 16th century values of Michaelangelo's time. It raises the importance of the self, the ego, competition and materialism. More important to him, and his patrons, was the divine and unity.
We've been weak on this, so we tend to be cynical about the intentions of others in the past. Again, it's all a matter of emphasis.
Love is the opposite of the ego. Michaelangelo wouldn't put it this way, because his culture was just starting to develop the modern concept of the ego. He operated within a very different culture, and it's a mistake to interpret their motives as though they were just like us.
At the same time, since he was 18, Brad Pitt has had half of America and most of Hollywood telling him that he's the sexiest man in the world. And his job is to convince hundreds of millions that he's the sexiest man in the world (even while he tells himself that he's taking "creative" roles). Gehry's 20th century philosophy is a natural for him. And how many of us could resist the adulation of hundreds of millions?
But we're not in the 20th century any more.
Posted by: John Massengale at May 18, 2004 10:23:49 AM
I realize I really need a computer connexion at home tonight.
I suggest though reading Michelangelo's personal journals, though its fuzzy in my memory, it is quite personal about his ambitions and whatnot.
As for egos, look to Bernini and Borromini, Bernini was the star of his time, told from an early age he was to be "the Michelangelo of his day", and Borromini the egotist struggling to outdo his peer. I could be wrong and probably am, but I had always pictured Bernini as the man of pure talent, who though studyed and worked hard had a much easier time than most, and Borromini a man who through hard work did great things but never quite had the praise or such an easy time at it.
Posted by: Boots at May 21, 2004 4:32:18 AM
