Generally speaking, I find it pretty off-putting when people who write about arts and culture delve into politics.
Sometimes, they can provide a fresh, unadorned, average-guy kind of perspective, which Leonard Pitts does at his best. Or perhaps I should say, did at his best. I remember finding some of his earliest op-ed columns refreshing. I haven’t gotten that impression from him for a long time.
You know how I can’t stand political rhetoric from either the left or the right that does nothing but set forth a doctrinaire worldview, and is utterly dismissive of people who disagree? Arts writers-turned-political columnists are among the very worst offenders in this category. Too often, their columns are about little other than how awful, stupid, evil and vicious conservatives are (particularly, for whatever reason, cultural and/or religious conservatives).
Up until now, I thought the worst of this genre was Frank Rich of The New York Times. I was glad, several years ago, when the NYT decided to indulge him to an absurd degree by allowing his columns to run twice as long as those of other opinion writers, meaning they were too long for me even to consider putting them in the paper, which in turn meant that I didn’t have to read them.
But for sheer unrestrained, hyperemotional, puerile ranting and raving about someone of whom the writer disapproves, Mr. Rich must now take a back seat to Jason Farago, writing in The Guardian today about portraits of world leaders painted by former President George W. Bush. An excerpt:
Many good artists do bad things. Cellini and Caravaggio were both murderers; Schiele and Balthus had a thing for young girls; and more than one contemporary artist I could name has been tied up with tax evasion troubles. So just because a painter has – for example – the blood of up to 136,012 dead Iraqis on his hands does not, in itself, prove that he lacks talent.
George W Bush, whose nightmare presidency unleashed its latest aftershock this week when his dauphin John Roberts gutted our already minimal campaign finance laws, has been painting these past few years, and at his presidential library in Dallas he is exhibiting two dozen portraits of fellow world leaders. The show opens Saturday, and it has a title: The Art of Leadership: A President’s Personal Diplomacy.
“Diplomatic” is actually not a bad word to describe the orientation of these paintings. They are not bad so much as cautious, vacant, even servile – paintings by an artist anxious, or perhaps incapable, of doing anything that might leave a mark….
This seems the literary equivalent of a murderer who is unsatisfied with merely killing, but keeps stabbing his victim over and over with the butcher knife.
Sorry. That was my attempt at writing the way Mr. Farago does. Evidently, I’m not very good at it (it was even grammatically awkward — don’t ask me to diagram it)…
Related Posts
Just to wallow a bit more in this awfulness, here’s his ending:
I haven’t read anything so lacking in perspective and self-restraint in a while…
He doesn’t like Mr. Bush. I got it the first time. However this fulminating goes nowhere. I did not like Mr. Bush’s presidency either, but I can tell you why without resorting to ad hominem attack. BTW, Katrina drowned New Orleans; Mr. Bush failed to ensure that aid got there in a timely manner. Let’s not confuse the two.
I like Leonard Pitts!
C’mon, what if our Phillip wrote a column? (Please?)
Phillip would write very thoughtful columns.
Phillip is an artist, not an arts writer/critic. I wasn’t talking about artists…
he had an excellent blog.
And of course you like Leonard Pitts. You would usually agree with him. His columns are about expressing views held as basic truths by liberals, and why this is the only way for decent, thinking human beings to look at things.
If you’re like me and disagree with him fairly frequently, you’d be more aware of the way he was drawing that circle and leaving you out of it. It would get sufficiently tiresome, and you would become so familiar with that tone, that eventually it would bug you even when you agreed with him.
But I certainly prefer his work to that of Frank Rich. Pitts is human and approachable. He seems to say, “I’m just a regular guy who isn’t interested in all the games politicians play, and here’s what I think about this stuff from my regular-guy, outsider’s perspective.” Whereas Rich is supercilious, coming across as one who sees himself as of the intellectual elite, and holds his lessers in contempt.
An example of the Rich style, from March 13:
I try not to be privilege blind, and Pitts holds up a good mirror for that.
I’m rolling my eyes here… maybe that’s why I’m so “blind”…
You have a problem with his piece in today’s paper?
