The Abramoff story has a newish wrinkle, namely a number of suppressed photographs that show Abraamoff shaking hands with the president. This has a certain potency for the story because the Bush administration has been trying to distance itself as much as possible, and images have a power that should not be underestimated. Pictures can run in newspapers, on television, etc.
One of the things the photo wrinkle of the story has brought out is the position of Reflections Photography as sort of court photographer for political Washington. Greg at Talent Show has a few wonderful and fascinating posts about this. Do look, it shows how very strange, and impersonal, and image obsessed Washington is. Particularly of interest is the post discussing the Glory Wall and the way in which photos continue to serve talismanic purpose.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Uncle Hazim's Neighborhood
Via BagNewsNotes, one of my favorite blogs, I found a story that provides an interesting bookend to the previous post.
First, a word about bagnewsnotes. it's a blog run by Michael Shaw, a psychotherapist and MFA in creative writing candidate. The blog interrogates images that appear in the media, most often in newspapers and newsmagazines. It's a good, thought-provoking site.
Back to the matter at hand. BagNewsNotes links to a New York Times article about a children's show run by Hamas. Hamas is, in fact, following the lead of Hizbollah, which runs Al Manar TV, a station that is viewed throughout the Middle East and, if I understand correctly, has been broadcast selectively in the US.
Most Americans understand Hamas as a terrorist group, but it is not only that. Like Hizbollah, it is a political and social movement. The fact that it isn't just a wrecking ball organization makes it harder to destroy, more a part of the permanent landscape of Palestine.
It's hard to know exactly how to read the development of Hamas as a media organization- is this a stab at respectability? Merely an attempt to indoctrinate? I don't know enough about Hamas to say, but it certainly is interesting.
First, a word about bagnewsnotes. it's a blog run by Michael Shaw, a psychotherapist and MFA in creative writing candidate. The blog interrogates images that appear in the media, most often in newspapers and newsmagazines. It's a good, thought-provoking site.
Back to the matter at hand. BagNewsNotes links to a New York Times article about a children's show run by Hamas. Hamas is, in fact, following the lead of Hizbollah, which runs Al Manar TV, a station that is viewed throughout the Middle East and, if I understand correctly, has been broadcast selectively in the US.
Most Americans understand Hamas as a terrorist group, but it is not only that. Like Hizbollah, it is a political and social movement. The fact that it isn't just a wrecking ball organization makes it harder to destroy, more a part of the permanent landscape of Palestine.
It's hard to know exactly how to read the development of Hamas as a media organization- is this a stab at respectability? Merely an attempt to indoctrinate? I don't know enough about Hamas to say, but it certainly is interesting.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Mao Tse-Tung hour
Check out Billmon's fascinating look at the state of the Iraqi insurgency, in particular its propaganda apparatus.
Billmon argues that the fact that various components of the insurgency, including the group set up by Zarqawi, have established a sophisticated televisual propaganda apparatus, including themed talk shows and grisly confession/execution videos, tells us that the insurgency is developing into a sophisticated enterprise similar to the Sinn Fein, mixing legitimate and illegitimate components.
Billmon makes reference to the film Network, which you should see if you haven't already. It's a sharp and engrossing satire about the media from 1976, and touches on issues ranging from the corporate ownership of the press, televisual spectacle, the rubbernecking compulsion of television audiences toward the violent and profane, the insoluble confusion and alienation of modern (or perhaps postmodern) life, and radical chic. It stars Peter Finch, who won an academy award postumously for his role here as Howard Beale, as well as Faye Dunaway, William Holden, and Ned beatty in a supremely creepy role.
Aside from the fact that Network is relevant to television shows that make suicide bombing and assasination appear legitimate by wrapping them in the banality of daytime TV, there's something of Network in our times in a more general way. There's a lack of trust in institutions like government or press, one I feel is well earned.
Times are hard for people. Health care and energy spiral in cost. GM, once the measure of America's economic success, has fallen on hard times, but Product Chief Bob Lutz claims it would be a terrible mistake to cut or continue a freeze in executive pay. Lutz made roughly $4.4 million in 2004. Nothing makes sense. The rich get richer. The congress is full of crooks- more than that, politics has become a criminal enterprise.
And TV deals with the chaos with Celebrity Fit Club, and similar pointless absurdities. Oh Well.
Billmon argues that the fact that various components of the insurgency, including the group set up by Zarqawi, have established a sophisticated televisual propaganda apparatus, including themed talk shows and grisly confession/execution videos, tells us that the insurgency is developing into a sophisticated enterprise similar to the Sinn Fein, mixing legitimate and illegitimate components.
