Modern Kicks

sign of the times

No doubt it was a thought inspired more by the fact that I am rapidly reaching the end of the final volume of A Dance to the Music of Time than anything else, but I was recently in a small independent bookstore, the sort of place that has enough ambition to stock serious titles but must make its way by prominently featuring the current bestsellers.  On a rack near the front of the store multiple copies of Allan Greenspan's recent apologia pro sua vita were displayed, row after row showing his face peering out, asking, one last time, for one's confidence.  I've always wondered who buys these kinds of books.  That they provide grist for the book pages' mills is clear enough, with reviews in every newspaper, literary supplement, and political magazine offering opportunities to discuss a given figure's political or economic legacy as a way of advancing larger arguments.  But who actually pays money for the books themselves?  As I wondered, I couldn't help but think of piles of remaindered books bearing the face of "the maestro" getting packed up, remaindered and sent away, just like old Louis.

deadly

"It's 1969 and I'm at a 'think tank' near Stanford.  Each afternoon I drive to the campus to eat lunch with my wife.  One day a group of SDS students led by a fellow named Cohen forms a semicircle behind us, chanting hostile slogans.  They mean to carry the battle against decadent liberalism to the heart of the enemy.  This continues day after day.  Go elsewhere for lunch?  My pride won't allow it.  So each afternoon we are followed across the campus, objects of a kindergarten confrontation.  Then one day I wheel about and shout at the insufferable Cohen: 'You know what you're going to end up as?'  The question startles him, and before he can resume his chanting I cry out, 'You're going to end up as a dentist!'  Cohen blanches--the insult is simply too dreadful--and I march off in miniature triumph.

Ah, Cohen, wherever you may be, are you really pulling teeth?"

--Irving Howe, A Margin of Hope

we interrupt our usual programming

I've already seen some posts at the big political blogs lamenting the fact that Stephen Laffey lost his challenge to Lincoln Chafee last night.  I don't share those writers' disappointment.  While I've never voted for Chafee, or his late father, and don't intend to in the fall, I'm pleased that he won.  Yes, it will mean that the general election will be that much more difficult for the Democratic candidate.  But despite the fact that Laffey would have no chance to win the seat, it would not have been a healthy development for him to win.  Laffey is a demagogue and a bully, and not a person who should be given a greater voice in the nation, state, or even the RI Republican party.  The latter he may have already achieved just by virtue of his challenge, but not as great a role as he would have gained from a win.  I don't delude myself into thinking that this means he's gone from politics.  He's got the money and free time, and has obviously developed a taste for it.  I can easily see Governor Carcieri working with him until such a time as their ambitions collide.  But time out of office can turn even the most ambitious politician into yesterday's news; the next shot Laffey would get at a Senate seat would be in 2008, when he'd face the prospect of running against the Jack Reed, easily the most popular politician in Rhode Island.  After that, it's Congressional races against well-liked incumbents, or a general officer's race--and I can't see Laffey settling for anything less than Governor--in four years.  That's a long time--I hope long enough for him to fade away.

I'm also pleased for the simple reason that, though I don't support him, Chafee is a Chafee.  He may lose a general election--his father did, after all--but for the RI Republican party to turn their back on him would be a sign that the state is changing even more than it appears.  At least for today, that doesn't seem to be the case, for which I am grateful.

metaphorically speaking

"In Between Tears" - Irma Thomas.

the early show

Decline and fall: another links post.

- I am not alone.  Is it besides the point to link to a TPM post?  Probably, but I'm hurting for content here.

- An old friend had a hand in this show, so I'm curious to see how it's received.  I'm also curious as to what, exactly, the average critic has to say about Cézanne at this point (he's pretty good!).  Finally, the same can be said for almost any late nineteenth century painter, but at this point, just a decade or so after the massive Cézanne retrospective, what are we getting out of further major exhibitions, anniversaries or no?  I'm sure it's a great experience to see, but what else?

- Accomplishing this would be a good thing.  I can't imagine how difficult it must be to run such an ambitious institution given their financial realities.  And while, like most other people I imagine, I don't get out there so often (especially in winter), it's a good place.  Let's keep it.  Link via Artforum.

- A bracing read in light of last week's Rembrandt sale.

- Yale versus Peru heats up.  Meanwhile, a rather unclear article in the student newspaper at the University of Chicago has reported that the judge in the lawsuit brought by victims of terrorism against the school in an attempt to seize artifacts they allege belong to Iran has "granted the motion" of the plaintiffs.  The University has filed an appeal.  I say it's unclear in that the article doesn't distinguish between the tablets the University has acknowledged to be the property of Iran and other objects from the Oriental Institute's archaeological digs that are now accessioned collections.  The consequences are rather different depending on what the circumstances are.  Also, while I assume the plaintiffs' motion was for the University to hand over objects, we don't really get any details on it.

