[July 3 Addendum] As a member of AICA-USA (the U.S. section of the International Association of Art Critics), I recently received an email message from the Board of Directors announcing: “AICA-USA has issued a statement of solidarity with the Movement for Black Lives [M4BL].”1 That statement—which had not been submitted to members for input or approval beforehand—does not speak for me and I emphatically reject it. While I deplore, as would any decent person, the callously brutal murder of George Floyd [August 23 Addendum] (as well as instances in which other blacks have been victims of police abuse at worst or misjudgment at best), I question the narrative of “systemic racism” they have given rise to in the black-lives-matter movement. Even more important, I reject the destructive approaches that are being advocated and pursued in response.
What Does Solidarity with M4BL Mean?
I adamantly reject this goal prominently posted on the M4BL website.
To understand my objections, one needs to examine the Movement for Black Lives website (M4BL.org), since being “in solidarity” with that consortium implies agreement with its platforms. “Defund the Police” is one of their chief goals.2 Like so many other purportedly liberating goals, however, it would probably most hurt the people it promises to help. The rich could afford to hire their own protection, while economically disadvantaged blacks would be left vulnerable to the criminal elements in society. How well did getting rid of the police in Seattle’s CHOP district, for example, work for the two black men who were shot there before Seattle’s mayor at last decided to take action? Still worse, her failure to quickly shut down that anarchist project has inspired similarly destructive anti-police efforts across the nation—even in the capital, directly across from the White House.
Meanwhile, criminal violence continues at an appalling rate in Chicago, virtually ignored by the anti-racist protesters. How would defunding the police have saved the three-year-old black boy shot dead in Chicago on Father’s Day, or the 13 others killed there that weekend, or the countless black victims of black violence in other cities? Once again, events have shown that blacks are far more often the victims of other blacks than of white police abuse, and the crime rate among blacks is alarmingly high (more on that below). Those black lives don’t seem to matter to the BLM movement, however; only the deaths that can be blamed on alleged white racism do. Could it be that the ultimate goal for many of the agitators (though not for the well-meaning people who joined them to protest Floyd’s murder) is not to preserve black lives but, rather, to overthrow the entire American system?
“Solidarity” with M4BL also entails being expressly “anti-capitalist.” That goal no doubt resonates with one of the more vocal AICA members, who was the first to propose, on June 5, a statement of alliance with the black community and others “who have been disenfranchised by [the] current social, political and economic circumstances” of our “system of oppression.” As I responded, his statement was just the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that destructive groups like Antifa thrive on. “If you want to see what real ‘oppression’ looks like,” I added, “check out their violent tactics—not to mention the Communist crackdown in Hong Kong.” I then asked: “By the way, exactly what system would you like to replace our system with?”3 I’m still waiting for an answer.
“Solidarity” with M4BL further implies agreement with its constituent groups, including Black Lives Matter. Subscribing to #blacklivesmatter does not just mean valuing black lives. It has come to imply embracing the organized movement under that rubric, and all that it advocates and represents. A primary aim of Black Lives Matter is “disrupt[ing] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Undermining the black family has lamentable consequences, however, as shown by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Democratic senator from New York, 1977–2001) more than half a century ago.4
I should add that much of the intensity of the current response to #blacklivesmatter is inspired by hatred of the current president, which knows no bounds among AICA members. One of them recently posted a cartoon representing him in the guise of Goya’s Saturn Devouring His Children—with one knee on the neck of George Floyd, and the Statue of Liberty in place of Saturn’s child. I responded that it was
outrageously inflammatory, falsely implying that the president has condoned Floyd’s murder. The president is by no means beyond criticism, but this cartoon is an example of the Trump Derangement Syndrome totally off the rails.
Only one other member commented critically on the cartoon.
The work by Goya that is most apt here is The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.
AICA’s “Progressive” Echo Chamber
On matters of art as well as politics, AICA is overwhelmingly “progressive.” (A lone vocal ally against that political tendency has been Franklin Einspruch.) That it is more concerned about politics than about art, however, is evident from its solidarity statement. It says nothing to condemn the attacks on museums or works of art during the recent protests, although one of the organization’s stated purposes is “to act on behalf of the physical preservation and moral defense of works of art.”5 The solidarity statement instead advocates that art institutions should “divest from police organizations,” “remove defense contractors from their boards,” “protect . . . frontline staff during the COVID-19 crisis,” and “diversify other departments.”