Yes. Didn’t you?
Didn’t you want to know why Ms. Taylor was homeless? Don’t you expect a writer like Mr. Pitts to shed more light into a situation than use a situation for a political narrative?
Why was Ms. Taylor homeless? Was she at fault at all? Did she do this to herself? Does she share any blame at all? Did she turn down services that were offered to her? Did she ignore family pleas to help because she was just that type of person?
or – Did someone abuse her? Where is the father of her children? Is he around? Does she even know him? Did he leave her and hurt her?
Why was she in a situation where she didn’t even have 1 friend that could watch her children for 30 mins to an hour?
Does she have mental issues that need to be solved?
I have a problem with any columnist that takes limited information, uses that his/her political advantage as best they can without knowing what they are talking about.
Kathryn, yes, I did (I just now went back and read it). Probably the worst part was these two over-the-top grafs:
First, who is it that’s spinning this line that this woman is the “enemy?” I’d like an example or two, rather than just his sweeping assertion that “that is the narrative that is relentlessly spun by pundits and politicians on the political right.”
Second, how does he define the difference between his evaluation of this incident — that there is “no excuse” for it — and that of the people with whom he disagrees?
Third, I really had trouble finding the connections between the things mentioned in the passage quoted above and what he was talking about.
Finally, I object because it is a classic false argument that I see too much. A lot of people who are reflexive partisans use this line of “thinking” to define their binary way of looking at the world. It’s based in the assumption that “everyone who disagrees with me about THIS also disagrees with me about everything else.” To someone who thinks that way — and it’s by no means uncommon; it’s the assumption upon which our two-party system is based — it’s perfectly valid to use the completely bogus “well, they complain about THIS, but they never complain about THAT” argument.
This makes perfect sense to someone who thinks in terms of there being “good people like me” and bad people like those others. But it makes no sense to me.
And maybe it’s because I’ve heard the outrageous slander that “pro-life people only care about unwanted children BEFORE they’re born” far too many times. That is 100 percent wrong in describing me, and just as wrong in describing most of the pro-life people I know. Because people on the left can find SOME people who embrace that contradiction, then EVERYONE who dares to disagree with them on abortion is just as big a hypocrite.
This is no kind of attitude to bring to the public conversation about difficult issues. It’s destructive. It leads to nothing good.
I dunno Brad. As editorial page editor you included folks that to me were simply outside of the universe of rational thinkers. Cal Thomas comes to mind. I get conservatives like Charles Krauthammer who occasionally has a sensible point. But Thomas came across as overly pious with and really didn’t belong in a mainstream newspaper. But my very least favorite by a country mile is Thomas Freidman who absolutely cannot make a point on any subject without trying to be “balanced” politically. That is the worst of all journalistic sins.
I read the entire article, and I’m left wondering if the criticism of his art is more about the art or about the Bush presidency. He draws a few conclusions about Bush’s paintings and Bush’s personality, which seems fair, but his emphasis on the political side (he mentions the Iraqi count twice) seems too vehement for the art review.
Don’t you see? His words are like art, carefully crafted to paint a picture of Bush that depicts him as a vile, evil, malevolent, and hated villain. I am honestly surprised he didn’t try to equate Bush’s art with Hitler’s just to make a point. Kinda like Raphie’s dad in “Christmas Story” whose swear words were woven like a tapestry that hung in the air.
Mr. Farago is very proud of the art he produced in the form of an attack piece on GWB, almost “bud worthy”.
I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you…that a lefty art-critic doesn’t like W’s art.
I also thought it was funny that Mr. Lefty Art Critic decided to opine that the holding of McCutcheon v. FEC “gutted our already minimal campaign finance laws”. I always enjoy hearing artists and art critics argue against other people’s first amendment rights.
I think I would probably be more restrained than this guy if I were writing about Hitler’s art. I might make a passing reference to his being one of the worst people in history, but I’d do it with less emotion and bombast. I’d write about his art, which would be the purpose.
It would likely be a pretty bland piece, in fact, since his art was so unremarkable. I might slip in a reflection on the banality of evil, but I wouldn’t go all to pieces about it…
Speaking of which, I think the best depiction of said banality was by Michael Moriarty in “The Holocaust.”
