Category: Media

By on

The other day I posted a blog about Roger Kimball’s “What the Right Gets Wrong About Art. For some reason, I was having a difficult time finishing the post. Every time I worked on this post I found myself trying to cover too much ground and I was having trouble connecting all that I wanted to say. At the time, I decided to post what I had (see here) and return to the part I was having trouble with.

Kimball’s larger point was that because the Right abandoned culture, the Left took over and this was why Art is all crap now. You know the sad old song — things used to be better in the good old days. Within this criticism, he referred to a troubling quote about race from the Australian Philosopher David Stove. David Stove writes:

Western Europe found that its anti-academy had become its academy ‘even in the twinkling of an eye.’ The galleries were suddenly full of the art of African societies formerly the most despised. Victorian architecture was all at once the object of a universal detestation, or rather horror. Black music began its long and excruciating revenge on the white man. The Jazz Age, in short, had arrived.

Kimball is being provocative without context. What does this mean in Kimball’s larger argumen? He fails to incorporates what Stove is saying into his argument. So it lies there like a big old sore that everybody can see but everyone is too polite to talk about. There is clearly a racist wack here at African Art and Black Music.

Maybe Kimball thought his readers should be able to connect the dots without his help but I fear then that I am being dragged into an argument of my making and not Kimball’s. Ignoring it however is allowing such a comment to go unchallenged. It’s like letting old people get away with using the N Word. They are too old to change and you want to keep the old fellow calm in case you cause a heart attack. This maybe true but then Grandpa gets the idea that he can spew his racist’s thinking with impunity.

The question, I have, is does he agree with Stove? If African art was previously despised why was it despised and what is his opinion on it. Even if he is talking about primitive art, which isn’t clear at all, what does this art have to do with the Left or Right wing. If the art predates the present political divisions, how can the Right abandoning culture have anything to do with the Art these people produced. Also, if the primitive nature of the art is setting him off, how does he feel about the art of early homo sapiens drawn in the caves. It is hardly beautiful by present standards, but it is definitely art. Why is Jazz (or as Stove puts it black music) the revenge of the black man on the white man? These are volatile statements that require more explanation. Kimball just drops it in and never mentions it again. I can only, then, assume that he agrees with Stove’s racist sentiments.

The real problem here is the limits of Kimball’s definition of art — it has to have a universal agreement about beauty. Everyone, everywhere has to agree that it is beautiful. Which is an impossible standard. Why not just good (art I like) and bad (art I don’t like). Kimball admits that most art is bad art. If he would have left it at that, I could have gotten on board with him. A lot of modern is crap but then there are very few pieces of great. Which makes sense. This is the whole reason critics point out what they think is good. They are trying to differentiate it from the every day piece of art.

I am not sure why he abandons the bad art/good art distinction for art has to be beautiful. He has a political agenda here that is blinding him to this much easier standard. But he hates the art he sees as Left Wing statements that he will not even dignify it with the art designation. Then he adds barely formed racial animus to his equation that leaves me wondering — what is really upset about.

Kimball seems to harken back to the days when art was the Sistine Chapel and Shakespeare. An Art that had very limited reach until the 20th century. Confined to the elites of Europe and North America, Art was strictly defined by this class because they were the only ones who really knew anything about art. But regular people all over the globe had very little contact. The technological advances of the 20th century brought art to an enormous number of people. Unfortunately for Kimball and company, their reaction to this was different than these elites had hoped. Instead of wanting to perpetuate these old ideas of art, they used them as a stepping stone for something completely new.

It is perfectly fine not to like it but to say it doesn’t even pass the muster of art is ridiculous. Who gave you the deciding vote? The better approach would be for the Right to start creating Art that the world might want to see. No one is stopping them. Why isn’t it happening instead of whining about what gets passed off as art these days.

By on

I read Right Wing writers from time to time just in case lightening strikes and there is something valuable there. More often than not though it is a lot of whining about how the world used to be a better place before the modern world intruded on it. Roger Kimball represents this type of Right Wing writer.

Kimball knows what he is talking about. Some might even call him an intellectual. He has read all the right books, seen all the right art which enables him to throw the great names out with the best of them — Nietzsche, Marx, Van Gogh, Duchamp, Warhol and on and on. Dada that, Avant-Garde this. He gives the impression of someone who knows what he is talking about. But when all is said and done it is still whining and he reaches a shrill filled pitch in What the Right Gets Wrong About Art.

