Badu's "Art".

Erykah Badu's recent spectacle has caused no small amount of controversy. Her nude demonstration at Dealey Plaza in Dallas has been defended by many as art. It has been criticized by others as an offensive disturbance. I am inclined to agree with the latter.

Years ago as an undergraduate I took a course on English literature. The lessons I learned in that course are just as relevant to art as they are to literature. There are two things to consider when assessing a work of art: the message of the artist and the expression of that message. Great works of art are concerned with timeless and profound insights into human nature and existence. Love, hate, hope, and despair, for example, are all timeless and universal human emotions. They are subjects every person has access to and can relate to, not just ancient Romans or French aristocracy. All men have felt hate and love. All have felt hope and despair. They are subjects that transcend time and place. Moreover, they are subjects that cannot be exhausted. They have always existed and they always will exist. They will always be experienced in new and subtle ways. A good artist, whether a sculptor, painter, poet, etc., brings a new exploration of the subject and so provides the viewer a new insight. Each artist and each new piece brings a new perspective.

The expression of the subject should be in congruity to the gravity of the subject. Great subjects require great expressions. It matters not whether the expression is in the form of a sculpture, a play, or a painting. It doesn't matter whether the expression is abstract, surreal, modern or classic. It doesn't matter whether the artist approves or disapproves of what he is expressing, whether it is love or hate, fear or hope. Whatever the subject, the expression must fit the subject. Christ's Crucifixion for example, (whether one accepts it or not) is a profound subject that deals with God's relation to man and man's salvation. Great subjects demand great expression. The Sistine Chapel is a work of art. The expression is wholly congruous with the subject. Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine is a crude and inarticulate expression of a profound subject. Piss Christ is not a work of art. It is a clumsy attempt to assault the viewer, not provide insight.

Secondly, great art requires great talent. Rodin and Rubens had very different styles, but they both had great talent. Each was able to express universal themes in a style and manner appropriate to the subject. There is congruity between between the subject and the expression of that subject. They were both able to express a subject in a deep and thoughtful way because they both had talent and insight enough to articulate the subject. One can witness the emotions of the subjects in Rubens' Descent from the Cross. One can see, and almost feel the hope, the despair, and determination of the disciples as they take Christ's dead body down and prepare the shroud. Dostoevsky offers deep insight to human motivation and emotion, human strength and weakness. He articulates his characters, their actions and their emotions in a manner accessible and recognizable to the reader, whether they are 19th century Russians or not. The reader has access to these feelings and motivations and so can enter the work and participate in it. In great art, the artist invites the viewer into the work to experience it and to participate in it because the artist has the talent to do so.

Because each viewer is different, each takes away a different experience. Yet they can all identify the experience because they all share it. They all share it because they are all human. Everyone has felt fear. Everyone has felt despair. Every one has felt love and joy. Everyone has experienced beauty. A great artist invites reflection, provokes thought and provides insight into the experience. If the artist has done his job, each viewer will take away new insight into themselves and the world. A good artist can express her subject because her talent allows her to explore and articulate it in such a way that she can bring out its nuance and complexity. Because each artist is different, each brings a new perspective. Great subjects can never be exhausted because there will always be new artists with new insights and new perspectives. As importantly, there will always be new viewers.

There has long been a trend in modern art where the artist's feelings and emotions have become more important than the subject or the viewers. The viewer simply constitutes an audience for the artist's sentiments. The subject is the artist's platform. The work is usually an expression of how the artist feels about a certain subject. It is not a universal or timeless insight. It is a personal and peculiar one only shared by those with similar sentiments. An artist's rage against a contemporary convention is not a universal theme. A sculptor's expression of a government's policy is not a timeless one and will have little relevance to those in the future. If one does not share the artist's peculiar sentiments or views, the work has little interest. If one does not approve or is offended by of the depiction or the subject, it is not important because the artist does not care about the viewer. The artist is first and foremost concerned with himself and his feelings. Too often the only thing many modern "artists" demand of their viewers is a reaction. A good artist wants to give insight into the subject. He wants to engage the viewer and inspire him. He certainly doesn't want to offend him. The viewer may be offended, but that is not the artist's intent. The mediocre artist simply wants the viewer's attention. The artist wants to demonstrate her feelings on the subject or depict something of interest to the author and not necessarily the viewer. If the viewer shares the sentiment of the author, so much the better. If not, there are always other viewers. There is no attempt to provoke insight. The viewer is more of a target than an audience. The bad artist often simply wants to mug the viewer.

Badu's spectacle was not art. It was an act of petulance and anger born of frustration. While it was an attempt (and an successful one by all accounts) to provoke people, it was the attempt of a child to provoke her parents. She wanted to offend people, not inspire them. She wanted attention in the same way a disgruntled child wants attention from her parents. Because Badu had little, if any talent, the only way she could express herself was by attempting to shock and provoke her audience. To try and create art without talent or insight is like trying to write a novel with poor vocabulary and little imagination. The subject must be deformed to fit its creator. Badu could not express herself through creating a work of art, so she took her clothes off and walked through Dealey Plaza. She could not offer any insight to the viewers, so she attempted to mug them.

Great art will produce wonder, reflection and awe. Good art will will intrigue and captivate. Mediocre art will distract. Poor art will wind up in the attic or in rummage sales and thrift shops. As for Badu, she will soon be forgotten.

