Dietrich / ThoseWhoSeeMore

MICROSTORY OF ART

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM

---

Those Who See More

Those Who See More

The one good thing about the global financial crisis (perhaps the only good thing) is that it stimulated brilliant movies about the crisis. Meant to explain it, to reflect upon it, to have audiences live through it from various perspectives, and to have spectators muse about what it was, how it is to explain (in hindsight), and perhaps also: about what to learn from all this.
The interesting thing from a humanities point of view is now that various movies have developed particular narratives to depict, to reflect upon and to explain the crisis, and one of these narratives, adapted by the 2015 movie The Big Short, directed by Adam McKay and based on the brilliant book by Michael Lewis, one might sum up by saying that there were a few people that could see more than other people. People who saw it, the crisis, coming. And this, this particular narrative, is what we are interested in here.
The movie depicts people, particularly Dr. Michael Burry, who in some sense is the embodiment of the whole narrative, who – in a retrospective view, we must add – had seen more, and who also had been able, to various degrees, to use this ›more‹ to their own benefit.
Which might already be an interesting point to start a discussion about the narrative of few people seeing more than others, and the film does also bring out the question of morality very well (morality represented rather by other people and not necessarily by Dr. Michael Burry, despite his sense of justice and morality that accuses the system to be fraudulent): isn’t someone who sees a crisis, a national, even global crisis coming, obliged to warn (and thus to act against his own benefit). At least to attempt to warn (since he might not get through). And here we see that the movie, and the book it is based on, actually discuss a very ambiguous narrative: there were some, able to see more than others, but they still used this discernment chiefly for their own purposes (when betting against the American economy). And, at close inspection, there were also several, and perhaps not so few people, within the system, who also could see more, but could not use this discernment to their own benefit, not did they speak out (perhaps this would have meant to act against their own benefit).
But now, one might say on the other hand, we have their stories, and we can learn from them and discuss the stories of some seeing more than others. Which is what we do here – in a context that is actually dedicated to art and connoisseurship (and thus questions of seeing, perceiving, interpreting and – perhaps: acting). In a section dedicated to bring out the complexity of the narrative of Those Who See More, its various motives, and some questions associated with it.

---

Adagia:

If Erasmus of Rotterdam had collected his Adagia, proverbial sayings from ancient literature, today, he might have mused more about the proverb ›In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king‹. Actually Erasmus had not much to say about it, but whoever browses the Adagia does know that Erasmus did not only collect, but used these sayings to comment about contemporary affairs, and that the Adagia as a whole offer much more wisdom to reflect about, well, the housing crisis of 2005ff., than just this one saying, and much more than one might think of. In any rate: Erasmus, who transmitted antique wisdom, had much to do with contemporary writer Michael Lewis, who told the story of Dr. Michael Burry as the story of the one-eyed, being king among the blinds. See Inter caecos regnat strabus. See Burry, Dr. Michael.

PS: Several humanists, by the way, used their findings in antique literature for their own benefit and as more exclusive knowledge. But not Erasmus, who was anxious to popularize them, so that everybody could make use of them.

---

Blue Hour of Capitalism, The:

The equally brilliant 2011 film Margin Call has a different narrative. It does condense the whole crisis into the story of one night (plus about another 12 hours). And for the cynic capitalist, there will indeed (and perhaps always, as we may think) be a bright new day with a capital lunch and a spectacular view. Is there someone seeing more? Is there someone seeing it coming? Yes, there is. Chiefly it is the one who is able to work with numbers (background in rocket science). It’s just numbers (but the pay on Wall Street was better), and seeing more just means here to save the firm, to save the cynic capitalist.
Margin Call does not challenge the viewer with very complex explanations. Instead (as the cynic capitalist played by Jeremy Irons) has it: Explain it to me as if I was a young child. Or a golden retriever.

PS (quote from Wikipedia): The name Cynic derives from Ancient Greek κυνικός (kynikos), meaning ›dog-like‹, and κύων (kyôn), meaning ›dog‹ (genitive: kynos).

---

Bubble:

No one can see a bubble, which makes it a bubble.
But there are identifiers (marks), like for example…
No one can see a bubble, which makes it a bubble.
But,…
[Infinity; but see also: Identifier]

---

Burry, Dr. Michael:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry

Does anybody know that T-shirt motive?

---

Credibility:

Very interesting problem. First we may note that Erasmus has a proverb saying ›It’s a fine thing to deceive a fox‹ (Adagia, IV.V.22). Because the real Dr. Michael Burry faced the problem of not revealing too much of his knowledge vis-à-vis for example Goldman Sachs. The books of Michael Lewis perhaps makes this more clear than the movie, in saying that Dr. Michael Burry, in specific situations, had to lay stress on appearing more like an amateur, and not as someone seeing as clearly as a lynx. See Lynkeus.

---

Drum cover:

Yes, one can see that he’s drumming (the end credits have also a drumming mentor). With the piano it is easy: one does immediately see that, in films, actors are actually not playing. How is it, for example, with violinists? This, in Robert De Niro’s The Good Shepard, is meant to be the ultimate test within the film itself: is the Russian defector who he claims to be? He is not, but he does play very well (Tchaikovsky, I believe). Which means: the test actually meant nothing, but allowed the other to say: I just wanted to hear something from you that was true. See here.

