Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Art For Hate's Sake...
Re: the recent exposition of so-called art known as the Axis of Evil, or the Axis of Sin, or somesuch nonsense. If you haven't heard about this exposition, I'll fill you in. Someone (I really couldn't care who) decided it would be a good idea to express his/her or his/her organization's political views in art. The art in question took the form of several portraits on postage stamps.

These portraits included: President Bush with a pistol held to his head, and an airliner crashing into a skyscraper, a cheery little piece intended to convey the idea that New Yorkers were really just begging to have 3,000 of their own incinerated, pulverized and atomized on 9/11/2001.

Conservatives, or merely the patriotic and straight-thinking are supposed to just sit here and accept such idiocy based on torturous definitions and interpretations of the First amendment, and the stigma attached to being a minion of the government censors. We have our sensibilities tormented on a daily basis by sick little people with twisted minds who will take advantage of the freedoms our society creates and defends for silly purposes.

What is art? I'm not qualified to say. Quite frankly I don't particularly care. I do know that art, while it can be an awesome symbolic expression of the human spirit and societies norms, is not something that merely shocks and offends, which seems to be the entire thrust behind most art these days -- it's supposed to make you think. Art like this does make me think: it makes me think that the people who created it are absolutely infantile. The audience that laps it up is perhaps infinitely more infantile, bordering on zygote-level awareness, if that is possible.
Of course, anyone who disagrees with me will have a ready store invective to hurl in my direction: Philistine, Cretin, Moron, Uncultured lout, Nazi, Fascist, American and of course the most stinging rebuke they can think of, Republican. People who find nothing wrong with advocating the murder of the President or of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, in fact, those who celebrate such things, of course would scream like school girls if the shoe was on the other foot.

If I was, for example, to create a postage-stamp like portrait that showed Ward Churchill being escorted to the gallows by pregnant women, surrounded by a cheering crowd, I'd be accused of being a vicious psychopath. If I created a portrait of Hilary Clinton being rendered limb-from-limb by rabid baboons, while Bill stood in the background having a hearty belly laugh, I'd be accused of being a hater or worse. If I posted a painting that mimicked the famous "Evolution of Man" that went from obviously campy homosexual to leather-wearing S&M aficionado and progressed all the way to scab-infested, emaciated gray AIDS victim corpse with festering pustules, I'd be a borderline lunatic homophobe. How about if I painted a saintly Terri Schiavo wielding the hammer of justice over the head of Teddy Kennedy, with a heavenly choir behind her and a winking Jeb Bush in the upper right hand corner? Why, they'd have my feeding tube removed by court order.

I guess your level of pain depends on what your sacred cows happen to be.

I object to the pictures because they do not reflect my point of view, for sure, but also because they are in extremely poor taste and so obviously designed to appeal to the mindless, the primal and the ridiculous that they inspire a sense of cynicism. You just KNOW by looking at them that these things were directed at the stupid. It's an insult to the intelligence of the average person. It's the shallow masquerading as the enlightened. It's almost because it's intended to be art that it automatically follows that it is art. If we can classify art by saying it's what I say it is today, then the hairball my neighbor's cat spent half the night coughing up should be in the Louvre this afternoon. Anything that nearly kills a cat before it's finally expelled is a thing of beauty in my eyes. The difference is that I'm expected to simply take it, while they get to claim the luxury of bruised sensibilities. Part of this is simply the media being sympathetic with the idiot -- after all, if it wasn't for stupid people there'd be no media. The other part of it is the way in which American freedoms operate: it might be wrong, it might be inane, it might be utterly lacking in any redeeming quality, but so long as it isn't strictly illegal, is not an immediate threat to life and limb, and you can stretch the definition of intellectual to cover it, it's okay. Larry Flynt makes money this way every day.

We used to have 'art for art's sake', but that's now become 'art for hate's sake', or even 'art for the sake of throwing a temper tantrum'. Which is what this is. The person or people who created these things is frustrated. He/she is frustrated that Mommy and Daddy were not sufficiently accommodating in getting them that pony. They're frustrated that their breast feeding was stopped too soon. They're extremely frustrated to learn that not only does the world not believe or think the same things that they do, but that their own insignificant voices get fainter everyday --- on all matters. The people who create such things are not true artists in the sense that a Michelangelo or a Picasso were artists. Their thrust is so obviously commercial and so assuredly produced for the lowbrow that to call it art is to elevate dirt way beyond it's station. It's a natural progression from the base to the baser to the sewer; piss in a jar, hang a crucifix in it, you have art. Paint a picture of the Virgin Mary and smear animal dung on it, it's art. Advocate a position that you cannot possibly support intellectually or morally in a childish manner, and somehow it's still art. There's a twisted, romantic notion of the revolutionary and misunderstood artist as genius which used to make great movies, but which doesn't produce successful artists in a society with rapidly changing mores and tastes.

Apparently, you have to be noticed as an asshole first in order to get noticed as an artist. You will be instantly forgotten as soon as the next biggest asshole comes along, and then the cycle repeats itself. It's no longer about art --- it's about being noticed. Hopefully to the tune of a lot of dollar signs before you overdose.

I'm guess I'm going stop positing for a bit because apparently you can't get enough attention blogging. Instead, I shall retreat to the bathroom, find a suitable picture of the third-world-communist-homosexual-dictator -cum-hero of the day (I'm thinking it's a toss up between Castro, Guevara or that fake Mexican-Indian poet, Rigoberta Picchu is it?), take a huge dump on it, and then paste a series of little pictures of Barney Frank and Richard Gere around it. I figure I'll either make a fortune on it or draw a lynch mob. Or perhaps just flies.

