A Kind Of Boxing Match
Posted by Ian Barford on 4/15/2009
Recently, I was traveling in Ireland with a dear friend of 25 years. One evening, we found ourselves dining at the old Ballynahinch Castle in Connemara when our conversation landed on Chicago’s Soldier Field. We both grew up with deep impressions of the good ‘ole Bears - the Monsters of the Midway - and consider Soldier Field to be central to the architectural character of Chicago. In passing, I commented on how hideous I found the new design, “The flying saucer that landed on the Parthenon…,” when my friend interjected, “I like it.”
In that moment, my blood went cold. Hackles raised. Instantaneously, I became a predator.
“You like it? How the hell could you like it?”
“I like it. I like that they kept the columns. I think it bridges the old with the modern in a beautiful way,” he said.
Appallingly, I found myself utterly incapable of accepting this point of view. “You must be joking…a beautiful way?! The grandeur of those old columns is being smothered by this oppressive appeal to the corporate demand. Fine if they need to do it - but don’t subjugate the old beauty under this cold and ominous flying saucer!”
“I think it works beautifully. Not to mention the vast improvement to the interior,” my friend calmly responded.
“Great - why don’t we build a five-story apartment building on top of this 200-year-old castle? That’ll work beautifully, too, won’t it?”
My friend, quite correctly, was dumbfounded at my arrogance. “Who do you think you are to speak to me that way?”
“We’re having a conversation…what’s your problem?” I responded.
A few minutes later, unswayed by the slightest conciliatory impulse and after a “F$@k you” from my friend, I found myself alone at the table with a belly of my opinions and a good dose of shame. A couple nearby, having heard the entire conversation, glared at me with unreserved contempt, as if the stench of my arrogance had permeated the entire room.
Thankfully, my friend and I were able to mend the wounds from our verbal scuffle and enjoy the rest of our travels. He explained to me that in his life experience it was not only pointless to argue aesthetics, it just wasn’t done. If someone has an opinion, that’s that and it is NOT personal. Whereas for me, I was oriented toward argument on any subject matter being compulsory and it WAS personal. A well-articulated point of view on any subject matter was a point of pride. Argument was a kind of boxing match.
When I began looking at the script of Art in preparation for coming into the show I was struck by this experience in Ireland. “I love Serge”, Marc says. “I can’t love the Serge who’s capable of buying that painting”. My friend’s taste for the new architecture at Soldier Field represented an assault on my perception of the structure of our relationship. If he didn’t conform to my taste, then who am I to him…and subsequently, who am I, period.
Our ego attachment to shared taste is a fascinating identifying marker. It happens. And yet, Yvan’s quote of his therapist’s view of friendship makes perfect sense. If we identify who we are through others, then our identity is not our own. Certainly not a revelatory notion but nonetheless it is amazing how prevalent this is. Friends can pass through our lives because they serve a temporal purpose. As conditions change, friends can change with them.
BUT, I think the real revelation that Marc has in Art is that he doesn’t want his friendship with Serge to be conditional or temporal and he is struggling mightily with the changing conditions. As Serge explores a more independent mind-set, Marc’s sense of himself is threatened because his identity is dependent on Serge’s conforming to him.
Conversely, Serge was complicit in the dynamic Marc refers to because he needed Marc’s courage to stand apart from culturally conventional attitudes to feel his own sense of independence/identity. Objective truth in these matters is very murky.
My friend has recently e-mailed me several articles concerning Soldier Field and subsequently my perspective has expanded.
Alas, we’re still great friends.
Hopefully, friends aren’t just people we use for various temporary purposes and then discard when they’ve exhausted their utilitarian purpose. But back to Soldier Field - BOTH my friend and I are VERY excited that for once in our lifetimes…THE BEARS HAVE A QUARTERBACK!!!
May 16th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
IB,
Your point is nicely made - tastes and opinions are often touchy. However, there are opinions of experts and conventional wisdom that forms an orthodoxy about issues that is important to consider. This obviously takes time to develop and can still leave room for conversation/argument. Perhaps the more subtle related issue is keeping emotion in check during conversations like these. I look forward to seeing how taste, emotion and friendship are balanced when I see your production of Art next week.
PB
ps. We both know where your penchant for argument comes from!