I provide the link above but don’t feel compelled to read it. It is difficult reading. He overwhelms the reader with his knowledge about art, history and philosophy. You might know a few things about art but he knows a lot of things. And I mean a lot but it rarely helps his argument. He is just rolling off facts at a rapid clip that I sometimes forgo what exactly was he talking abou. You can’t really argue with him which I think is the point. So be warned, don’t get too bogged down on reading this article, it will only make you crazy.

What I learned was that he truly hates modern art. He hates the artists who produce them. He hates the institutions who support them. He hates the politics the art is associated with. Modern Art is ugly. Furthermore, the art critic is unable to assess art as art because art is also political. The critic should only have to look at the canvas, the brush strokes, the colors and not consider anything about what might be going on in the artist’s life to make him paint this particular piece of art.

By this standard then Kimball would have you look at the statue of David without knowing any of the biblical history regarding David. In Kimball’s view, a person can be completely ignorant of the story of David and still be able to appreciate the art. Probably But that isn’t how it happens, is it? Most people who see the statue also know the story of David. Kimball acts as if artists before 1900 were simply creating beautiful art straight out of their heads instead of producing art that their benefactors wanted to see and, more importantly, buy.

From the title of his article, I was expecting a call to arms for right wingers to get out their paint brushes and canvases and start painting. Instead it really is a tirade against modern art without the context of how this is important and why a right wing movement in art would improve both culture and then politics. Kimball gives a weak analysis of why right wingers surrendered culture and art to the left. Apparently Right wingers don’t take art seriously because it isn’t necessary for life, not like business and science. Then, what is Kimball’s idea for changing this?

If Art is a luxury in the minds of the Right, an idea that Kimball obviously disagrees with, how does he propose changing what appears to be a very fixed idea among Right Wing people. Kimball offers the idea of beauty that art brings to life. The beauty of art gives human beings a glimpse at something greater than ordinary life. So why aren’t Right Wingers willing to give up on numbers and embrace beauty? Not a clue. More importantly, how does this change. Kimball has no ideas on how to change this dynamic.

I suspect Kimball sees the futility of his situation. The Right just isn’t interested in Culture. They are interested in Business and, to a lesser degree, Religion. They want a society committed to Capitalism and Christianity and have little interest beyond that which puts Kimball in a difficult position. The Left disagrees with him and the Right doesn’t care.

The truth is that there is nothing stopping Right Wingers from getting out their paintbrushes and having a go at it. As Kimball admits, it was the Right who abandoned culture, what then needs to happen is for the right to try and reclaim it and stop this awful whining. This also means that if politics is downstream from culture then Kimball is in big trouble trying to change anything until Right Wingers get out of the pews and the board room and into the art studio.

By on

I want to make some additional comments about Donald Trump, in private, calling Kamala Harris a bitch making the headlines. The more I think about it the madder I get. This is a ridiculous waste of space. Is there anyone on this planet who doesn’t think that Trump, in private, calls Harris a bitch? I can’t see that it is in any way shocking behavior. I would be more shocked if he wasn’t calling her a bitch. It is the whinny cry of the class tattletale who the teacher can no longer stand because the student has absolutely no discretion on what is valuable information and worthless information. Like I said previously, so what. He should be able to say anything he wants in private. Now the people hearing this should tell him to not talk like this but I am inclined to believe that they kept their mouths tightly shut. I guess confirmation might be helpful to the very few doubters out there but it is hardly Watergate reporting.

By on

The other day I was getting worked up over Oklahoma requiring Bibles in every classroom. Then, I began to think why. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a bad idea and we should try to stop it. On the other hand, as bad ideas go, it is far down the list on what is important. Some religious people think that the mere presence of the Bible in the classroom will somehow magically change the children forced to sit in a room with it into Christians.

I am betting this won’t happen. If I seriously thought that these proponents of the Bible in the classroom could create an effective educational program that incorporated the Bible I might be worried. They really have no ideas beyond prayer and patriotism and if they tried to do anything more they would begin to fight among themselves. Christians, if you recall, have violently argued with one another for centuries about Christian Doctrine. Indeed, this was the main reason why the Founding Fathers wanted a religious neutral government — Christian sects have a tendency to rumble if it is possible to get an upper hand with another Christian sect.