---

Exclusive knowledge:

We know this from art connoisseurship. Decisive knowledge (identifiers of authorship of pictures) is not shared, but kept secret, since authority, reputation, and often money, is at stake. Scientific connoisseurship demands transparency and verifiability, which is why scientific connoisseurship has never become very popular among those being dedicated to art connoisseurship.
Erasmus did share. Are we on the right side, if we are sharing as well? Only if everything sticks, and every name is spelled correctly as well (I have to check it again).

---

Identifier:

What does it mean if an alligator resides in a pool? Or if a stripper owns five houses (and a condo)? The Big Short has this elegant cut. To Mark Baum saying into his phone: Hey, there is a bubble.
But Michael Burry knew it much earlier. Why? Increase of mortgage fraud (as I understand it). The matter is complicated and Michael Lewis has made an elegant decision as well: In his chapter which does introduce Dr. Michael Burry he does quote an email by the latter explaining the matter. Is the reader thought to understand it? Or is it meant to demonstrate: this is how someone argues who turns out to be one of those who see more.

---

Inter caecos regnat strabus:

Adagia, III.IV.96. – Erasmus basically gives us some variations. Strabus actually translates as ›cross-eyed‹, but another, Greek variation has ›one-eyed‹ (›In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king‹). – The commentary (Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 35) informs as that there is also ›In tuneless company the lark can sing‹. (See also Drum cover).

---

Investors’ revolt:

Dr. Michael Burry of The Big Short faced such thing. Not chiefly because, as I do understand it (specialists may correct me), because they did not believe what their fund manager had seen (resulting with him betting against housing bonds), but more because there was also the question of timing, the question of how long it would take the system would collapse, and how long it would take until the fund would actually make (a large amount of) money, and not loose it due to the paying of premiums on credit default swaps.
But the more abstract question is. Can the one who seems to see more get through with his message and win crucial support (of investors, or of whoever is interested in his acting, based on seeing more). See also Credibility.

---

Lynkeus:

Does not seem to be a very popular figure from ancient mythology – Lynceus (Argonaut). But one of those who see more. More clearly. Just better. See also the good-old academy of the lynx-eyed: Accademia dei Lincei.

---

Morality:

The paradox morality of the film’s Dr. Michael Burry is that he actually, at least to some degree, reveals what he believes to know. Not as a whistleblower. Not to the general public. But by betting against housing bonds he reveals his convictions, and in some sense also openly does warn the system. Resulting in few others, and later more and more, following him. This is the story of few people seeing clearly, people driven by self-interest, while many others could not or did not want to see. Then more and more people are seeing clearly, while not being willing or able to stop the crisis from unfolding (if this had been possible anyway).
A certain danger may lie in the fact that the more one stresses the visionary genius of the few, the more the whole system gets excused. The story of the Emperor’s New Clothes has a child in the end to speak out and to say what everybody actually could see. But the child is no genius. It is simply unaware of social positioning (all others in the tale simply do not risk to speak out, fearing for their social status). But how difficult was it to see the crisis coming and the risks inherent to some financial instruments? The film’s opening speaks of those who simply looked, but shows a Dr. Michael Burry actually combining various faculties: historical knowledge (not to be underestimated, the reference to the Great Depression is frequent), financial insider knowledge as to the construction of products, curiosity, obsessive will to study the structure of housing bonds, and last but not least: this unsverwing will to act based on his convictions. Moral authority, within the movie, does exist, but within individuals, not as part of the system (in form of smart and working regulations). The chair of moral guidance to the system seems to be empty. Moral authority is absent, that is, replaced by disfunctional self-regulation, which is, in some sense, embodied by an present/absent Alan Greenspan.

---

Nietzsche:

The Big Short has a motto by Mark Twain which more or less says the same as Nietzsche’s ›Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies‹. I am a bit suspicious as to this saying since I have once heard a local politician quote it. But anyway…

---

Numbers:

Yes, numbers. But also some words. And many words. Actually 9 hours, 17 minutes and 52 seconds just words (and also some numbers). Here.

---

Outsider:

Well, they were not complete outsiders. All acting within the system while distrusting it. One may also stylize people as outsiders (›I am not hanging out with these idiots‹, says someone, still near them), and Dr. Michael Burry initially had a blog. Which is why he was picked by capitalists to become a fund manager. And integrated into the system. As someone who detected patterns no-one else was able to see.

---

Re-checking:

The question if The Big Short does explain well is discussed here.

---

Social awkwardness:

The glass eye, the social awkwardness, the obsessive study of charts, and, in hindsight, being seen as the one who had looked and seen more. This might be the story of Dr. Michael Burry. But the film, undermining nicely its own narrative, does also show a counterpoint. The one ratings agency has a clearsighted woman with eye problems and some kind of glasses. But as she reveals knowing much more than she initially does show, she does take her glasses off. Looking at them, and, in some sense, looking at us. The film does imply that she did not bet against the American economy, but who does know. At least she did not speak out. We have bosses, we have competitors, and you, Mark Baum, with your virtuous stance are just a hypocrite.

---

Three Wise Monkeys:

Has anybody seen this yet? There is a fourth monkey (that perhaps did not get his own emoticon yet…).

---

Twain, Mark:

See, perhaps unexpectedly, Nietzsche, and replace ›lies‹ with ›not-knowing‹ (ignorance).

---

---

INDEX | PINBOARD | MICROSTORIES | FEATURES | SPECIAL EDITIONS | HISTORY AND THEORY OF ATTRIBUTION | ETHNOGRAPHY OF CONNOISSEURSHIP

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

---

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

---

© DS