about art (for michael lewis)

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I enjoyed your editorial in the Wall Street Journal. It is clear and, though I am familiar with the theme, it's important to keep pointing out how messed up art (and especially art schools) are today.

The young woman's "miscarriage art" is merely a natural progression of "deathart," though I liked how you poked fun at her slightly out of date deconstructionism (or whatever she might call it).

My wife was a professional avante-garde dancer (Trisha Brown's group) and I am a painter and novelist. Like all parents we have cheered our kids' (draw! act! play music!) creativity in their pre-college education, though I cringe at the thought that one of my sons may actually want to go to art school. Despite having spent a lot of time being angry at my own father's discouragement of my interest in art, I can't help feeling like him now as I suggest to my sons: how about a field related to theater, like, um, marketing?

I have friends that teach art in colleges, The Art Institute of Chicago, among others. Knee-jerk left wingers all, I recently heard one actually berate the "politically correct environment" among the teachers who won't allow any discussion of beauty (hopelessly old fashioned concept) but concern themselves with their mission to "save the planet" -- a do-gooder variation of death art (the earth is dying, how can you care about beauty over recycling?).

The reason I'm writing is that I have yet to see someone connect the dots between (1) art schools and their deathartists and dated deconstructionism, and (2) museums that have educated the "masses" away from pleasing lifeart, and (3) the decline of the "middle class" art buying market.

My premise (as an "old fashioned painter") is that the average person has been alienated from art by all these theories (mostly recycling endlessly) that art is about upsetting the bourgeoise, shaking us out of our stupor, etc. This has not happened in music, for example, where people "like what they like" and are rarely intimidated that they should like something more edgy or political.

People don't buy art anymore unless they're (1) serious collectors [and though I know a fair number of wealthy people I know none of these]; (2) "tough" contrarians -- who like what they like [flower, clowns, landscapes, etc.]. The "market" for thoughtful, contemporary, but non-deathart is very small partially because people have been "shamed" to stuff their taste. It's either "high brow" (global, deathart, environmental and political art) or "low brow" (art fairs, Walmart art factory, etc.).

Did people ever really support painters like the fabled streets of Paris where you could once buy a Picasso? I suspect middle and upper class people used to buy art. My parents, God bless their souls, actually bought art on the streets of Paris in the 1960s, but it the faux-impressionist landscapes and cityscapes deeply embarrassed this young "rebel" who idolized Andy Warhol and, yes, Duchamp.

There is a contrarian movement proudly calling themselves Lowbrow (or Pop Surrealist, etc.). Juxtapoz Magazine seems key in this, though I personally like only a small percentage of what they capture under their net, which includes graffiti and tattoos. I think it's somewhat of a good sign that some of music's I like what I like will spill over into art, though I could do without all the "rebel edge" that this worlds seems to think is its core.

In any case, keep up the good work. I've ordered one of Mr. Rieff's books.

by what extreme hubris

by what extreme hubris dare i take on the meaning of life? i could just as easily ask why others don't. actually i find it hard to understand how and why people take anything on hearsay, even
"science". many think (would think if i let them see the depth of it) this is a sign of anger, or rebellion, or some kind of psychological malfunctioning that (with help) one could be "free" of.
they are probably right in one sense, that this mental "freedom" (skepticism?) is the kind of thing that brought us Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and did Fritz Perls write a book? it's probably like "ancient greece" (a fantasy, what do we know?) where guys in robes roamed around (lusting after boys, don't get me started) philosophizing about the world.

i am sensitive to belief systems. an allergy perhaps like william gibson's protagonist in PATTERN RECOGNITION
allergic to logos. ha. funny funny.
what i see all around me is how people's BELIEFS impact their views of the world and how
(mostly) "we" live safely INSIDE that system. I take the nun (she's in my family, she's real)...
she is adamant about knowing God, Jesus, the Bible, afterlife, etc. As a result she is strong and "happy"... even a recent article were a bunch of atheists were studying religion (via utopias) came to the conclusion that the stricter the religion the longer-lasting the communal enterprise. IE. this is WHY fundamentalism is "winning"... and WHY liberal-democracy-capitalism has a hard time "fighting" belief systems. Capitalism simply WORKS THE BEST, but it's hard to sell and hard to understand. it's counter-intuitive. people don't like free trade. people want their "king" (country) to protect them. or lie to them (China). life is nearly intolerable if you think EVERYONE is out to get you, as in some people's view of capitalism (vs., say, the image of a big bartering market).
i end up inevitably in politics because i see old fashioned religions having a waning influence. the conservative impulse they once protected is now rife with social justice, global warming, environmentalism, etc, all adjunct pseudo scientific belief systems that support "fascism" (as in liberal fascism, progressivism)...
we don't really like freedom all that much, that's what it comes down to

but one thing
life (evolution for the believers) is on the side of freedom. yes. life is always changes. has no loyalty to pattern (weather, species, etc). it's amorally in favor of change and even more -- "it" has given us access to the blueprint. the earth is warmed by a yellow DWARF star, on it's way out. millioins, billions of years? yes, we can't fathom those, but not only that, more personally we see NO ONE SURVIVES DEATH... whoops, i mean outside of the afterlife and Fortean Times magazine. The blueprint is given to us.

and what do we do with it?
like spiders, we weave a sticky beautiful web and try to catch things
to eat

;-)

Loneliness and the Left

Sometimes, often, I wonder what motivates someone to be a leftie. I assume the "conventional wisdom" that the left people are smart. Smart means observant. A smart person should be able to see that leftism doesn't work, that regulation doesn't make us freer, that protection does not protect, that equality never happens. But yet, no observation of "reality" penetrates. So what is it?

I think I found what it is.
It is loneliness.
Isn't the right as lonely as the left? Generally, no. The religious right are the least lonely of all, they have Jesus. They have God. What's to be lonely about? The libertarians, embittered in a sense, accept their loneliness: Leave me alone! they say. They are the disappointed and the misanthropic. They "see" (observe) how "help" does not help and say the less the better.
The rest of the right is in the middle, some God (but not too much), some "leave me alone" (in their mocked "gated communities"). The left calls this selfish, but they see themselves as tribal.

Now let's go back to the left.
Mostly the left is secular. I know this isn't totally true, but I suspect the gods or God that support the left are somehow less present and comforting than the God on the right. The irreligous man/woman is vulnerable. They want to belong. They are disppointed in family (who isn't?). They want community, though they see even the smallest committee is generally a kind of hell. They want peace, dialogue with the enemy, at almost any price. They are conflicted enough, angry enough, sad enough, who needs a war on top of it? Most of all they crave something large and functioning that they can trust. Where else to go but the government?
Despite its profusion of dysfunction departments: ex-soldiers can't get medical care, FEMA flubs Katrina, financial oversight a mess, tax law at 63,000 pages of code, etc. they are undaunted in their belief that, no matter how bad, a government-run health care system has to be BETTER than what we have now. They have very little evidence for this. The biggest factor in this belief in government comes from the fact that it is the last place to turn for this feeling of not being alone. Call it family or community, it's a projection of our desire to be protected.
It's why populations rarely kick out dictators. Somewhere in their hearts, they want the guy to succeed, they want him to prove others wrong. He is a good guy, mostly good. Sure he steals a little, a lot, but he loves the people. And they usually have some evidence (eg. health care in Cuba).