So why is this meaningless gesture getting me so worked up? Because it is headline news. The press is only interested in controversy. Controversy brings in readers which brings in ad revenue and so the press will search for controversial issues to feed to the American public. They aren’t feeding the public anything that is particularly nutritious either. It is more like a table filled with desserts that we can’t help but pile onto our plates and finish them off in one sitting. Until we make ourselves sick.

It is an easy enough bon bon to make too. Anything to do with religion in public schools was sure to piss of every secular humanist in the country while getting the full fledge support of fundamental Christians. Some editor somewhere decided to fed this particular controversy to the American public because they knew their readers would lap it up and then raise their fists ready for battle. Sadly, they were correct.

What is so annoying is that I know this is the game. Sensationalism is the only consistent menu item and I keep falling for it. There is a good chance that the Bibles in every classroom will never happen or it will be slowed down in the courts for years to come and, after a few years of squabbling over this, and realizing that it is way too difficult to make it happen, the combatants will move on to something new to argue about.

More worrisome, is it illustrates the Media’s focus on divisive topics. Anyone looking at education would think that the most important topic in American education is the treatment of Trans children because a lot of people are talking about it. In reality, there are 73,000,000 people in the USA under the age of 18.. Of those 73,000,000, 42,000 of them have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and only 4,200 of these children have started hormone therapy. This means that when people are talking about this, they are talking about .00005 % of the student population.

The treatment of Trans children in public schools and religion in the public schools need to be addressed but that it dominates any discussion regarding education in the 2024 campaign is out of all proportion to how it affects the vast majority of public school students. It is there only to instill rage and division which is all really great fun for the Press but does very little to improve public schools.

By on

Donald Trump apparently calls Kamala Harris a bitch. In private. So what? Why is this a headline? Why is this shocking?

  1. It is private behavior. He can say what ever wants to say in private including calling Kamala Harris a bitch.
  2. Donald Trump has a history of bad mouthing almost everybody including members of his own party. Is it really that shocking to discover that he calls a political opponent who is presently besting him a bitch? And, least we forget, he did it in private.
  3. What are people supposed to do with this information? So Trump calls Harris a bitch? Yes it is sexist but so what? Bitch sometimes is the right word. I mean would bastard be better? If I am mad at someone, I might call them a bitch. I find it hard to condemn a man for doing something that I might do particularly if it is done in private.

The only interesting thing about this little tidbit is that someone close to Trump wants to screw him over and they are talking to the press. Now that is interesting to me.

By on 1 Comment

J.D. Vance was overheard telling his son to shut up about his Pokemon passion the other day. Of the many sins of Vance this is way down on my list of something to be concerned about. In fact, it puts him in a relatable situation the many parents might experience — their children being annoying while he is trying to get something done. Maybe he could have handled it a bit better but when a person is busy and a child is pestering him about Pokemon, it seems like a reasonable place to snap. Shut the Hell up seems about right. This is an unremarkable bit of justifiable annoyance. It doesn’t make him a bad parent and it is certainly unworthy of a top position on the Daily Beast’s top 10 Cheat List.

Nor do I care much about Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris’ husband, having an affair while he was married to his first wife. To be clear, I wouldn’t care even if he had been having an affair while being married to Harris. If Harris and Emhoff have made their peace about it, it is none of my business. Wait, let me expand on that thought. Even if they still were fighting about it today, it wouldn’t be any of my business. And I really think it’s ballsy for Republicans to leak this bit of news to the press when Donald Trump, a frequently unfaithful husband, is their standard bearer.

However, I don’t blame the political operatives dredging up such nonsense though. They are just doing their jobs. They are paid to find dirt and to publicize it. They are hoping that some piece of dirt might influence voters to decide for them.The problem is the press and selling newspapers. They can print the dirt or not. Dirt sells newspapers, so the press will headline any and every personal indiscretion in the hopes that this bit of salacious gossip sells more newspapers. Sadly, it must work or else the press wouldn’t be spending so much time talking about these trivialities.

