Tag: David

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

A principal at a private school in Florida was fired because she allowed students to see Michelangelo’s David. Ironically, this school emphasized a classic education. To which I ask, what could be more classic than Michelangelo’s David? Michelangelo is one of the greatest artists, if not the greatest artist, of the Italian Renaissance. The statue is based in a Biblical story. People come from all over the world and stand in long lines just to see this statue. The problem, as far as I can tell, is David stands naked before the world and some children shouldn’t see naked people.

To be fair, the principal has some fault here. There was some kind of problem with notifying the parents that their children would be seeing the naked David. The parents failed to get the communication. This was handled poorly and, certainly if the communication had been better, any parent who found David’s nudity disagreeable could have opted out. But the reaction to the mistake is disproportionate to the damage done.

If the disagreement was that David’s brazen nudity was too much for young eyes, I could agree with the parents who didn’t want their children to see the image. Unfortunately, it was more than that. One parent used the word pornographic to describe David. David as pornography suggests that David’s value is of a prurient nature only. So this small minority of people, against the judgement of almost all of Western society, are redefining Renaissance Art as pornography.

So, like clockwork, another controversy engulfed, unsurprisingly, another Florida school. A parent objected to the showing of a film called Ruby Bridges which is about a six year old Black girl integrating the New Orleans public school system. The school pulled the film because, well, Florida. The complaining parent was concerned that 2nd graders might learn about racism and actually start hating Black people. Yeah. Right. On the other hand, the movie is a tad bit embarrassing to White children as it show White people as bigots who threaten a six year old. Not exactly the image of great grandmother you want to hand down. Ironically, almost all of these stories are rich with irony, protecting White children from the past is vital. We can’t have white children questioning the actions of their forefathers. Yet, little Ruby Bridges had to walk through a crowd of hostile White people screaming racists chants. Hmm, which is a more traumatic experience.

This is why I get nervous about the all powerful parent and curriculum. Parents have a right and should have some say in what their children learn but there has to be a limit to their guidance. This is particularly important when the parents represent a small minority within the community and what they want is out of step with the rest of civilized world. We can quibble about whether it is age appropriate but David is a masterpiece and Ruby Bridges was subjected to vicious racism when going to school. Few will debate these points so both have historical importance. When is it appropriate for the youth of America to learn more about them?

Then there is the grooming going on here. These parents want to control what their children learn about the world. In the process, other people’s children are just collateral damage in their struggle. They are, in fact, trying to groom all children into their narrow view of America and Western Culture. This means no nude art and a no problems America. They will nitpick every disagreeable comma until they drain history and art of what little life is left in these courses. They believe that if they maintain this control over what a child learns that child will adopt their world view and all will be right afterwards.

Perhaps but it also fails to address the possibility of what happens when the child eventually encounter different ideas. Creating the illusion of a perfect world and, then, being unable to provide one, doesn’t prepare a child for the world they live in. It doesn’t help the child sort out good information from bad information. It, in fact, hobbles the child, and future adult, with the notion of a black and white world. America is good. Nudity is bad. Education, for these groomers, is not about thinking but about the recitation of canned responses. They will give you the answers that you want. Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it. They will protect children from anything that might make them squeamish or excited or rebellious. We won’t have to worry about these children thinking outside the box because they will be so tightly jammed into a nice little box they will have trouble breathing much less thinking.