Letters to the Editor
EMStoveken
Published Letters: 391 Editor's Choice: 44
-
Kitsch -vs- Iconography
[Read the article: From Norman Rockwell to Abu Ghraib]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we want to connect Bush's mediocre taste in art with his horrific sense of . . . pretty much everything else in the world, you need to shift how you are looking at the work in question. Kitsch lends itself to ironic detatchment, it is something that is most commonly appreciated with a knowing smirk. Now while our idiot child-emperor is known to smirk on an infuriatingly frequent basis, his tend to be directed at the proponent of logic and reason who periodically challenge his views.
What compells Bush about Koerner and Onderdonk is not their kitsch value but their (to his mind) Iconic status as emblems of a bygone era of heroism. These are representations of single simple notions free of context (the genocide of Native Americans) or nuance
There is no sense of irony.
The same lack of context plagues the Alamo. I have no doubt that Bush would have you believe that every single man fighting at the Alamo was united behind a single cause of secession from Mexico with intent to join the United States. A litte research will show that not only where there a wide range of motives (everything from Texan sovereignty to wanting to retain the right to own slaves) at work, and that some were not even sure why they were there.
What's one would think that at some point the cachet of the Alamo would have faded entirely from the modern American mindset. This whole bullshit machismo standing firm to the bitter end has its merits only when backed into a corner. When strategic retreat is possible, it is at the very least an option to be considered.
But again, the Iconography of the Alamo: it's distinctive architecture still standing after all these years, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, William Travis et al. standing shoulder to shoulder against insurmountable odds, sacrificing for a higher cause blah blah f'n blah, is far more powerful to Bush than any detailed consideration of the politics, strategy or logistics of a lost battle.
So might the art he has influence his policy? No.
Might his taste in art come from the same psychological place as his policy? Absolutely.
Just don't give him the free pass of calling it kitsch, that would imply that he knows it's ridiculous.
-
Debate watching as thought exercise
[Read the article: Make room for Daddy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is something inherently useful about watching a person pander shamelessly to their base. I put this as a contrast to performance in more general forums where the message may be tailored here or there in the hopes of casting a wider net.
The Republican debate held at the Institute for the Advancement of Reagan Fetishism was a perfect opportunity to submerge oneself in the essence of modern right-wing thought. For a "bleeding heart objectivist/left-leaning libertarian" such as myself, it is an interesting thought exercise.
Here we get to see the candidates publicly proclaiming things that should be saved for a therapist's couch:
1) Guiliani's man-crush on Reagan: "Remember, they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes, and in two minutes, they released the hostages." I'm pretty sure I saw that looking into his eyes bit on some internet site dedicated to Chuck Norris. Next Guiliani quote: "Reagan's tears could cure cancer. Unfortunately, Reagan never cried."
2) McCain's Delusions of Rambo: "We will bring him to justice, and I will follow him to the gates of hell." I can not wait to see McCain strapping on the special forces gear and humping it through the Pakistani/Afghan borderlands for his one on one fisticuffs with Bin Ladin. Ideally, standing in a mid-calf deep stream so they can periodically try to hold each other's head under the water and Bin Ladin's beard will whip around in bitchin' John Woo Slow Motion when McCain clocks him.
All in all it was like some sort of reactionary episode of "I [heart] the 80s" but with a focus on bad ecomomic policy and cowboy foreign relations.
Inserting oneself into this thing and imagining a world in which the phallus-waving proclamations of these Machiavellian wannabes are exactly what people want to hear should be a wake up call for those who think politicians are all the same.
Given the choice between a waffling middle of the road pseudo-liberal and the platter of psychosis on display for the republicans, I would have to go for the earlier.