This doesn’t excuse the press in the least. It is comparable to a parent feeding his child only sweets because that is all she will eat. A diet of chocolates would damage the health of the child. They aren’t getting the fruits and vegetables required for a healthy diet. Just because the American Public buys bull shit doesn’t mean you have to serve bullshit. Every headline taken up with Doug Emhoff’s first marriage and J.D. Vance’s snappy parenting, is space taken away from topics that really matter — things like homelessness, or immigration, or inflation or the situation in the Middle East.

Thanks for the information though I am sure I will find it helpful on November 5.

By on

Members of a Catholic church in England reported their priest gave a sermon suggesting that, given the way Jesus died, he probably died with an erection. So now it has become big news and a lot of people are talking about it. Which is irritating for the following reasons:

  1. What Jesus’ erection has to do with the crucification is beyond me. It sounds like the priest was giving graphic details of how a man dying on the cross would suffer. The priest was giving way to much data here. Yes, it is important to know Jesus suffered, but I think even a child can figure out that being nailed to a cross is no picnic. Why the priest had to throw in all the gory details which included that in Jesus dying minutes the blood rushed to his penis and caused him to pop a boner seems beyond the pale. It’s irrelevant to the Easter Story.
  2. Since there is no earthly reason for the priest to discuss Jesus’ erection, why did he drop this little bomb into his Easter sermon? He had to know that mentioning the word erection during a church service was going to cause a commotion. The mere mention of anything sexual perks up the ears of the more Puritanical members of any congregation. They heard erection and their knives were drawn and ready. This was professional suicide on a grand level. It says a lot that he decided to kick the chair out from under him during one of the most well attended church days of the year. I can only think that he was sick of his job and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. He succeeded.
  3. It doesn’t really matter because popping a boner while dying is not a sin. Even though the priest has been removed from his position and it looks like he did something wrong, there is absolutely no theological debate regarding men who have erections while dying. Men in their prime often find themselves erect for no apparent reason whatsoever. It just happens. I realize that Jesus’ erection is unimportant and the Pope has way more important things to deal with but he might mention this in a future speech or sermon sometime if he is running short of material — erections are not sinful.
  4. Jesus, up until his death, was a human being subject to the same human temptations as any other human being. Isn’t that an important part of the Jesus story? He struggled with his humanity like any other human while he was here. An erection just humanizes the man. Although, I think, in keeping with the Easter story, that Jesus’s death is a better illustration of his humanity and is very much in keeping with the Easter Story.
  5. Some of the church scolds were worried that children might have heard this story. Let me assure everyone, as a young person who once spent every Sunday in Mass, the children missed it entirely. All I recall about Mass was my eyes would glaze over upon entering church and for the next hour I daydreamed or looked at people or tried to talk to one of my siblings in the pew with me but I rarely, if ever, paid attention to the priest. The only thing I can remember is my parents rousting me out of my slumber in order to get to communion. Mass, as every kid forced to go knows, is a snoozefest.
  6. This is not a free speech issue. The Catholic Church is not a public entity and should be free to police their employees as they wish. They did.
  7. Why is this getting so much press? I can see that it may be an issue for the members of the church, but for the larger world it is nothing but the press stirring a pot to see what kind of controversy they can create with a nothing event. I don’t know why they wasted precious headline space on this when they could be talking about something really important like the Met Gala or Taylor Swift. It’s like the press has lost all sense of what is important.

Finally, on a brighter note, I would recommend the name Jesus’ Erection as a great name for any new band who are looking for a catchy name. It is sure to get noticed, all you have to be is good and the world is your oyster.

By on

“I don’t care what they call me as long as they mention my name.”

George M. Cohan

“There is no such thing as bad publicity. “

P.T. Barnum

Missouri state Senator Bill Eigel worries that the vague writing of an Abortion Bill would allow one year olds to get abortions. Why he is worried is a bit of a mystery. One year olds are incapable of pregnancy, so their need for abortions isn’t really an issue here. It won’t happen so it is nothing to be worried about. But, anyway, when has that stopped politicians from making an issue out of nothing.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a one year old girl needing an abortion. She is unable to give her consent in the first place, so she was raped. the very people who would be protected by passage of the bill — victims of incest and rape. Furthermore, and the most important point to consider here, it is impossible for a one year old girl to carry a full term pregnancy to birth. She would need an abortion to save her life. So, if anyone should get an abortion, a pregnant one year old absolutely should.