Diversifying of course relates only to race, gender, ethnicity, and economic status—not to views about art or politics.6 When I expressed some of my contrarian views (in response to members’ Trump-bashing, for example, I dared to say that the president’s policies were better than the Democratic alternatives), several members dubbed me a “racist.” Among them was a New York Times art critic, who asserted that anyone not “working against the current president” was a racist, “complicit in upholding white supremacy.” A former Newsweek art critic charged that if I didn’t see systemic racism and the poverty engendered by it as the main cause of the high crime rate among blacks I must believe that “there’s something inherently wrong with black people.” Never mind that wiser heads than his (such as Moynihan) have identified other likely causes.7
AICA Views on Art
The member who first proposed a solidarity statement touted “AICA’s unique position of leadership in the field of visual art.” I questioned that position, arguing that most of the contemporary “art” defended and promoted by him and other AICA members in the name of social justice isn’t even recognized as such by ordinary art lovers. For evidence, I referred to my “Hijacking” article and “What’s Wrong with Today’s Protest Art?.”
A former tenured professor of art history whose specialty is “art and politics” commented: “Michelle has written a book on the Aesthetics of Ayn Rand, that should give all of you some insights into what is going on here.”8 After actually reading my “Hijacking” article (few AICA members seem to have bothered to do so), the only point she referred to was my distinction between neo-Marxist critical pedagogy and logical critical thinking, which she dismissed as “non analytical,” offering no argument to justify her objection. She also claimed that I had failed to engage in critical thinking—without ever saying in what respect I had failed to do so. Further, she seemed to imply, mistakenly, that I think art can never deal with political subjects. In that, of course, she entirely missed my point. And neither she nor anyone else in the AICA online discussion dealt with that point’s elaboration in “What’s Wrong with Today’s Protest Art?.”
Most remarkably, the former professor had nothing to say about my noting, in the “Hijacking” article, that Gregory Sholette (an AICA member who is now a professor at Queens College, C.U.N.Y.) had expressly welcomed the widespread “‘de-skilling’ of artistic craft” that has occurred in the artworld since the 1960s—in particular, the fact that, as he observed, “conceptual art” has led, in effect, to “the total disappearance of the art object” (emphasis mine). Then what is left for “art critics” to deal with, I would ask. Attempting to answer that question might have provided the professor with a much-needed exercise in critical thinking.
One of AICA’s stated aims is “to develop professional . . . standards for the field of art criticism.” Early this year, therefore, I posted the following message, with the subject line “Food for thought regarding critical standards”:
I’d like to put some thoughts up for consideration regarding “contemporary art.”
A decade and a half ago, our colleague Peter Schjeldahl observed: “Art used to mean paintings and statues. Now it means practically anything human-made that is unclassifiable otherwise. This loss of a commonsense definition is a big art-critical problem.”The year before, Ken Johnson had similarly noted in the New York Times: “Contemporary sculpture knows no boundaries. . . . This makes [it] a zone of enormous creative freedom. The down side is, if sculpture can be anything, then maybe it is not anything in particular. . . . And it becomes hard for people to care very passionately about it . . . , much less evaluate it.”
In the years since those astute observations, “creative freedom” has expanded exponentially, leaving the public increasingly baffled by and alienated from what passes for “modern” and “contemporary” art in the artworld at large. . . . Yet the dominant trend in criticism is to write sympathetically about all such work, with no regard to the effect it often has on artworld outsiders.In that connection, I recently came upon this observation by John Canaday: “When sympathy for avant-garde art per se is the assumption behind a critical attitude, criticism can cease to be judgment and become a form of pedantry in which the goal is to find excitement and meaning in an object where they may not exist.”
I would argue that Canaday’s point remains ever more relevant today, and risks rendering our profession worthless in the culture at large.