Billmon makes reference to the film Network, which you should see if you haven't already. It's a sharp and engrossing satire about the media from 1976, and touches on issues ranging from the corporate ownership of the press, televisual spectacle, the rubbernecking compulsion of television audiences toward the violent and profane, the insoluble confusion and alienation of modern (or perhaps postmodern) life, and radical chic. It stars Peter Finch, who won an academy award postumously for his role here as Howard Beale, as well as Faye Dunaway, William Holden, and Ned beatty in a supremely creepy role.
Aside from the fact that Network is relevant to television shows that make suicide bombing and assasination appear legitimate by wrapping them in the banality of daytime TV, there's something of Network in our times in a more general way. There's a lack of trust in institutions like government or press, one I feel is well earned.
Times are hard for people. Health care and energy spiral in cost. GM, once the measure of America's economic success, has fallen on hard times, but Product Chief Bob Lutz claims it would be a terrible mistake to cut or continue a freeze in executive pay. Lutz made roughly $4.4 million in 2004. Nothing makes sense. The rich get richer. The congress is full of crooks- more than that, politics has become a criminal enterprise.
And TV deals with the chaos with Celebrity Fit Club, and similar pointless absurdities. Oh Well.
Friday, January 13, 2006
We don't want a broken patty
That's a guarantee!
Check out thisWendy's training video from 1989. Apparently rap is the key to efficiency in the fast food business. That or singing beef patties.
Check out thisWendy's training video from 1989. Apparently rap is the key to efficiency in the fast food business. That or singing beef patties.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Liza has a blog
I's called Art History For The Unrefined and it can be found here. Again, that's Art History for the Unrefined.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Advocacy and Bad Art
As a comment to the previous post, I didn't see the Joe Dante Voting Zombies thing, and not just becuase I don't have cable.
It's because certain types of advocacy/activist art are consistently Bad Art. And I figured this would probably be the case with that. (Not to put down Joe Dante. Gremlins rule.)
But something bad happens when the aesthetics of cultural product take a major back seat to the advocacy of a certain ideology. This is the difference between Christian rock and JS Bach. Art can glorify God, absolutely, but only insofar as it still cares about being art.
In the case of Creed, we have two-bit Eddie Vedder impersonator at vocals, and a bunch of recycled grunge instrumentals beside, all over a bunch of fake spirituality. You can tell it's "Christian" because it sounds like bad advertising.
That's why Michael Moore Hates America, although I've never seen it, is almost certainly bad. Because the motivation, much more than for Moore, is to make a point. I don't too much like Michael Moore, but he is entertaining, and knows how to make an engaging film.
It certainly isn't the case that only the right engages in this kind of bankrupt art practice. The contemporary scene is littered with advocates without vision or perspective, people whose work gains nothing going from the page out into the world.
If I could change one thing about the tendencies of contemporary art practice, I would have more art in it, fewer picnics. Picnic art is only going to get paying customers out of that weird communal sense of guilt that sends art-worlders to shows that are "important" but ghastly.
And if picnic art wants to forego paying customers, it can go right ahead. But art without paying customers is like a sandwich shop without paying customers.
It's because certain types of advocacy/activist art are consistently Bad Art. And I figured this would probably be the case with that. (Not to put down Joe Dante. Gremlins rule.)
But something bad happens when the aesthetics of cultural product take a major back seat to the advocacy of a certain ideology. This is the difference between Christian rock and JS Bach. Art can glorify God, absolutely, but only insofar as it still cares about being art.
In the case of Creed, we have two-bit Eddie Vedder impersonator at vocals, and a bunch of recycled grunge instrumentals beside, all over a bunch of fake spirituality. You can tell it's "Christian" because it sounds like bad advertising.
That's why Michael Moore Hates America, although I've never seen it, is almost certainly bad. Because the motivation, much more than for Moore, is to make a point. I don't too much like Michael Moore, but he is entertaining, and knows how to make an engaging film.
It certainly isn't the case that only the right engages in this kind of bankrupt art practice. The contemporary scene is littered with advocates without vision or perspective, people whose work gains nothing going from the page out into the world.
If I could change one thing about the tendencies of contemporary art practice, I would have more art in it, fewer picnics. Picnic art is only going to get paying customers out of that weird communal sense of guilt that sends art-worlders to shows that are "important" but ghastly.
And if picnic art wants to forego paying customers, it can go right ahead. But art without paying customers is like a sandwich shop without paying customers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