If it were biologically possible which it isn’t.

On the other hand, Eigel generated a lot of pro-Life points fighting the scourge of one year olds seeking abortions. He also was able to get it without really having to take a stand on anything important. There won’t be any stories about one year olds dying from botched abortions or doctors debating whether to give a one year old an abortion because it will never happen. This, however important it is to you and me, is irrelevant to Eigel and his supporters. Eigel still gets pro-Life points for opposing abortion and, particularly important, defending babies from abortion clinics who would think nothing of aborting non-existent fetuses from one year olds.

The press dutifully reported Eigel’s concerns. The press will report any outrageous statement from any elected official because it might tempt shocked readers into reading their paper. Who wants to read about actual mature women needing an abortion when they can debate endlessly about one year old who will never need one. The only thing that happened here was Eigel got his name in the paper an his reputation enhanced with his voters.

You will all be relieved to know, pro-Choice or pro-Life, that one year olds will not have access to legal abortion. Absolutely nothing was learned from this nor was any debate furthered in discussing it. Why this was a newsworthy event is still a mystery but I am certain that the press would only use their limited space to report on truly important issues. Right?

By on

By the time I finish writing this blog, I might have changed my mind but right now I have to say Peter Falk as Columbo is my favorite television character. The show dates from the 1970’s and has aged surprisingly well. Unlike most detective shows where the trick is to figure out who the murderer is, the audience knows who the murderer is but how Columbo figures out who the murderer is.

The murderer is almost always some rich and powerful person who thinks they are smarter than the bumbling appearing Columbo who stumbles into their lives . Because they think they are smarter than Columbo, they fall into his trap of giving too much information that they inadvertently give away important details, seemingly innocuous information, that seals their fate later in the show.

Falk and the writers gives Columbo an array of distinctive quirks. His rumbled rain coat that he is always wearing and he can’t bring himself to rid himself of even after his wife buys him a snazzy new one, his ever present cigar, his scratching head when confused, his car — a barely functional vintage Peugeot convertible, his sad sack and barely functional pet dog, his never on screen wife who he calls Mrs. Columbo and who is full of good advice, and his saying “just one more thing” as he his leaving the suspect which tricks a usually exasperated person into giving some seemingly unimportant detail that really is at the heart of what Columbo is looking for.

You can’t help but root for Columbo as he manages to manipulate these arrogant assholes into prison. He plays into their egos, letting them think he is a bumbler while finding out everything he needs to know. Part of Falk’s charm is he manages to ingratiate his suspects into helping him and working with him to help him catch the killer while actually setting a trap for the unsuspecting guilty party. It is particularly fun when the suspect catches on to Columbo’s game but have gone too far to save themselves from falling into one of his traps. Their disdain for him throughout the show and their disbelief that this idiot outwitted them is the best revenge.

So if you are looking for a good detective show and you have exhausted everything you know, you might revisit Columbo as I think you will find it a rewarding experience.

By on

Mike Johnson, the new Speaker of the House, in case you can’t keep track with the rapid turnaround in that position, revealed that he and his 16 year old son have a porn accountability device on their electronic devices. So what? Is this really anybody’s business? He made a deal with his son about keeping themselves honest about viewing pornography. I don’t think this is in any way controversial or, for that matter, news worthy.

Yet some how this made the headlines. It is an incredible waste of space. It adds nothing to what we know about Mike Johnson as we already knew he was a fundamentalist Christian. It isn’t particularly surprising for him to have such a device and that he monitors his son’s viewing. It is his business.

So why the headlines. Now I would hate to say anything bad about the media but I think the only reason this is here is that it involves pornography and a public figure. It makes for a catchy headline. Speaker of the House, Pornography. The boys and girls in the Fourth Estate must have already had this typed and published before realizing what a snooze fest this was.

But given that there isn’t much going on now, what with the war in the Middle East, the war in the Ukraine, the Trump trials, questions about the economy and Taylor Swift’s dating Travis Kelce they had so much space that they had to fill it with something and this is what they decided to fill it. Empty space filling more empty space.