Overdue
I have overdue novels, overdue DVDs, overdue holiday presents to buy and mail, an overdue book review to write, and now it turns out my charitable giving is long overdue too—so many things to feel guilty about! At least I didn’t follow my instincts with the annoying stranger in the train station who told me to Cheer up! the other day when the morning scowl on my face apparently troubled him enough to prompt the inappropriate imperative; he was long overdue for a kick in the pants.
*******
Ross and I have had two rather intense conversations in the last couple of days. On Sunday afternoon, sitting on a comfy round leather sofa on the third floor of the Guggenheim, we disagreed about the relative importance of
1) protecting and preserving art from oily noses and curious fingers, and
2) presenting art in a way that encourages the owners of said noses and fingers to experience and investigate it as closely as they wish.
That particular conversation was precipitated by a museum guard chiding a patron who had stepped over a line on the floor, laid down in black electrical tape, in order to examine a Kandinsky painting more intimately. It turned out that Ross and I (maybekindasorta) agreed, but it took a good long while to figure that out.
Tonight’s debate was about the article on philanthropic giving and moral responsibility I linked to above (I highly recommend it, by the way). This time we found it difficult to reconcile our reactions to the following description of Zell Kravinsky’s aggressively egalitarian beliefs about the value of human life:
“Asked if he would allow his child to die if it would enable a thousand children to live, Kravinsky said yes. Indeed, he has said he would permit his child to die even if this enabled only two other children to live.”
I’ll let you imagine what we each thought of that.
What I really want to say is how much I love having a companion with whom I do disagree so often, in such delightfully interesting ways. If we don’t end up killing each other, I’m pretty sure our twilight years are going to be very entertaining indeed.
We’re enjoying our life of marital discord over a beer right now.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I’m going to guess that you thought the museum patron should be allowed to examine the painting more closely, and Ross thought that the integrity of the painting was more important than to allow this close examination.
I’m not going to touch the dying children.
December 20th, 2006 at 6:17 am
What weighty debate! If I were to die that others might live, the answer is simple. However, to allow my child to die for the same reason, I wonder! I believe that we are just custodian of our offsprings, so it is not for us to permit the child’s sacificial death, albeit for the benefit of other children. On the other hand, in my religious belief, God allowed His Son to die that mankind might live. He has set the example.
I guess if I were put to test I will probably say no.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:29 am
E., basically, yes. But we were more talking about the subtle, unspoken messages that museums send to the public when they do things like create physical barriers between people and artwork, accompanied by watchful guards to make sure those barriers aren’t transgressed. I think those things may indeed be entirely necessary, but that they feed deeply into the wider culture’s understanding of and attitude towards art; Ross doesn’t think the messages are that powerful or that pervasive.
And I feel like I should assure everyone that in the second discussion, we weren’t locked in a showdown debating our personal answers to the question, “Would you let your child die if it saved others?” We were talking about what Kravinksy’s answer to that question suggested about his overall philosophy and value system, and whether the decisions he made in other areas of his life matched his calculus for determining when to sacrifice and when to hold back on giving. Long story. :-)
December 21st, 2006 at 12:51 am
I say cheers to the beer
December 21st, 2006 at 1:14 am
This makes me think of “Sophie’s Choice” and how such choices are rarely simple or clear-cut. They defy simple right or wrong answers or perhaps all the answers are right or are wrong. I agree with cheers to the beer and also the the glories of being able to have such conversations without coming to blows (so to speak).