The minimal response to my post was telling. Just one member wrote (privately, not to the full list) to say that she agreed with me—that my message was “spot on,” especially with regard to sculpture. The only other member who commented (also privately) was the former Newsweek critic. He snarkily dismissed the idea that contemporary critics are seriously out of touch with the public, by simply noting that it has been “the case with criticism sympathetic to modern art since, well, the beginning of modern art.” As if that resolved the problem! Then he directed a parting swipe at Canaday as “the guy who said that Abstract Expressionism had ‘exceptional tolerance for incompetence and deception.’” Indeed it had.
What sort of contemporary or modern work do AICA members find praiseworthy? The recent demise of Susan Rothenberg prompted hearty kudos for her horse paintings. (The New York Times eulogized her as an “acclaimed figurative painter.”)
Susan Rothenberg, Triphammer Bridge, 1974, 67 1/8″ x 9′ 7 3/8″ (170.5 x 292.1 cm). Museum of Modern Art. New York.
Not wishing to speak ill of the newly dead, I refrained from commenting that Rothenberg’s horses struck me as incredibly inept.
For another example: an AICA member posted an appreciative review of a show she had just curated at the Bemis Center for Contemporary Arts in Omaha—Richard Ibghy and Marilou Lemmens’s Look, it’s daybreak, dear, time to sing. I responded:
I’ve read Gregory’s review, but fail to see what it has to do with art. Whatever value the exhibition may have in educating the public about threats to the natural environment, Ibghy & Lemmens bring nothing of artistic value to it.
Dubbing their pieces “minimalist” does not help. Although unthinkingly embraced as art by the contemporary artworld, Minimalism was an especially vacuous form of anti-art. Nor does it matter that the pieces in question (they are not “mini-sculptures”)—which resemble “the wooden blocks children use for building and games”—“are actually based on data, graphs, and charts,” since no one could guess that connection without the labels. And reading the graphs and charts themselves would convey far more than the pieces alluding to them do. Isn’t art supposed to deepen our experience?
Finally, I would argue that the exhibition’s video of Eastern Loggerhead Shrikes being banded belongs in a museum of natural history or on PBS’s Nature series, not in a museum of art. It is essentially a piece of documentary footage, not a work of art.
Only one member wrote to say he was sympathetic to my point of view. “I do not think that a lot of what Richard Ibghy and Marilou Lemmens are doing constitutes art-making activities,” he admitted. Yet he defended their piece Sales Volume of the 10 Top Meat Processing Companies (2014) as art. And he confided that he had long since given up arguing “it’s not art” about “all the poorly crafted, conceptualist dreck that clogs up exhibitions spaces on a global scale.” All the other comments were from members who regarded me as hopelessly out of touch with the “advances” in contemporary art. The curator in question acknowledged our “widely disparate understandings of art,” and suggested an extended conversation about them in an open forum. I replied that I’d “like nothing better than to debate these issues of critical and cultural importance in a public forum.” No one on the list seconded the idea, however.
In view of all the foregoing, how much would you stake on AICA’s aim “to develop professional . . . standards for the field of art criticism”?
July 3 Addendum
The co-presidents of AICA-USA have asked me to remove all quotes from other members in this post that originated on the organization’s online listserv, as they violate the listserv’s guidelines for preserving the privacy of members’ communications. I redacted my original post by removing relevant members’ names, but I have retained the quotes themselves, because they are needed to convey my point. As I explained in my response to AICA:
My use of a few brief anonymized quotes in no way violates anyone’s privacy. . . . What it does, in the public interest, is shine light on a profession that has for too long gone largely unchallenged for its views—views which are overwhelmingly at odds with those of much of the American public.
If AICA is sincere in seeking “to promote the values of art criticism as a discipline and to emphasize its contribution to society,” it should welcome public debate on the issues I’ve raised. And you as co-presidents should be more concerned about dealing with the issues themselves than with any minor infringement on my part of the listserv guidelines.
. . . AICA members are free to post Comments in response to my post, provided they do so in a more civil vein than was the case for all too much of the listserv content.
MMK
August 23 Addendum
Evidence is emerging that indicates George Floyd’s death was due to factors other than the appearance of police brutality conveyed by the widely circulated video showing him in a protracted neck hold. Leaked video that had previously been deliberately withheld from the media by the Minnesota attorney general shows events leading up to the neck hold and strongly counters the narrative of “police brutality” that has sparked months of protest and destructive rioting, along with movements to defund the police. All this suggests that the most alarming “systemic” problem we face is not racism but political manipulation abetted by biased and irresponsible journalists—which was given unwarranted legitimacy by AICA’s statement of BLM solidarity. I regret that in characterizing Floyd’s death as due to a “callously brutal murder” I too was guilty of an irresponsible rush to judgment.
