
The onset of the modernist movement in western art marked the decline of realism from its place of dominance. In sharp contrast to the realist attempt to imitate the natural world, the moderns saw their art, instead, as an extension of it. But while the modernist movement may have dismissed realism as an “illusionistic” or a “mechanical enterprise,” in The Objective Eye author John Hyman takes a radical new approach to the genre that explores these works as subjects of a much deeper aesthetic interest. Edward Skidelsky writes in a recent review for the New Statesman: “The Objective Eye… scrupulously dissects the various myths and confusions surrounding the concept of depiction, with the aim of rehabilitating realism as ‘one kind of excellence in art.'” Skidelsky applauds Hyman’s work for “championing what sees as the natural, and pre-theoretical stance of artists themselves” and reinvigorating interest in the realist genre in the context of twentieth century criticism. Philosophers, art historians, and students of the arts will find The Objective Eye to be a challenging and absorbing read. . . .
Is the T. S. A. Gambling with Your Safety?
After the arrests in Britain involving a plot to bomb several airliners bound for the U.S., the Transportation Security Administration says it will train and deploy screeners in airports to identify terrorists using behavioral cues. But is this really the best way to secure the safety of our airways? Bernard L. Harcourt, a University of Chicago professor of law and the author of Language of the Gun, wrote an intriguing op-ed piece for the New York Times in which he discusses the shortcomings of the statistical methods behind behavioral profiling—a discussion that sets the stage for his forthcoming book Against Predicition: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. Harcourt’s article makes the case that “investing heavily in seemingly high-tech airport security methods like behavioral profiling” is not a viable solution to securing the nation’s airways and, in fact, “may make air travel less safe on the whole.” Harcourt backs up his claim by citing the “many studies of the ability to detect truth and deception” recently conducted that, he says, have been “largely disappointing.” “A review of the literature,” says Harcourt, “published in 2000 found that in experiments where subjects were trying to detect whether others were telling the . . .
Read more »