Of course, I suppose that’s a rather trite observation. It’s pretty obvious that’s what he was shooting for. His character could have been NAMED “Banality Evil,” like the characters in an old morality play…
Well – plenty of Democrats and liberals called George Bush “Hitler” when he was President-
you know – the same ones now that get all torn up if someone calls President Obama a name- because after all- he is the president and you don’t get personal with the president.
The same ones? How do you know this?
I was going to post about 30 links with Bush/Hitler comparisons/signs/protestoers in Washington and New York carrying signs with Bush and Hitler on the sign- but some are so vulgar that i decided not to do so.
well – maybe one – http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_april_10_2004/characters/120-2044_IMG.JPG
The Nation and Salon contributor Dave Lindorff ““It’s going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was”
During the 2004 presidential campaign, moveon.org, financed by George Soros, posted a picture of George Bush wearing a Hitler mustache
In December 2003, the cover of the British edition of the New YorkTimes – columnist Paul Krugman’s book, The Great Unraveling, was published with a photo of Vice President Dick Cheney defaced with an oil mustache in the style worn by Adolph Hitler
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Linda Ronstadt said the Bush administration is a “new bunch of Hitlers.”
On Monday, July 8, 2002, Jesse Jackson condemned George W. Bush’s political tactics during the 2000 presidential campaign as “Nazi-like”
In April 2005, a special judicial panel ruled that veteran appellate court judge Guido Calabresi violated ethics rules by likening President Bush to Mussolini and Hitler
By the way, thank y’all for coming out and commenting on a Friday. Too often, I can’t get a rise out of anybody on this day of the week.
In fact, lately it’s been hard to get a proper discussion going on ANY day. Examples of comment counts from this week:
This single-digit stuff is getting OLD, people. And discouraging.
I did get 75 responses from a Virtual Front Page the other day. I guess maybe y’all want more of those. But there have been times when I’d hardly take note of a mere 75 responses. We need to get some three-digit threads going, folks.
Tell me what it is y’all like that you’re not getting. (Oh, please don’t let it be culture war stuff; Oh, please don’t let it be culture war stuff; Oh, please don’t let it be culture war stuff; Oh, please don’t let it be culture war stuff; Oh, please…)
Like this post, with 310 replies.
Or this one, with 305.
Here’s an easy way to generate more traffic. Simply point out the many, many significant accomplishments of the Obama administration and every conservative ostrich in America will pull his head out of the sand to “explain” why the news really isn’t good. Take today’s very good job report. Another month, another 1/5 of million jobs added. The day before we had the terrific news that millions of Americans are finally receiving health insurance. You don’t even need to go culture war.
The virtual front page is the bomb. Should do one every day.
By the way, for contrast, here’s a mature, professional piece about the Bush exhibit, in the NYT…
Mature maybe but was the NYT article really worth reading? I’m sure any parent could write a comparable article about the artistic skills of their 6 year old and it would be just as interesting.
SLED is investigating Rich Co Elections Board
And would anyone seriously be looking at Bush’s paintings if he had not been POTUS? Thus, critiquing his Presidency is not out of bounds
It’s very simple, really. If you feel that horrible injustices, violations of international law, and ill-considered actions that directly or indirectly led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people were the hallmark of much of the Bush/Cheney co-presidency, then naturally you are going to rail against any kind of cozy, “oh yes well we had our differences in the past, but let bygones be bygones and isn’t it nice that George W. has pursued this lovely hobby, to think we all got so worked up over this nice man, etc.” human-interest angle that would be the more polite, traditional media take on a GWB art exhibition. If one truly feels that it’s an injustice to write anything about the former President without associating his name with the number of Iraqi war dead and displaced, then one would have to write exactly the kind of article Mr. Farago did.
I do think it’s a shame that W didn’t pursue this side of his nature (artistic) until after his Presidency; maybe developing this more reflective side of himself would have made him a different sort of leader than the one he was, perhaps more attuned to the gray nuances, more empathetic.