Let us hope that true justice will ultimately be done in this case, though in today’s politically inflamed climate it will require extraordinary courage and integrity on the part of all.
Notes
- The message was signed by sixteen board members, several of whom are prominent figures in the artworld. ↩
- Ironically, the founding of M4BL was itself inspired by, and has perpetuated, a false narrative of police brutality in 2014 against Michael Brown, Jr., in Ferguson, Missouri. ↩
- I added that I would resign from AICA if it approved his proposal. Though I equally reject the proposal that was adopted, I will not resign, and remain instead as a contrarian voice. ↩
- In The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, his 1965 report to the U.S. Department of Labor, Moynihan forcefully argued that the high rate of black families headed by single mothers (a legacy of slavery) greatly hindered the progress of blacks toward economic and social equality. (Though many single black mothers have heroically prevailed despite that disadvantage, the overall effect on the black community has been devastating and has been exacerbated by misguided welfare programs.) See also Steven Malanga, “The Left Needs a Moynihan Moment,” City Journal, February 14, 2017. Addendum: The eminent community activist Robert L. Woodson argues that family breakdown was not a legacy of slavery but was instead a consequence of leftist political activism in the 20th century. “1776 vs. 1619,” National Association of Scholars, August 27, 2020. ↩
- The prominent BLM activist Shaun King recently approved the toppling of historic statues across the nation and tweeted: “All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down. They are a gross form white supremacy. Created as tools of oppression.” If AICA has issued any statements rejecting King’s tweets, I haven’t seen them. ↩
- This recalls what journalist Nicholas Kristof observed a few years ago about the diversity craze in academia: “Universities are the bedrock of progressive values,” he wrote, “but the one kind of diversity universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.” “A Confession of Liberal Intolerance,” New York Times, May 7, 2016. ↩
- See also Barry Latzer, “Race, Crime and Culture,” Academic Questions, Winter 2018; and Edward Guthmann, “Shelby Steele has a lot to say about black society,” SFGate, May 15, 2006. ↩
- For a sense of the anti-Randian animus of another AICA member, read “Award-Winning Critic Maligns Ayn Rand’s Theory of Art.” For Piero’s Sake, January 16, 2018. The critic in question is now at the New York Times. ↩
“While I deplore, as would any decent person, the callously brutal murder of George Floyd [August 23 Addendum] (as well as instances in which other blacks have been victims of police abuse at worst or misjudgment at best), I question the narrative of “systemic racism” they have given rise to in the black-lives-matter movement.”
It’s been over a year now and one thing is clear, the death of George Floyd was not a callously brutal murder.
My brother was a cop in Cleveland for 37 years and one thing a cop never should do is believe an uncooperative, combative criminal suspect when he says, “lessen my restraints I won’t harm you.”
On being first introduced to criminal suspect George Floyd, what is one to think? Known in high school as “Big Floyd”, he was 6 feet 4 inches and weighed 223 pounds. He was . . . a guy who if he got loose, could easily beat you to death. . . .
Floyd was convicted of eight crimes, served eight jail terms on various charges, including drug possession, theft, and trespass and served four years in prison for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
Some artist should paint a picture of a small man with his knee on the mange of a prostrated mature lion. The man doesn’t know the lion is filled with deadly drugs and about to die.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Your point is well taken, Walter. As I wrote in my August 23 Addendum, in response to newly emerging information regarding the facts of the case: “I regret that in characterizing Floyd’s death as due to a ‘callously brutal murder’ I . . . was guilty of an irresponsible rush to judgment,” much like that of the mainstream media.
I appreciate the article and agree with your conclusions.
In regard to BLM, I often say this: I agree 100% with the statement “Black Lives Matter” but disagree wholeheartedly with the official movement. The BLM movement, as an organization, cares nothing for life, only power. If they cared about life they would be protesting outside Planned Parenthood whose founder truly was racist and promoted eugenics. Abortion, absent fathers, and black on black violence are an even greater threat to the black community that is never discussed.
