Notes & Queries 4th October 2013 – A troubling encounter with Harald Bɵrja
| image generated by Grok |
Nobody would dispute that the impression Harald Bɵrja has made upon the global art scene has been largely through force of personality. In the past he has been criticised for his use of intimidation and aggressive behaviour to draw attention away from his selective approach to the hard scientific data which underpins his methodology.
I have been on the receiving end of one of Bɵrja's flem-flecked tirades, which was delivered three inches from my face in bellowed Norwegian, while an accompanying interpreter calmly listed an inventory of diseased farm animals (including many non-native species) that my mother apparently had congress with in order to bring me into the world. I was once a passenger on a cross-channel ferry, during a force 10 gale, and came away from that experience rather less rattled than I did following the five minutes that I spent in the rabid company of Harald Bɵrja.
The source of our disagreement (as far as I can tell) was the beauty, or lack thereof, of a cuckoo clock in the dining room of the hotel where we were both staying. Incredibly, at the end of our rather one-sided argument, we both shook hands, although I did so mostly through shock.
Bɵrja’s approach to aesthetics is purportedly scientific, employing a battery of tests that first identify the pathways taken by a given artist, then attempt to break down the creative steps involved. The completed artwork is subjected to analysis that naturally varies depending on the medium. Paintings are given rigorous spectrographic examination. The prevailing direction of brushstrokes is ascertained, and so on and so forth. While this methodology does provide demystifying insights into the artistic process, there are numerous works of art that are widely held in high regard, that would be found lacking in merit if Bɵrja’s aesthetics were the final word on the subject. Eino Jalava – a Finn who creates large wood carvings in living trees – pointed out that while Bɵrja claims scientific detachment, his choice of which tests to use allows for a subjective bias to creep in. This observation has earned him an in-person dressing down from the angry Norwegian:
“He rang my door bell early one Sunday morning and then yelled at me without pause for almost half an hour. I didn't understand a word he was saying. The dog came to see what all the commotion was about. After a few minutes he [the dog] got bored wandered back into the house. Parked in the street, I could see the motorhome that Harald uses for travel around Europe, as he is averse to flying. So far as I know he had no business in Finland other than to berate me. Later, I worked out that it must have taken him almost a full day to drive across Norway and Sweden to my home. I have no idea how he found out my address.”
Bɵrja 's approach does raise some interesting points for discussion. For example, the extent to which we should allow technology to influence our appreciation of art. If it turns out that we have the scientific mean to define beauty in objective terms, should this form part of our appreciation of a given work, or should we rely purely on the input of our senses?
Comments
Post a Comment