As for the mixing of arts and politics in writing, I guess Brad we’re not going to get you to enroll in this degree program anytime soon! Incidentally I know you have a thing against Frank Rich, mostly because he’s a pretty straightforward orthodox liberal and especially a cultural liberal, but that paragraph you cited as some example of something you find objectionable—what’s wrong with what he wrote? In fact, it’s not partisan at all but just speaks of the “idiocy of our political culture” —something which you write about a lot, perhaps using different words.
Anyway, Frank Rich’s career speaks for itself. The guy is a virtuoso writer and I admire his breadth of knowledge in both arts and politics.
“It’s very simple, really. If you feel that horrible injustices, violations of international law, and ill-considered actions that directly or indirectly led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people”
I thought you were talking about Bill Clinton’s inaction in Rwanda with that sentence considering – especially considering UN Ambassador Susan Power has said that the Clinton administration felt there was not enough public support to intervene in what caused 800,000+ people to die.
But you were just focused on George Bush.
Inaction in Rwanda is a lot different from an unjustified war in Iraq.
Not to the 800,000 that lost their lives.
People die all over the world. We cannot save everyone. We stirred up a lot of hate in Iraq, and killed a lot of people on false grounds.
and we aren’t asked to save everyone. In fact, folks around the world often want us to stay out.
of course in Rwanda the UN Commander in charge ( General Romeo Dallaire) did ask- and we weren’t interested.
Barry, “I” wasn’t speaking about anything, other than offering my explanation of how someone with Mr. Farago’s perspective (and let’s face it, whether you like it or not, much of the world shares his view) would address an art exhibit by George W. Bush. I wasn’t “focused” on George Bush other than the fact that that it is his artwork on exhibit, not Bill Clinton’s.
“idiocy of our political culture” —
Frank Rich contributes to that idiocy just as Rush Limbaugh does. Frank sees everyone that doesn’t see things as he does as a problem- a big problem- and of course – inferior.
Most liberals love Rich.
Most conservatives love Limbaugh
and for plenty of the same reasons.
Please, Barry. There are plenty of intelligent conservatives who write well. Don’t insult conservatism by comparing Limbaugh to Rich.
of course there are many intelligent conservatives who write well- and don’t approach things from an elitist point of view – like Frank Rich does.
Rush of is often arrogant and condescending- and those words perfectly apply to Frank Rich too – thus my comparison.
I’d like to think that most decent people, be they liberal or conservative, would reject the antics of anybody who is arrogant and condescending, be they liberal or conservative. Since I think many liberals and conservatives are also decent people, I have to doubt that “Most liberals love Rich. Most conservatives love Limbaugh.” I could be wrong. Some, certainly, but most? I hope not.
I think most liberals love Rich because they think he “gives it to the other side and doesn’t hold back”
and most Conservatives love Limbaugh because they think he “gives it to the other side and doesn’t hold back”
Different ways of going about it- both extremely arrogant and elitist – and plenty of love from folks on their side- even if they don’t agree with them on everything.
Phillip asks about the Rich quote, “what’s wrong with what he wrote?”
It’s the unnecessarily deprecating, hostile, supercilious tone.
“It’s the unnecessarily deprecating, hostile, supercilious tone.”
Which should only be reserved for when writing about libertarians.
Doug, I try not to do that. I’m sorry if I fail. But I think you can distinguish a difference in tone between Frank Rich’s default “everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” mode and mine. I hope so, anyway…
I hate it when political wonks take a crack at discussing the arts. Or, if they’re conservatives, take a crack at controlling and suppressing the arts.
Amen!
Well, I don’t know who is controlling and suppressing the arts. But in any event, I’m really sorry if Burl in any way saw my comments as aimed at him, since he has long written extensively about the arts…
See, now, that’s not bad — 40 comments on a Friday post. Of course, a bunch of them were me…
Tell the truth, I’m just trying to see the bright side there. Actually, I’m saddened that even on this, we couldn’t just all agree that the Bush art piece was outrageous….
Everyone knows it was a “hit piece” – but some aren’t going to admit it even to themselves.