Let's Start a War

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, Bob Herbert writes of the economic ills still plaguing that nation. Unemployment is still high and the economy is still struggling. In his column, Herbert makes the astounding claim that government efforts to address the economy so far have been "small-bore efforts that will accomplish little." He is half right. Government efforts to stimulate the economy have had few results. But he is very wrong to characterize government efforts to stimulate the economy so far as "small bore". Well over $1 trillion has been spent. Granted, a trillion dollars is not what it used to be. But to characterize it as "small bore" is quite a stretch.

Herbert trots out the standard justification of massive government spending by using the New Deal as an example of the efficacy of massive government spending to stimulate the economy. It has long been argued that it was government spending that brought the nation out of the Great Depression. This argument has been eroding for some time. Many economists have come to conclude that what ended the Great Depression was not the New Deal, but WWII. It was the war that cranked up production in the U.S. It was the war that took millions of men and women off the street and put them to work in factories and fighting the Germans and the Japanese.

After well more than $1 trillion has been spent to stimulate the economy, the economy is still foundering. According to Herbert and many others, $1 trillion is "small bore." A real solution would require much more to be spent. "Real" job bills are needed, not the feeble ones so far enacted by Obama and Congress. Hebert asserts that the solution to the economic problems hounding the U.S. is more jobs. There is no argument that he is correct. The problem is how do we create real jobs? To Herbert and other liberals, the way to create jobs is through government "stimulation". If spending $1 trillion was not enough to stimulate the economy, the solution must be to spend a trillion more.

Maybe it is time that the government finds a new strategy. Perhaps it should try getting out of the way by lowering taxes and reducing regulations. The entrepreneurial nature of the American public has never failed in the past. Certainly the motivation and skills are there for Americans to get to work and make money. The government should encourage them, not hobble them with taxes, regulations and mandatory health care.

There is an old saying. If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. Massive government spending and increasing regulatory encroachment have failed to improve the economy, but the government keeps on digging. It cannot be helped. It is the government's nature to dig.

If the administration truly wants to follow FDR's example and stimulate the economy, it should stop dithering with health care and stimulus packages. It should declare war on China. Not only would a real war give the economy a boost and dramatically reduce unemployment, it would give us the opportunity to take down one of our chief economic rivals. Perhaps we could even make a detour and invade Iran as well. It would be a win win situation. World war worked for FDR. It can work for Obama.

Peace Talks

It was reported yesterday that Arab leaders agreed to move forward on Middle East peace talks over the objections of Libya and Syria. The agreement came in the face of continued Israeli expansion in Jerusalem. Said Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa "If we withdraw...what will be the Arab stance after that?" Indeed. There is little, if anything, Arabs can do about Israel. They cannot challenge Israel militarily and they have no economic leverage. World opinion matters little to Israel so long as they have support from the U.S. What choice do Arab leaders really have but to continue talking? Petulance has gotten them nowhere.

Even still, not all Arab leaders support the talks. Syrian President Bashar Assad pressured Palestinians not to enter in to peace talks with Israel. Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi threatened to withdraw Libyan support from the 2002 peace initiative agreed to by Arab leaders in Beirut. Despite protests to the talks, many Arabs support them, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The Palestinians have the most to lose from not talking. Many Arab leader across the region are taking significant political risks to pursue the talks. The question remains whether, and to what extent, Israel is willing to help them.

Provocative acts on the part of Israel, like the recent moves to expand Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, make it more difficult for Arab leaders to pursue peace talks. Many Arab leaders risk danger at home by alienating hard line elements to enter into talks with Israel. Israel should return the favor. If Palestinian President Abbas and the Arab League are willing to rebuff threats and stand up to hard line elements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, it is only fair that Israel take risks by standing up to hard line elements in their own community. Militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are obstacles to peace. So are Israeli settlers.

The Palestinians have been losing land, lives, property and dignity for a long time. It will not be enough for Israel to simply stop taking. They will need to start giving, and not just bits and pieces of land. They will need to give respect as well. Condescending to give up some small parcels of territory and limited control will do little to ease animosity toward Israel, especially since Israel retains control over the borders, restricts traffic and trade, and reserves the prerogative of entering those territories if and when it deems necessary. Stopping the expansion of settlements, reigning in settlers, and easing restrictions and control over Palestinian territory would make it easier for Arab leaders to sit down and talk with Israel. The fact that Israel often refuses to do so casts doubt on its willingness, and perhaps even its ability to negotiate in good faith.

If there is to be real peace, it will take more than for Israel to simply take its boot off the throats of the Palestinians. It will have to help them up and show them respect as well. It is in Israel's interest to assist Palestinians. A prosperous and vibrant Palestine would be an asset to Israel if for no other reason than such a Palestine would have much to lose in a conflict with Israel and much to gain by peace. If Israel is serious about peace and not simply seeking to end violence and crush resistance, they should make it worthwhile for the Palestinians. They should give the Palestinians enough for them to have hope. Not just for existence, but for prosperity and dignity. Only a prosperous and proud Palestine would have enough to lose for Palestinians to turn their backs on violence and embrace peace. If Israel insists on playing the role of suzerain, violence and protest will only continue.