The progressive left is riding the whole race issue to power, and they only care about keeping the narrative going so they can get there. Any productive healing on the matter would disrupt their ambition, so everything must continue to be broken and chaotic or the left has no platform left on which to stand. The arts reflect this trend.
There is not a reasonable person on this earth who would consider Rothenberg’s horse painting museum worthy. The lack of reason and logic in the arts only reflects this problem in the greater thinking of society. Hopefully a small but steadfast few will continue to speak out and also present productive alternatives.
Thank you for your needed voice of reason.
I enjoy and mostly agree with your studied and thoughtful analyses on contemporary art. Thank you. But to question the reality of systemic racism and to so misrepresent the “Defund the Police” movement shows a lack of the research and thoughtful analysis I have come to expect.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Thanks for your kind words about my art criticism, James. Please tell me how you define “systemic” racism, and what you see as evidence of it. Also, in what way have I misrepresented the “Defund the Police” movement in your view?
For a contrary view, I urge you to read this article about Larry Elder’s recent documentary provocatively entitled Uncle Tom.
The trouble with some art criticism or even art theory is the decision to begin with a rule and then see what fits it. The other approach is to begin with curiosity and an effort to understand what the evidence suggests. Michelle and her fans choose the former approach and others, including me, choose the latter. The real question that needs to be asked, in the light of new research in neurology and cognition is, what role does affect have in predetermining art judgement. By definition affect is preconscious feeling that steers subsequent cognition. Maybe the reasoned judgement is contradicted by affect. Or it is construed to match affect. I suppose this means we should experience an artwork over time and from varied contexts. We may find ourselves saying an artwork is good even though our affect feeling is bad and it’s our responsibility to reconcile reason and feeling.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
William,
Once again you misconstrue my work, as a careful reading of the chapter “What Do Cognitive Science and Evolution Tell Us about Art?” in Who Says That’s Art? would show.
Curiously I just received Email from Tumblr to update account-forgotten and unused over 7 years- I decided to see what was what there and ‘clicked interests’ in art,museums, books, then see the ’suggestions’ list which is filled with
announcements from the “staff” about Tumblr support for BLM, on and on ‘posts’ about this subject ,”What We’re Doing”…a call for artists to join fundraisers, etc, as
“Starting this year, Juneteenth will be recognized as an official company holiday at Tumblr. This should have been done long ago. If you’d like to see your companies do the same, check out…”
“Tumblr is a platform. The small team of <200 employees ….” Yet it is not explained how or who exactly came to this consensus and makes up these ’statements’ .
I feel as if I have been somehow recruited through the ‘update your password’ notice, and it’s possibly an effective ploy in the spread of this movement , but I’d expect there is someone at Tumblr in the same position and opinion as Michelle and very likely this is happening in many organizations, especially those involved with the arts in some way – spreads like Rock n’ Roll – they just keep on dancing, not interested in reading and getting the facts
I second Bob Balocca’s comments. Yours is a voice of clarity and wisdom, Michelle.
In the stampede to approve the BLM movement, we see the profoundly misguided attempt on the part of cultural and business leaders to prove that they are on the side of moral high mindedness. They are blinded by the movement’s clamorous condemnation of racism. Yet the BLM movement attacks the very political system–one based on individual freedom–that provides the only antidote to racism. That antidote is the protection of individual liberty and the legal banning of coercion from social relations. In the topsy-turvy world of BLM, black lives do not matter. Prior to the massive poverty programs of the 1960s, black communities were not characterized by fatherless families (to wit Michelle’s mention of Moynihan), drug addiction, gangs and crime. Since then a large black (and brown and white) underclass has emerged. Yet the BLM movement and the Left (generally) push for more of what created this devastation: dependency on white (or upper middle class) guilt money. If black lives mattered to the BLM movement, they would scream from the hilltops to end this cruel insanity. Then what does matter to the BLM movement? Evidently, the near-term goal is establishing violence as an acceptable means for gaining political leverage.
It’s ludicrous to claim that minority impoverishment and related social ills did not exist before the 1960s.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
No one is arguing that they didn’t exist before the 1960s, William, but that they were much exacerbated by the Great Society’s welfare programs—as statistics have shown.
