Archive for June 8, 2008

Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Reevaluating Historical Figures

Historical revisionism – the process by which we re-evaluate our heroes and cultural avatars according to modern norms – is a particular bête noire of the American Right, with the American Spectator proving the case nicely.

Actually, though, the Spectator makes a good point, for once – revisionism run amok is not scholarly, and frustrates our understanding and respect for the past. However, the Spectator’s argument goes off half-cocked. Namely, the Spectator author is right, but she’s arguing against a straw man.

If we were to judge everything against contemporary moral standards, we would no longer have a history. Since much of our morality is progressive – that is, over time, we come to realize new injustices – almost all historical figures fail to live up to modern standards.  As the Spectator author points out, to make a historical figure’s remembrance based wholly on moral failings viewed from a modern perspective is to deny a commandment of the historian – namely, that individuals and events should be looked at in context.

Further, if we’re to demand that our historical role models be perfect to retain their iconic status, we will quickly be bereft of history. Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owner, so he’s out; John Adams was an abolitionist, but probably a homophobe, and the list goes on. When looking at the past, a good historian ought to be able to engage in a conceptual severance, to be able to look at the individual’s positive accomplishments on their own. Where an individual’s failings are really the failings of the era in which she lived, this rule is especially true. Our heroes ought to be good in some way; they need not be perfect.  Let them be praised for their goodness, and condemned, but not in the same breath, for their failings.

A common example where these points come into play is in criticism of high school teachers who teach Huckleberry Finn.  The book, the argument goes, is racist; Huck tosses around the n-word fairly regularly.  Well, yes. But we do not read Huck Finn for the truth of the matter asserted; we read it for the historical context it provides, and to perhaps praise Huck for struggling against the stereotypes he lived in, to come closer than others of his era did to realizing their flaws.

Unlike Lisa from the Spectator, I don’t think that anyone actually argues that our heroes ought to be perfect, tossing them aside if they suffer from a failing of their era.  I’ve never met  “revisionist” who would hold the accomplishments of Jefferson hostage to his endorsement of slavery; rather, revisionists are “big picture” types, who insist that faults be acknowledged alongside triumphs, not that one dwarf the other.  Of course, where the faults outweigh the triumphs, or where the only triumphs come from working in the service of an objective moral wrong (as in the case of Lester Maddox, I’ve argued), history can properly condemn that individual.  And that, I think, is what Lisa from the Spectator would actually object to.

Bad Art: The Assassination of Barack Obama

This is not good art. According to its press release, the piece to the right, from an exhibit titled “The Assassination of Barack Obama,” tries to make the point that the public is too willing to engage in the assassination of Obama’s character. But the message doesn’t come across that way; in fact, it doesn’t come across at all. It’s bad art.  Since art, and personal morality-based objections to art, have become the norm in the culture wars (thank you Focus on the Family), I feel obligated to explain my objection in depth.

I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to almost any artist.  After all, art lately has become more of an exercise in questioning art than anything resembling art of old, and I’m fine with that.  I think it’s very interesting.  For example, I’m a fan of Jeff Koons (see left), even though calling myself a “fan” of his might prove that I don’t understand him… anyways, I digress.

The problem with the “Assassination” installation is that it’s not in any way self-evident.  Neither its theme nor its attempted message are new to the art world – it’s an appropriation piece, which attempts to use the language of hate to criticize it, in the style of Andres Serrano’s portraits of Klansmen, and Wojnarowicz’s photography of homophobic graffiti – but its execution is remarkably poor.  Where Serrano and Wojnarowicz succeed, this artist fails.  By way of example, one of Wojnarowicz’s famous pieces is a photograph of New York city graffiti, “fight AIDs, kill a quere,” which he displays as a way of mocking the ignorance of homophobes, who can’t even spell to articulate their hatred.  Wojnarowicz’s criticism of the subject that he photographs is evident at even a cursory reading.

But in the “Assassination” installation, the artist doesn’t really do much to make his criticism clear.  The message of hate actually sounds serious and credible, at least compared with things like this (example to the right).  Absent any clarification, they’re indistinguishable.  If he’s trying to use the language of hate to criticize hate, the message, without clarification, could just as easily be mistaken for hate itself.  The “Assassination” artist works in a long tradition of artists who try to declaw hate by showing it for how overblown and ignorant it really is, but the problem is that the “Assassination” installation isn’t that much off-target from what’s really being said about Obama, making the piece indistinguishable from the hate it criticizes.

There ought to be a cardinal rule for artists: if you need wall text to avoid conveying the exact opposite of the message you want to convey, you’re doing it wrong.

And the comparison to Duchamp in the press release is just wrong.  Seriously, get a new publicist.

McCain and the Establishment Clause

Some of this is taken out of context… but some of it isn’t.

The fact that America was established by Christians does not mean that it was established as a Christian nation. America was established with a purpose finding its meaning at a higher level than any one faith: that is, the purpose of ensuring that a nation would exist where religion would be a constructive, and not a destructive force. Imagining one faith governs a multipolar nation is destructive and wrong-headed. Partisan & religious politics have gotten us exactly where we are today… which is to say… not in a good place. Can we afford four more years of suppressing science when it’s inconvenient for the believers?

Thanks to PZ Myers for the tip.