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Rome Wasn't Built in a Day...
And neither will a new Iraq. Remember that the next time you flip on the news and are bombarded with reports of Iraqi's protesting the U.S. occupation in the same place they pulled down Saddam's statue two years ago.

One of the overriding themes of this weekend's news coverage from Iraq seems to be aimed at asking a very important question; We've been here two years already, and the Iraqi's have had their elections. They're starting to get pissed off again, so why haven't we gone home already?"
The question does have it's merits. However, since it's being asked by members of the media, they are missing the real point.

Democracies are not built in a day. Just because Iraqis have had a democratic election, monitored and certified by every world monitor imnaginable, does not mean they have a democracy. Democracy is more than an election --- it's a state of mind. It's a culture. It is something that must evolve. Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, after all.

Our democratic republic didn't spring to life in a vacuum on July 4, 1776 and begin operating without problems. American democracy was, initially, the logical extention of a process that had began in ancient Greece, filtered through the Roman Republic, encouraged by the signing of the Magna Carta, and was tempered by the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. By the time Americans got around to deciding it was, as Churchill said, the "least, worst form of government yet invented", democracy had evolved through many forms, been changed by many ideas and been influenced by history and philosophy.

The election in Iraq merely looked democratic, which is not to say that it wasn't fair, but that it had the trappings that most modern Westerners shallowly associate with democratic process; people debated and then they voted.

However, the underlying motives and philosophy of democracy have yet to take root in Iraq. Mainly this is because Islam still rules nearly everything a Middle Easterner does. Islam has never had it's Reformation, it's Enlightenment or it's Magna Carta. The true measure of a democracy is not it's forms or methods, but it's cultural foundations. Those foundations include, but are not limited to, a respect for law, the respect of an individual, the belief that rights are inherrant, that life is not connected to the spiritual by an umbilical chord that is merely more of an impediment to free thought. Those characteristics are the true Western tradition of democracy. The best example I can think of in modern times of an evolving democracy would be Japan, circa 1850 to modern times.

When Commodore Perry entered Tokyo Bay to open trade and passage agreements with the Japanese they had been unknown entities for the better part of 300 years. Japan, isolated by choice, rigidly stratified by a feudal social system and tethered to the traditions of the past, was shocked by Perry's entry and by the obvious power he represented. One glance westward towards China convinced the Japanese that the only way they could beat the foreigner was to become the foreigner. Quickly.

And so, after the Meiji Reformation of the 1870's, Japan emerged with a facade of Westernism: it created a professional standing army and navy, It began to industrialize. It copied democratic forms and parties, it expanded out into Asia acquiring colonies, and became an economic powerhouse in it's own right. Right through the process, the Japanese adapted thier native genius to solve problems connected with the importation of foreign ways into an ancient culture.

However, fledgling, Western-style Japan did not make the great leap forward that Westernization seemed to represent. The reason was that Japanese society, as a whole, while welcoming the rise in the quality of life, the infant freedoms provided, the higher standards of living and production, never completely shed tradition. Japan might look western, but it truly was not. There was no free press. Individualism was seen as a sin. Creative expression was stifled if it deviated too far from accepted social norms. Emperor worship still existed, a religious anchor which operated very much in the same way that slavish devotion to Islam does in the modern Middle East.

In the end, it took a World War, nuclear holocaust, occupation and the untold suffering of millions, Japanese and others, to teach the Japanese a valuable lesson: it was not enough merely to mimic the outward signs of democracy and western-style life, they had to go all the way and become westerners in their thinking and outlook as well. Once freed of the militarists who used tradition and nationalism as a tool of looking western while avoiding true western freedom, Japan was well and truly on it's way to entering the modern world.

It's a process that is still going on. Yes, there are still traditions in Japan that reach back into it's ancient past, the geisha girl is to Japan what the pin-up is to Americans. Sumo is their baseball. Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Christianity exist side-by-side in Japan just as peacefully as they do here. The state religion of Emperor worship was abolished. Business became Japan's new leap forward and they found that in order to compete and excel, they needed to emulate and adopt western idosyncracies; free debate, public audit, respect for the individual, the value of even contradictory opinions, empirical research unrestrained by religious or state interference.

It took Japan roughly 80 years to reach that realization. It's too much to expect Iraqis to get it in two.

It is, however, not too much to expect for the American media, and alas, it's people, to realize this. But then again, we are a people mostly ignorant of history, unless it invloves RBI's or Academy Awards. What one has to remember about the new American initiatives in the Middle East is that we are still in the very earliest stages and that there are bound to be growing pains. According to many of the reports I've seen regarding the recent unrest, Iraqis are genuinely glad to be rid of Saddam, hate the insurgants as much as we do, and most of the discord is linked to the apparent trickle of American largesee (i.e., we haven't shoveled enough money in to the local economy in order to give it a kick start). An Iraqi waiting two years for American money to rebuild his house or business is bound to be upset.

Bear in mind one thing when you watch anything on TV regarding Iraq, Afghanistan or the nascent democratic movements in Lebanon ; these are going to be particularly tricky, often nasty, sometimes comic attempts to come to terms with a culture and a lifestyle that is totally foreign to these people. It's not going to be easy. We're not just changing a government in Iraq, we're attempting to change a culture that stretches back a very long time.