The slums were encircled and cut off from view. Out of sight out of mind. The squalor was shocking. And Jim Crow was in full force. Any society needs to recognize and try to eliminate the suffering of its most exploited people. This is not extreme socialism but human empathy. The greedy narcissism of Ayn Rand is the real totalitarianism we must overcome.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
You are missing the point, William. The question isn’t whether there was poverty and suffering to be eliminated but whether the welfare programs that attempted to do so in the end did more harm than good. You really need to examine the history more closely.
As for Ayn Rand and totalitarianism she had ample first-hand knowledge of its disastrous consequences. Your reduction of her limited-government, pro-individualist, free-market views to the “real totalitarianism” of “greedy narcissism” is a preposterous distortion.
Yes, to Michelle’s comment below about the relative tendency toward fatherless children amongst blacks since slavery. Here, are some telling statistics, though, from “The Structure of African-American Families” [Wikipedia]. “In the Harlem neighborhood of New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related Black households had two parents…. [In the U.S. as a whole] When Moynihan wrote in 1965 on the coming destruction of the Black family, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was [had risen to] 25% among Blacks.” After 1960, this changed dramatically with out-of-wedlock births reaching 77.3% amongst blacks by 2015.
But as to your comments, William…
If we look at the black population in the U.S. after slavery, we see a continuous rise in their standard of living. This was the case also for the “teeming masses” of impoverished European immigrants who flooded into the U.S. in the late 19th century and early 20thcenturies. Refrigeration, electricity, indoor plumbing, and a rapid rise in general prosperity improved the lives of all populations however ethnically or racially defined. For many decades, consumer products became cheaper and better, and in terms of real wages, this continues for the most part to the present. This was not due, of course, to people working harder or even smarter–working hours became shorter–but due to the material abundance produced by free-enterprise capitalism. In fact, the only major temporary reversal in this rise came when the federal government adopted a virulently anti-business stance that sent the entrepreneurial spirit into hiding during the 1930s.
The poorest 25% or even 10% of the U.S. population is today, by world-historical standards, materially well off. No doubt you can find instances of malnourished children and physical destitution, but these cases are due to ignorance or to the fog of drug addiction, not to the scarce availability of the stuff of material sustenance.
On the other hand, there is widespread poverty of a sort in the U.S., but it is not material poverty, it is spiritual.
It does matter to the happiness of a child and his future well-being—both material and spiritual– whether he grows up with two parents. It matters to him whether his parents are self-supporting rather than receiving government handouts. It matters to him whether they exercise a measure of personal self-discipline or are substance abusers. It matters to him whether they read books or at least nurture in him a desire to do so and whether they are curious about the world and keep alive that spark in him. It matters to him whether he is nurtured by stories of people who struggle and win against adversity—and in the black population there are many such stories–as opposed to stories of victimization at the hands of an all-powerful system of oppression and bigotry.
Basically your lament is, Why can’t all those poor Blacks and other minorities be like us, the privileged, white beneficiaries of white dominated culture and economy?
I’m a supporter of capitalism that is held to some constraints to assure the common good. The run-amuck capitalism of the 1920s brought social havoc and economic collapse. The rebirth of that brought the Great Recession of the 1980s. Now, the right wing unfettered “free market” and a utterly corrupt
Administration has ruined the economy again and has abandoned the moral rule of the greatest good for the greatest number. The
anarchistic self-interest of the far right will ruin the basic value of responsible capitalism. Your comment about “spiritual poverty” is shocking in its underlying racial hubris.
There are plenty of middle class Blacks to whom poor Blacks could look to for examples. I would be surprised if they (the middle class Blacks) do not subscribe to some approximation of the values embodied in my above-mentioned list. But more to the point, these are not values specific to “privileged” whites. They are the values of all people who have come up from poverty: Asian and Caribbean immigrants (to mention people of color), Jewish and Irish immigrants (to mention whites who encountered bigotry). They are the values of Americans in the 19th century who traveled west in covered wagons with no modern appliances, no means of entertainment or education except for the family bible, and then with pickax and shovel, scrambled to stay alive on the wild, inhospitable plains. And they are the values of every young person, born rich or poor, who strikes out alone in a world of uncaring strangers, his own future in his hands.
