The Mask in the Glass Case

I want to tell you about a clay mask. It sits in a glass case at the British Museum, in the Mesopotamian galleries. The mask is approximately three thousand eight hundred years old, made in southern Iraq during the Old Babylonian period. Its face was made to terrify. The hair tangles into serpentine coils across the brow. The grin is bared, with one tooth chipped on the left side. Hooded sockets sink the eyes into darkness. Time has cracked the surface of the clay in seven places that I have counted. That mask was paid for. Someone took silver from a temple administrator's hand and walked it across the city to a workshop, where a craftsman took clay and pigment and several days of his working life and converted them into a monster.

The monster was a job.

The figure left the workshop on the back of a delivery cart, settled by an invoice that the temple's accountants logged in their cuneiform ledgers. We do not know who the patron was. The artisan is also anonymous to us. The tablets that recorded the rate structures of the Old Babylonian craft economy survive in archives in London and Chicago and Berlin, and those tablets establish that the transaction happened, even though the specific contract for this specific mask has not survived.

Check out this episode!

Tomorrow as Tribute

The simple argument is the trade. Across more than a dozen contemporary cases, voter populations have agreed to trade the material future of their political communities for the maintenance of a fantasy past. The trade is voluntary. The costs include dead soldiers, dismantled institutions, scientific apparatus lost across decades, and democratic procedures captured by movements that openly oppose them. Voters know the costs. They have decided that the costs are worth it. The difficult argument comes after that recognition. Once you accept that the trade is voluntary, you cannot organize around the assumption that the voters have been tricked. You also cannot organize around the assumption that better information will change their minds. The voters know what they are doing. They are participants in a transaction they understand at the level that matters to them. They are buying something. Today we ask what the something is, and what it would take to offer them a better deal.

Check out this episode!

What Was Kept From You

There was a moment in your life when you found out.

Maybe you were eleven, and a cousin let something slip at a family dinner. Perhaps it happened at thirty-four, going through a parent's papers after a funeral, when a folder you were not supposed to open contained a name you had never heard. Or you were fifty-eight, and a half-sister you did not know you had appeared in your DNA results.

The detail varies from one person to the next. What stays constant is the texture of the moment. The room reorganizes itself. Around it, the faces of the people who had known reorganize along with the room. And then the realization arrives, that the world you had been living in was a smaller version of the world, edited for you, by people who had decided what you could be told and when.

I want to talk right now about what it means to sit on the receiving end of a structural decision someone else has made about your knowledge. The decisions where a person, or a committee, or an institution, looks at another human being and decides that the truth would not serve them. That the truth will be administered later, in doses, on a schedule the person being administered to did not consent to and cannot see.

Check out this episode!

The River and the Trained Eye

I keep walking past the same stretch of river. Most days I cross over it. Sometimes I stop. There is a place along the New Jersey side of the Hudson where you can stand and see the water moving in two directions at the same time, depending on where you fix your eyes. The surface goes one way. Beneath it, the deeper current is going the other way. The Mohican word for the river is Muhheakantuck. It means the waters that are never still. When you say the word, you have already been told what to look for.

This is what I have been thinking about for the last several months, while finishing a book that came out this week. The book is called RelationShaping: Field Studies. It is the companion volume to The Scientific Aesthetic, and it asks one question across ten different settings: what changes about a person when they become trained to see something the rest of us walk past?

The book's working claim is that relational seeing is a competence. A real competence, the kind you acquire the way a child acquires reading. Reading is acquired somewhere in the practice. After several thousand hours of reading across genres, against difficulty, with attention, the capacity arrives. There is no moment to point to. Sentences just appear and you know what they say. Reading French is the same. The capacity arrives somewhere in the reading itself, after the exercise sets are done, after several thousand pages have crossed the eye against difficulty.

Check out this episode!

The Painters of 1839 and the Question of Now

Paris, August nineteenth, eighteen thirty-nine. François Arago, perpetual secretary of the Académie des Sciences, stands at a joint session of the Académie des Sciences and the Académie des Beaux-Arts. He reads into the record the technical details of Louis Daguerre's photographic process. The French state has acquired the rights from Daguerre and Isidore Niépce in exchange for life pensions of six thousand francs per year and four thousand francs per year. Sunlight, Arago tells the chamber, can now be made to draw its own pictures. 

Within weeks the satirical press of Paris is mocking photographers as mechanics, copyists, charlatans. Paul Delaroche, the academic history painter at the height of his reputation, is reported, perhaps apocryphally, to have said: from this day, painting is dead. Twenty years later Charles Baudelaire writes the canonical hostile statement. He wants photography kept in its place. Useful for documenting monuments, useful for assisting the working artist, excluded from the category of art.

The painters of 1839 were wrong. They were also partly right.

Check out this episode!

UNDERWRITTEN

I want to start with four seconds.

If you watched public television anywhere in the United States between 1971 and January of this year, you know these four seconds. A human face in profile, rendered first in the three colors of mid-century corporate design, recast in 1984 as a trio of interlocking faces on a field of white. Six synthesizer notes descending, resolving to a sustained major ninth chord. A voice that said three words.

This is PBS.

The sequence took less than four seconds. Before it ran: documentaries, children's programming, nature films, dramatic adaptations of novels too difficult for commercial television to attempt. News came after it. Cooking instruction followed. Home-improvement demonstration, classical music, weather announcements on rural affiliates, local public-affairs segments, national programming from Omaha and Boise and Portland and Lincoln, Nebraska, all carrying the same four-second preamble.

Check out this episode!

The Apothecary Who Was Not Written

Shakespeare wrote the apothecary twenty lines and then disappeared him from the text.

Think about what that means for a moment. Romeo, banished to Mantua, walks into a shop and asks a starving man to sell him poison. The apothecary refuses. The apothecary cites the law. Mantua punishes the sale of such drugs with death. Romeo counters that the world affords no law to make him rich. Forty ducats change hands. A vial changes hands. Romeo leaves. Shakespeare's attention returns to Verona, to the tomb, to the reconciliation of the feuding houses.

The apothecary remains in his shop. He has forty ducats on the counter. He has just committed a capital crime. Nobody has ever asked him what happened next.

Check out this episode!