- I mentioned the other day going to the Danforth Museum in Framingham, MA.  A year ago I had no idea the place existed.  An art museum in Framingham?  Who would have guessed?  That it was exhibiting an exhibition that originated at the Jewish Museum in New York, and earlier last year hosted another by an important American artist is only more surprising.  It doesn't really matter what you think of the artists involved, this is very ambitious programming for an institution of the Danforth's scale.  I imagine a lot of this is due to Director Katherine French, who originated the Barnet show at Monserrat College of Art before bringing it to Framingham, but nevertheless: what's the story?

- Tyler challenged anyone yesterday to name "all the post-9/11 shows about Islamic art at American museums."  I've no idea of the answer, but I have to mention again the Gardner's Bellini and the East in this context.  Sure, the big name is a western artist, but the whole exhibition is about his travels to and work for the Sultan following the peace treaty between Venice and the Ottoman Empire.  As such, it deals with all sorts of east and west, influence and exchange, etc., issues, as they occured at a pivotal moment in history.  I'm not saying the curators approached the exhibition with a heavy hand guided by contemporary events - their focus is always on the objects and historical record at hand.  Nevertheless, it inevitably fits into the context Tyler's discussing.  Anyway, I've already linked to the review, but WBUR now has an interview from Morning Edition with the exhibition's main curator (I believe) available at the top of the page.  And yes, more promises, promises, from me on a post about the show.

- Anna L. Conti has moved.  Update your links and bookmarks.

That's it for now.  Maybe I'll check in later.

get a life: state of the union edition

So I just got an email from Democrats.org inviting me to set up a "State of the Union Watch Party" or to find one in my area.  I know, it's a little net-based political organizing, and nothing's wrong with getting your people together to motivate them, build the base, get the message out, whatever.  But seriously, a State of the Union Watch Party?  Who the hell would want to go to that?  I'm interested in politics, but I can't look at that stuff, it's unwatchable regardless of who is President.  In the past I would try to be a good citizen and sit through them, but nowadays I figure I vote and that's enough.  Life's too short.  I may find pleasure in what others perceive as one-sided and dull football games, but I do have some standards.  Those include mocking anyone who would consider attending one of these parties.  It's not the Superbowl, people.  You'll lose nothing by reading about it the morning, and you'll save time.  Though I do wonder what the over/under on applause interruptions might be.  If you're going to have a party, might as well get some action involved, make it interesting.

correction

Evidently the story I linked to below of federal agents visiting a North Dartmouth student who requested a copy of Mao's little red book from the library is a hoax.  Not very nice, especially when we are seeing so many real, well-attested accounts of shady governmental behavior.  To tell the truth, if I had actually read his full account instead of relying on web summaries and blog posts, I'm not sure I would have believed it; even before his recantation, the details provided in the news story linked to above (granted, one written after the fact, but with a lot that appears to have been known originally) seem very shaky and not credible.  But I didn't, and I was looking for a local angle on a range of stories that were emerging last week, and I was lazy.  Sorry about that.  No New York Times job for me!  Anyway, back to wrapping presents.

in local news

Some links from around the region:

- David Rockefeller gets in touch with his Rhode Island roots.  Good for RISD, just don't move the Buddha.

- The Providence Athenaeum's edition of The Birds of America has gone to auction.  The ProJo has a multimedia show, but here's the backstory.

- The Boston Children's Museum has announced plans to expand and renovate.  A bit off our usual topics, but consider it (as the article does) in light of all of the other projects planned or in progress around the city, many within a short walk from BCM.

- A specter is haunting North Dartmouth.  I'm linking to this partly because it's funny, in a sad sort of fashion, partly because I have at least one or two regular readers down that way, and partly because I've been feeling, among other things, a bit bewildered over the past few days.  Remember when Patty Smyth could be heard screeching "I am the warrior!" on the radio and MTV night and day, and it just didn't make sense?  "Goodbye to You" had been fun, a pretty good pop song, but something had obviously changed.  Made you wonder what was happening to the country.  Anyway, not to make a point but because it's also amusing: I've got a different little red book on my shelf.

UPDATE: Sorry, that last story has been revealed as a hoax.  I was lazy and didn't really check it out, otherwise I might not have been taken.  Now I've gone and blown that bit about Patty Smyth, too, which annoys me.

working for the man

With all the talk of art and politics lately, I would be remiss in not mentioning these two posts by Joy Garnett on the recent book by Johanna Drucker, Sweet Dreams: Contemporary Art and Complicity, complete with generous excerpts.  I haven't read it, but Joy quotes the below from the Amazon summary as an indication of its contents:

Drucker shows that artists today are aware of working within the ideologies of mainstream culture and have replaced avant-garde defiance with eager complicity. Finding their materials at flea markets or exploring celebrity culture, contemporary artists have created a vibrantly participatory movement that exudes enthusiasm and affirmation--all while critics continue to cling to an outmoded vocabulary of opposition and radical negativity that defined modernism's avant-garde.