I am aware of the distinctiveness of the history of Blacks in the U.S. However, blaming today’s white population, a few of whom contain some remote genetic connection to past slave owners is an injustice and does nothing to improve the situation of poor Blacks. Moreover, the wealth of middle class Americans is not due to “privilege.” It is due to a system that protects individual liberty and property rights while banning the use of violence (force). And it is due to people acquiring the traits of character that enable them to take advantage of their freedom (not privileges) to improve their lot in life.
It is true that slave owners received an unearned material benefit from their slaves, the difference between the cost of providing meager food and shelter for their slaves and what they would have had to pay in wages to free men and women. However, this benefit is not the source of the wealth of the United States collectively nor of its individual citizens. The powerhouse of American (and developed world) wealth was the Industrial Revolution which barely had a toehold in the Antebellum South.
Moreover, government-mandated transfers of wealth from middle class whites (and others) to poor Blacks is not only an injustice, but as mentioned, worsen the situation for poor Blacks. This is so especially when such transfers are accompanied by the narrative that this is their due because rich people have oppressed them. It is a lie and a denial of what is required to move out of a life of material or spiritual poverty into a life of personal fulfillment at whatever level of material prosperity one chooses to pursue.
I think I am overstepping the bounds of acceptable use of this website. I deeply appreciate having this venue to express my point of view, but since I am unable to be brief, I think I should end my input. Thank you, William, for providing grist for the mill, and of course, thank you, Michelle, for your clarity, scholarship, and encouragement.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Thanks very much for your comment, Molly. As I understand it, Moynihan argued that the tendency toward fatherless families had existed since slavery; but it was surely exacerbated by the welfare programs of the 60s.
In reference to the situation in America at hand: I am a Slovenian living in Slovenia so I can only observe things from a distance. It seems that forces are at work in the USA that are attempting to fix society to fit an almost transcendental level of goodness, justice and purity. And while the world can obviously be improved relatively, any attempt to reach absolutes will only result in more suffering. I hope that reason will prevail.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Thank you for those words of wisdom, Bostjan.
Bostjan has no comprehension of American ideals. To be good enough is not enough to pursue “a more perfect union”. He also has no understanding of contemporary aesthetics. He just another old world reactionary.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
What you dismiss as “an old world reactionary,” William, may instead be someone who has seen close up the disastrous consequences of totalitarian efforts to impose perfect “social justice” by draconian top-down governmental measures. Recognizing the folly of false notions of progress (whether in politics or in art) is hardly “reactionary.”
Dear William and Michelle,
just to clarify: the real problem with socialism is that it is ultimately boring. In Slovenia we had it for some 45 years after WW2. Excellent public health and school systems were built during the era though that in large part remain. I hope we keep them.
Oh, and I understand contemporary aesthetics perfectly, William. Read my book about it, it is available on Amazon.
What the heck is the “Mission” of this association – It’s been ‘hacked’ / hijacked !
Why aren’t the ’supporters’ of M4BL simply joining M4BL – those ‘characters’ who seem to believe that ‘Freedom of Speech’ guarantees their ‘right to burn down the theater if they don’t like the play.’
Yet “Freedom of Speech” does not include the ‘right to incite riots in the street,’ anymore than shouting fire in the theater, or setting fire to the seats or pouring horse manure on the seats so that others cannot enjoy the play ….
Where is “that critical discourse” when they have simply declared their own role/opinion?
Civil disobedience works.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Civil disobedience does not include violence and vandalism.
at William
In my opinion, the “statement” by the Directors is an example of ‘civil disobedience.’ When/if they begin threats to those who do not ‘sign on’ then we’re in another dimension.
Michelle Kamhi is now demonstrating ‘civil disobedience’ in opposing the BoD using ‘freedom of the press/and free speech’ in the true sense—not using violence or threats but actually engaged in discussion (i.e. open discourse).
Agreed, Mike H
Thank you Michelle! As always your thoughtful and clear views are a delight to read in contrast to the “modern” day coverage of art and culture which is utter intellectual chaos.
Your voice may be a lonely one, but it is highly appreciated!
B
Art and culture are always in crisis, always confused and paradoxical. That’s what Now is. Critics who do their jobs try to find congealing substance in the trauma of Now. It’s there, somewhere.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
William,
Seeking “congealed substance” in chaotic current events is not the same as attempting to seek it in confused and paradoxical (and therefore failed) art.
As always, I’m troubled by your comments. First, I simply want to point out the other meaning of Goya’s famed “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters” which is that “sleep” is dreaming and the dreams of Reason produce monsters. The implication is that utopian dreams can lead to monstrous results just as the absence — sleep as unconsciousness — of Reason can also lead to monstrous results.
Second, I think much misunderstanding of art and art criticism results from wrongly interpreting the different relationships between form and content. For instance, (successful protest) art employs familiar form to embody provocative content. Some other art may employ provocative form to embody familiar content; some art may employ provocative form to embody provocative content; finally, familiar form and familiar content is usually the mode of popular art. Of course nuanced relationships between form and content exist, too, but there is always a need to recognize which of the four polar relationships is dominant. My critique of your view, and those of many other art critics is your jumping from one mode or polarity of form and content to another but presuming you don’t. Or, insisting that one polarity is universally correct, ignoring the others. For example, you imply that Rothenberg’s horse is not art because she used unfamiliar form to embody familiar content and you assume that familiar form (a horse rendered as accurately as most people would be familiar with) is the necessary one pole of any form-content relationship.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
William,
As always, we see the world very differently. Your anti-utopian spin on Goya’s Sleep of Reason is interesting; but in view of his embrace of Enlightenment values, his more likely intent was to remind us that humanity goes amuck in the absence of Reason—as we are witnessing right now.
Regarding Rothenberg’s horse painting, I consider it inept, not because it isn’t “rendered as accurately as most people would be familiar with” (as you mistakenly infer) but because it communicates nothing significant, either about what makes horses remarkable creatures or about anything else. Just what unfamiliar content do you think it conveys? (Please answer succinctly.)
Michelle;
The Rothenberg horse is a symbol of self, abject.
You expect art to communicate commonsense values, or to have transparent content for all audiences. Every field has both transparent and “difficult” content that is aimed at prepared, informed audiences.
Goya’s enlightenment values were alert to a substrate of “madness” in humanity. Even dreams for an enlightened society enable that madness to emerge. Goya’s form put responsibility on viewers for imagining moral action. His aim:vigilance. If there’s madness we are all to blame and are culpable.
Re monuments, see Bret Stephens’ commentary in today’s NYT (June 27).
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
William,
If Rothenberg had that intention, it surely doesn’t come through the work. And I say that as an amply “prepared, informed” viewer.
Dear William and Michelle,
You both raise interesting points here but it does seem that at least William lacks in understanding of the relationship between form and content. The relationship between form and content is of course an important subject of the ages, I will try to make a short case of it here. Put simply, a form is a system of shapes on the canvas and content is a system of thoughts and feelings that went into producing any given form. The problem seems to be that William at times confuses content with motif which is/or can be another factor in the mix. So, in order to make this clear we can dismatle the case of Rothenberg’s horse: in reality Rothenberg uses a very familiar motif of a horse, and then also uses a very familiar form (children paint like that so Rothenberg’s is a familiar form by default) to project very familiar thoughts and feelings (of children.) Michelle is wrong in saying that it is not art. It is art, just not a very acomplished piece of it. As determined before, everything about it is very familiar so that makes it objectively boring and redundant by default.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
To clarify, Bostjan (and William), I did not say that Rothenberg’s horse was “not art”; I said it was “inept” art.
Right. I stand corrected.
This morning NBC News featured briefly a Roman citizen who said the equivalent of, “We live with our history. We are aware of it.” The interviewer’s extrapolation from this was that we Americans ought to study our own history in order to live with it – not, because of our ignorance, to destroy its reminders.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
A valuable perspective, Frank. Without a sense of our history, we are unmoored. I’m actually willing to consider the relocation of some statues of Confederate leaders from public places of honor to museums or other historical repositories. But their removal should come only as a result of reasoned (historically informed) communal consensus, not mob rule or intimidation. And their physical destruction or defacement should be prosecuted as vandalism.