Though Joy links to a somewhat dismissive review by Walter Robinson at Artnet (you have to visit her site for the link, I'm not going to steal all her content), I think that Drucker may be on to something, though I'm not sure how I feel about it.  As the quote above shows, she's pretty a-ok with complicity.   And while acknowledging that any claims about what artists in general are doing will be a gross simplification, one doesn't have to look very far - certainly no farther than the past weekend in Miami, say, or your friendly neighborhood MFA program - to see artists engaging with the world, and the artworld, as it is.  And why shouldn't they?  We all, or almost all, take the world as it is; how many of us are truly in a position to take artists, who have it hard enough already, to task for not embracing "opposition" - especially when there's little point in it, artistically or otherwise.  From a post at Harlequin Knights on an appearance by Drucker at a conference:

Johanna Drucker in response insisted that there is no such thing as dematerialization, that dematerialization is a myth. She claimed she had totally “lapsed” and no longer believes in the transcendental or utopian space (there seemed to be some slippage around the axis of terms “transcendental”, “utopian”, and “liberated space” that needed some sussing out). If we say that liberation or utopianism should be a goal in our cultural work, Drucker implied, we condemn ourselves to product-oriented results. Concerning dematerialization, Brian Kim Stefans asked from the audience: what about the data I lost on my computer last week? Drucker: That proves just how material the data was, that it was simply information imbedded on a silicon chip and subject to the laws of the material world. Stefans: what about the artist Vito Acconci and his performance Seedbed, where the artist hid underneath a gallery-wide ramp installed at the Sonnabend Gallery and masturbated while reciting his fantasies about the gallery-goers walking on the ramp above him? Drucker: sounds pretty material to me!

Drucker's entire message - which I am only gathering second-hand - aside, I think her asessment of some of these strategies as bankrupt is pretty much true, though I'm not necessarily enarmored of what seems to be her position, either.  I've got little or nothing invested in the idea of an oppositional art, or so I like to think; but complicity, which if I remember correctly, Joy (or perhaps Drucker herself) links to complacency, doesn't exactly feel so comfortable, either.  Without going any further, I'd simply say for now that either option, opposition or complicity, doesn't feel exactly true, doesn't feel like what draws one to art in the first place.  I don't know where Drucker goes with her book in the end, but one would hope for more tactical thinking, if that's possible.

Oh, one last thing.  This exchange with Dave Hickey, from James's article, briefly discussed in my last post:

To this I suggested that “Dave, we all work for the Man. You write for Vanity Fair. Si Newhouse is a Man.”

Hickey, again: “As a hired gun, I do not feel I bear the power of the institution, as Peter Schjeldahl does: he is The New Yorker, and he is The New Yorker talking. If I write for The New Yorker, it’s just Dave.”

Made me laugh because it reminded me of the very amusing commercial out recently, I think perhaps for a phone company, in which an executive in a power office explains to a subordinate that the (whatever) he's contracted for is "My little way of stickin' it to the Man."  To which the baffled underling replies something to the effect of, "Sir, you are the Man.  Are you sticking it to yourself?"  Just right.

art and culture

The post below was begun last July, abandoned, and recently revived; I found it too difficult to write and thought it offered little payoff, but have had some further ideas on the topics discussed lately.  So here it is.  I apologize if the manner of its creation makes it even more disjointed, wandering, and nonsensical than the usual fare.

Jacques-Louis David's role as the model of the political artist, the extreme nature of the politics he was involved in, and his own aesthetic radicalism, have combined to set him apart, just as the French Revolution stands apart in historical analysis.  This is unfortunate in a number of ways.  It has meant his reputation, for long periods, has fluctuated with contemporary political developments, rising and falling with the passions of the moment.  It also means that we tend to see him separate from the long lines of continuity that tie him to earlier and later artistic production.

Étienne-Jean Delécluze, an art critic and former student of David, wrote a book in the 1850's on the artist that sought to improve his standing by depoliticizing his work.  It was by no means the last such attempt.  But is that really possible, or justified?  David was the greatest image-maker at a time of actual representational crisis.  The Marat and its lost companion depicting another Revolutionary martyr, the soldier Le Pelletier, were hung in the National Assembly, overlooking the French Deputies, including David, as they met.  These were not simply portraits or commemorations, but active products of a dialectic of popular absolutism that moved according to accusations of betrayal and victimization (not concerning itself with those from the Vendée, of course, who were on their own.)  Time and distance naturally dim the connotations that adhered to an image such as the Marat in its day, but it will not do to deny them.  This is not a matter of obsessing over possible political emanations of artworks that are not themselves concerned with such matters.  For David, in the early 1790's, artists had only depicted the world; the point was to change it.

It's because of such tussles over meaning, art and politics that I was especially intrigued by the following passage, quoted in the David exhibition catalog by Philippe Bordes: