New Haven Independent

Posted by: Unbelievable | February 23, 2009 10:37 AM

Political correctness run amock.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 23, 2009 11:11 AM

I hope they'll put this on Citizens TV so there'll be another program we won't watch.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | February 23, 2009 11:40 AM

I think they forgot the part about middlemen who sold their own people to the slave traders. They were called Kings. I believe they were black as well. These people were sold to Portugese merchants who transported slaves all over the world. I don't see any demonstrations against hispanics. Hmmm!

Can we see the next play where Union soldiers died in very bloody battles fighting against the South to free the slaves? Might add to the story about how whitey tried to put things right.

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 23, 2009 12:23 PM

FedUp:

You can see those plays almost any weekend:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/reenact.htm

There's certainly no shortage of fantasy soldiers out there.

Enjoy!

Posted by: You guys are grumpy old men | February 23, 2009 12:40 PM

Alphonse, Fed Up and Unbelievable,

Get control of yourselves. This differs from any number of other bad acting silly history plays put on downtown how?

Every year we have BENEDICT ARNOLD portrayed during Powderhouse Day. That play excludes lots of little details, like that Benedict Arnold was a traitor, or that these good folks basically engaged in ethnic cleansing against the native people found here. No mention in that piece of drama that at the time the Courant and other Connecticut papers of the day had ads for runaway slaves specifically and generally for slave auctions.

But you don't get up in arms about that historically limited piece of theater.

But this one makes you grumpy? Why? Because there weren't slaves sold on the Green? There weren't segregated churches on the Green, with their black congregants forced to worship elsewhere? Because we don't have any memorials in town to the wonderful work of white folks on behalf of Africans? (Pay attention that was all SNARK.)

Two of you three complain about absolutely anything on this site which involves people of color. At a certain point it is just tiring.

You represent why this newspaper is problematic. It amplifies the voices of people who lack basic civility.

Posted by: robn | February 23, 2009 1:02 PM

I'm wainting for the re-enactment of Tax-Rebellion Day , when the people of New Haven put the mayor in stocks, took him out on the green and gave him 20 lashes with a wet noodle becuase he raised their property taxes too high....

oh wait a second...that day hasn't yet happened.

Posted by: DAFeder | February 23, 2009 1:22 PM

Hey, You Guys,

Give FedUp a break. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a dancing carrot to perform at a White Power parade?

David

Posted by: Unbelievable | February 23, 2009 1:25 PM

You Guys...

Are you one of those people who wear little "smiley" buttons with the logo "Have a nice day"? Give me a break...Jeez.

Posted by: walt bradley | February 23, 2009 1:27 PM

Alphonse, what show has our lazy ass ever produced? Those who critisize the most are usually the most afraid to put themselves out there. Eric Triffin is the most dedicated public health official (City of West Haven) you'll find, and CTV is the only place around that trains and provides television airtime to anyone wishing to express themselves, their beliefs and our collective local culture.
Bring yourself down to CTV so i can train you on the equipment and we'll see what kind of joy and culture you're capable of bringing to the world.
We're at 2666 State St. in Hamden, we're in the yellow pages or www.citizenstv.net.
FYI to those of you at home in your P.J.'s or hiding in your cubicle who like to break the independent's balls for local interest stories or mock CTV for giving substantial air time to programs dedicated to our little corner of the world - wake up! The Register will soon be gone, the Advocate will be down to one writer & fifty pages of hooker / massage parlor advertizments and channel 8 is a farce. WELI get's it's "local" news from upstate new york. If you are at all concerned or interested in what goes on in New Haven, then you are lucky to have these two unique media venues where you may not only sit back and read/ watch, but also become a participant in.
If not, good luck to you.
P.S. The Grand News is the best local print media- WPKN and to a lesser extent WNHU(only because they are more committed to UNH students - as they should be) are great sources of for anyone looking to break into radio. i forgot to mention them.

Posted by: Edward_H | February 23, 2009 1:51 PM

You represent why this newspaper is problematic. It amplifies the voices of people who lack basic civility.

Why do certain people always consider free speech and the open exchange of opinions and ideas problematic when they don't agree or like what is being said?

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 23, 2009 2:20 PM

Perhaps I am "of color?"

btw, I resent the notion that one who is critical of the patently didactic and/or political usage of theater is racist. It could have been a play about saving the whales, saying no to drugs or W's leadership skills in Iraq.

Down with abuse of theater! Long live Truth and Beauty!

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 23, 2009 2:35 PM

Fedupwithliberal
Anytime to take and in slave people,You need some of the people who you are going to in slave to help you.Did they not dress some native americans as calvery to track other native americans down!! Read this book call Hitler Jewish
Soldiers which talks about jews who are mischlinge and turn jews over to the nazi,You also had jews that help the nazi by give them the list of fellow jews.How about Good old FBI Agent Robert Philip Hanssen who spied for soviet services against the united states for more than 20 years. And we can not forget your boy Bush who grandfather also help the nazi.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 23, 2009 3:08 PM

Threefifths:

I think you've had about 3 fifths!

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 23, 2009 3:16 PM

Alphonse,

I'm not sure there is such a thing as 'abuse of theater;' it's a little unfair to hold SWANA's amateur production to the same standard by which we might judge the Royal Shakespeare Company. If their pageant was a little unsophisticated, it at least sounds like it was a sincere effort to commit to their 'new attitude' and use drama to engage with history and heritage.

Just going by what I read in the article: if the performers were mostly women recovering from substance addictions, maybe the journey from bondage to freedom has a metaphorical subtext that's particularly meaningful to them.

Posted by: Power to the People | February 23, 2009 3:38 PM

Okay folks, let's be civil. Remember, we are ALL entitled to our opinions... no matter how wrong they are. (although regular readers of this site should note that a few folks almost NEVER have anything good to say.)

Posted by: lance | February 23, 2009 3:55 PM

meanwhile back to 2009....Obama is crashing the stock market.

Stick it to the man!

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | February 23, 2009 4:25 PM

YOU GUYS ARE GRUMPY OLD MEN

The problem with calling this skit a "silly history play" is that it does not speak to the whole truth about the history of slavery. There's more to the story than whitey grabbing Africans out of their huts to go work in cotton fields. You think this wasn't going on around the world in places other than the United States?Where's mention of the ultimate sacrifice of Union soldiers in fighting for the end to slavery during thhe Civil War? How about visiting their graves? What, that doesn't count?

Can't speak for the other grumpy old men, but I am completely tired of constant white liberal guilt on parade. In European history, all cultures were enslaved at one point in time. Do you see us holding grudges against each other except for at soccer games?

We elected a black president. Get over it!

Posted by: robn | February 23, 2009 4:29 PM

ALPHONSE,

So relative to this performance, what do you find truthful?

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 23, 2009 4:51 PM

Dear William Kurtz,

In modern America, Theater is abused nationwide on a daily basis by people who think they can, but can't. Theater has been misused for non-theatrical purposes -- as a method of psychiatric therapy, a tool for political and religious indoctrination,etc. -- further degrading the already low standards to which the Theater has sunk.

Does one have to accept these various forms of perversions of the Art of Theater, simply because they appear to do "Good" for the players? Of course, not.

A doctor is qualified over many years of study and training to diagnose and heal. (Even then, there are physicians who don't do a very good job.)

Why is it that just anybody thinks he can act? Or that anybody, especially people who've never given much thought to it, seems to know what constitutes Art?

"The community has decided to put on a play" is, to me, the same as saying, "Hey, gang, let's set up an ER on the Green!"

Posted by: john john | February 23, 2009 5:14 PM

What reall pisses me off is the production values of Bishop Wood's new production of "the trojan women". I mean, the sound design, the back drops, even the score. it's almost as if a bucnh of sixth graders had put it on. Oh, wait, their fifth graders. Oh, and SWANA isn't affiliated with Long Warf or Yale Rep?
My bad.

Posted by: FEDUPWITHHATERS | February 23, 2009 6:23 PM

I can't for the life of me figure out why I let things posted by "Alphonse Insensate" or "Fed Up with pretty much everything" get under my skin. It must be me because what really should happen is we ignore them and maybe they'll crawl under a rock ...

Who are YOU to say what is art? I was there. It had poor production values and worse acting but it was people coming together and doing something that they wanted to do. For that reason alone it was enjoyable. So get off your high horse and let people alone! They aren't bothering you... you arrogant [insert dysphemism for "Richard".]

As for Fed UP. Please tell me how this little play hurts you because I can give you hundreds of reasons why it helps descendants of slaves (my great grand parents were born slaves.) Why should I forget my history in this country? Everybody knows there is more to it than what was presented in this play but so what? They had about an hour. How much could they tell? Sounds to me like you've got some unresolved issues. Your ability to hate pretty much everything is exceeded only by the frequent evidence that you know nothing. Maybe instead of hating everybody else you can go outside and actually meet some of the people you work so hard at hating (and there is no way that you can call your usual posts here anything but hateful speaking.)

Maybe you both need to switch to loose fitting boxers or something because I think whatever is stuck up your butts needs to breath.

...

(This post was so much more fun before I removed all the profanity!)

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 23, 2009 6:30 PM

Theater's always been used for those purposes, Alphonse; in one notable example, supporters of the failed Essex rebellion in 1601 England hired Shakespeare's acting company to perform Richard II (which had long been out of repertoire) in the hopes that it would inspire popular support for the uprising. Sadly for Essex, it didn't.

Surely you agree that the stakes are a little higher in surgery than for theater, and that amateur players don't really offend in the same way as amateur surgeons? Besides, one of the interesting things about 'art' is that anyone who wants to can claim the title of 'artist' and anyone else who wants to is free to refuse to bestow it. No one has to accept anything as art that they don't want to. Marcel Duchamp, anyone?

Posted by: Streever | February 23, 2009 8:14 PM

Alpohonze,
Kurtz is right buddy. You are increasingly out of touch with anything resembling reality.

Next time a theater show saves my life after an accident, I'll call you up & apologize.

The minute theater responds to 911 calls & sends ambulances, you are the first person I will apologize to!

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | February 23, 2009 10:12 PM

FEDUPWITHHATERS

So, anyone who disagrees with your point of view is a hater? Wow! So much for the party of tolerance. What seperates you from the Nazi brownshirts or white supremacists?

What happened in this "re-enactment" is no different than Oliver Stone trying to pervert history in movies like JFK, only on a more amatuerish level. Art, my lily white ass! That was pure racial propaganda which should be offensive to anyone who cares about the truth, and not agenda. If anyone has unresolved issues, it is you who refuse to put the past behind. You and your family are about as affected by slavery as I am by my grandparents being spit on and refused work when they came to this country in the early 1900s. No european immigrant ever had ties to slaveowners or slavery. So, to quote one of yor favorite blogs... MOVE ON!

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 24, 2009 8:38 AM

FedUp:

I agree with you about Oliver Stone, JFK, 're-enactment' of history and the problems of distortion, simplification, exaggeration, or 'perversion' as you called it, but the obligation to recognize all of that and cut through it rests primarily with the viewer. Every piece of 'art' (I'd rather not engage over what is and isn't 'art') has a relationship to the values of its creator, its viewer, its source culture, the time and place depicted, and so on. It might reinforce those vales; it might challenge them, it might even have a complex and ambiguous take on them. And, of course, every viewer is free to choose not to engage in any of this.

Some might argue that a performance that's inspired this much critical examination might have achieved the status of 'art,' your 'lily-white ass' not withstanding. After all, lots of professional New York theatrical productions open and close with less attention.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 24, 2009 8:53 AM

"Surely you agree that the stakes are a little higher in surgery than for theater, and that amateur players don't really offend in the same way as amateur surgeons?"

I do not agree with this. The value of Theater to the world is just as great.

"Besides, one of the interesting things about 'art' is that anyone who wants to can claim the title of 'artist' and anyone else who wants to is free to refuse to bestow it. No one has to accept anything as art that they don't want to. Marcel Duchamp, anyone?"

This is modernist poppycock, based on the indulgent fiction that there are no standards. But there are for Art, indeed, just as there are laws of Science. Most "artists" are simply egoists, who refuse to accept constraint because their personal arrogance knows no bounds. But then, they express nothing more than their slim selves. "I express, therefore I am an Artist." Hogwash!

Posted by: FEDUPWITHHATERS | February 24, 2009 9:01 AM

FedUp,

What seperates me? Well for one I'm not German or white! That was the STUPIDEST comment you've ever made and you've made some stupid ones.

You never answered my question. How did this play hurt you? What is removed from your "royal whiteness" by folks seeing their history the way they want to see it (and the way that most scholar historians see it?)

I had typed a long response to you in an attempt to show just how your comments are hateful and not purely disagreements but realized after going back and reading many of your posts that it is a waste of my time. So I'm going to take my own advice and ignore you from now on.

Posted by: robn | February 24, 2009 10:18 AM

Hey Guys,

All creation is art,...its just that some of it's good and some of it's bad. Usually the stuff thats good is a blend of the following...
Relevance
Critical Content
Hard Work (hate to say it, but this is part of AC's argument)
Spontinaity (which can sometimes make up for hard work)

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 24, 2009 10:52 AM

I didn't say the value of theater wasn't as great, but that the cost of ineptitude wasn't as high. Suffer a bad artist, and you can walk out, shaking your head and muttering in disgust about the post-modernist poppycock that holds that there are no standards. Worst case scenario, you're out the cost of a ticket but at least you have something to talk about over a beer afterwards. But of course there are standards; you have them, I have them, SWANA has them--everyone does, and we apply them whenever we engage with a piece of art, good, bad, sincere, mawkish, nuanced, trite, accurate, distorted, or otherwise.

Ultimately, isn't expression at the core of art? For example, take this 75,000 year old carved ochre from the Blombos Cave in South Africa. It's one of, if not the earliest, examples of intentional pattern-making by a human being. Something in that simple cross-hatching was aesthetically pleasing to someone. Do we evaluate that person by the same standards which we use for Rodin?

Posted by: Esteban | February 24, 2009 11:43 AM

Am I the only person on this page who read the book: White Cargo?

Posted by: Seth | February 24, 2009 1:24 PM

Reenacting the times of slavery does not seem to be the proper way to rehabilitate people with addictions. We should not allow the this portion of history to resurface every February. People of color have a very rich history and we must stop allowing the media and other ignorant sources of information to lead off so called Black History Month with slave narratives. If we believe that slavery was the start of our history, then addiction can be seen as a gift. Teach them that they were once Kings and Queens and people with a rich culture and language. Then, maybe they will think of themselves with a sense of pride and dignity and not as people who were once slaves. We need to compare and contrast ourselves with the top of the food-chain, not the bottom.

Needless to say, displays like this sadden me.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 24, 2009 2:10 PM

Thanks for the serious discussion on the matter. People tend to blow it off as just so much fluff, when it's really of supreme importance.

No, you are incorrect when you say that standards are subjective. They are not. Some, many, people are plain wrong, or ignorant, and incapable of understanding Truth (in an Artistic sense) or making a judgment about it. Even many artists! This is entirely unlike Science, where non-scientists would never make a similar claim.

Expression is simply expression, but it is not worthwhile in and of itself, and definitely not an Artistic expression simply if you or I say so. If I decide, to pass myself off as a performance artist (which I am not) to express (before an audience) anger at South American dictators by setting a stuffed llama on fire and throwing it off a cliff while playing the Venezuelan national anthem, does that make me an Artist? If I bake a cake without chocolate and call it a chocolate cake, does that make it so?

"Do we evaluate that person by the same standards which we use for Rodin?"

Yes, of course. It is not just about technical ability or the tools available at the time. The Artist's heightened consciousness, his awareness of divine (I don't refer to a Being here) ideas, the ability to see beyond what humanity calls "reality" to eternal concepts and the Artist's demonstration through the chosen medium is what matters.

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 25, 2009 1:51 PM

You're welcome; and thank you, too, in turn, for your serious thoughts on the subject and developed explanation of them.

I don't think the analogies between art and science, or art without merit and chocolate cake without chocolate are useful. Science operates by laws, not by standards; no matter how concrete and objective we try to make standards about art, they are always going to be more open to interpretation and argument than the law of gravity. Likewise, the presence or lack of chocolate is an objective, binary quality: it's there, or it's not.

In your example (which I doubt I would pay to see, but admit that I would probably stop to watch if I was walking by!) you would certainly be free to call the spectacle 'art,' I would certainly be free to call it rubbish, and someone else might be free to call it 'bad art.' I think that Robn hit the nail right on the head by identifying 'hard work' as an essential part of good art.

Posted by: Educate | February 25, 2009 3:36 PM

Instead of just menmtioning "White Cargo" here is a small comment. Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, both of whom have made documentaries and both of whom live in London, retell that familiar tale -- although the victims here are not Africans but English, Irish and Scottish people, sent to the colonies largely against their will in the 17th and 18th centuries. Maybe showing the similarity that all poor people experienced would be a nice idea. Key concept...Educate people and you empower them...we all have histories. This show is just racism

Posted by: kamb | February 26, 2009 1:19 AM

How about they re-enact a few murderous shootings that have occured on the street of New Haven.

Whats the point of this reenactment?

How about something positive! . . . . like acting out a situation where DeStefano gets voted out of office!

Posted by: I Don't Get It | February 26, 2009 8:02 AM

I don't understand why folks are so upset about this little skit. It is a very real part of the history of many black folks in this country and those who forget their history are at risk of repeating it. The message of the skit was "look at how far we've come" not "let's go kill white folks." Telling this story does not deny any other story out there. You are all more than welcome to do skits that tell other stories but why are you asking folks to stop telling the one that means most and motivates them? Are you telling folks to forget a part of their history? Maybe Native Americans should protest Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. Maybe the south should not take off for President's Day since it also celebrates Lincoln. It wouldn't take much effort to find something offensive to some people in every holiday/celebration.

I don't get the myopia found in many posts on this site. I just don't get it. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to judge. The difference? Opinion says "I would never do that." Judgment says "YOU should never do that." If it ain't hurting you then...

I just don't get it.

Posted by: Esteban | February 26, 2009 9:36 AM

Sins of omission are as dangerous as those of commission, especially in History. Few Americans realize the extent of white slavery in the history of the United States. It is usually "whitewashed" by the politically correct who would have you believe that Africans were the only people who suffered the indignities of forced labor. It offends and hurts me to be told what I know to be a half truth. It should offend you as well. My view is hardly myopic. It sees farther than yours.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 26, 2009 1:02 PM

William Kurtz:

"Science operates by laws, not by standards; no matter how concrete and objective we try to make standards about art, they are always going to be more open to interpretation and argument than the law of gravity."

This is precisely the fundamental understanding -- misunderstanding -- affecting so many modern artists (whether painters, writers, musicians, actors, etc.).

Art (with a capital "A") is subject to rules (call them laws or standards) which are just as determinable as any physical law. But fewer see them now and thus are unwilling to confess to even their possible existence.

In the Dark Ages, what alchemist or "enchanter" would have confessed to the Truth of the atomic structure of physical life?

In the arts, at least in the West, we have begun to pass into a similar Dark Age. It is for that reason that those who understand must ensure they pass this understanding to the next generation. That is why -- I write this for "I Don't Get It" -- I've made a point of writing these brief notes on the "play" itself than what it means in the greater perspective.

Posted by: I Don't Get It | February 26, 2009 1:41 PM

Esteban, Where is the sin? No one is stopping you from telling the other sides of the story. No one here is denying that there were/are other forms of slavery. No one is trying to glorify ANY of it. Refusing to look from another's perspective is myopic not far sighted.

If they tried to tell EVERYTHING the skit would have to be several weeks long and would be so watered down that no one would get any of it. What is wrong with people of the African diaspora telling the story that is important to them during the month that has legally been set aside for the telling of just such stories? If you insist on the need for the other stories being told (a notion with which I agree) then tell them during White History Month (the other 11 months, in case you're wondering when that is.)

I was there and the first thing I heard when I got there was, "People, we have come a LOOOONG way since the time of this reenactment." I see that as a positive message. This skit was not to glorify slavery. Neither was it intended to vilify descendants of slavers or to justify the victims. It was intended to illuminate a point in history and lay a foundation from which to build a future. It was intended to get people to think and talk. Based on the number of posts to this story, I think it was successful.

If it hurt your feelings... sorry but maybe you need to seriously ask yourself how and more importantly, why.

Or we can continue to play the game of whipping out our historical scars to see whose is biggest.

Posted by: Esteban | February 26, 2009 6:48 PM

"No one is stopping you from telling the other sides of the story."

How naive you are! If I put together an identical skit that portrayed whites as the (in effect) slaves that they were, I'd be tarred, feathered and run out of town. I'm not refusing their perspective, they're refusing mine.

I'm sorry but I'm not aware of a designated "White History" month among any or all of the other 11 months.

No, it doesn't hurt my feelings, it insults my intelligence.

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 27, 2009 10:17 AM

Esteban, you might be right in saying that a play about white slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries might be received with skepticism and raised eyebrows--that doesn't make the people who disapprove right. It's disingenuous to claim ignorance about 'white history month' however; I don't know how old you are, but if you went to school in the United States you probably know that American history has traditionally been the story of European people and actions, beginning with Columbus's 'discovery' of a continent where people had been living for thousands of years. For a comprehensive look at how history textbooks have simplified and distorted their subject in American schools (and I'm not picking on American schools; it's just that they're the only ones I'm really familiar with), read by James Loewen. It's entertaining, too. He does a good job of revealing how 'history' is presented primarily as the story of easily-understood heroes, villians, and victims, with little if any acknowledgment of the complex factors involved. (Such as economic status used as justification for exploiting people; the difference between white indentured servants and black slaves is that the whites were enslaved not in name, and not by virtue of some supposed inherent suitability to manual labor and need to be 'looked after.' In other words, no one told poor white people that they needed to be civilized, but I'm digressing).

Alphonse, what determinable and immutable law of art would cover Rubens, Rafael, Michaelangelo, Picasso, Jackson Pollock, DaVinci, Richard Avedon, and so on?

Posted by: Esteban | February 27, 2009 11:29 AM

Exactly my point. The history of the white indentured servant in the United States was usually not included in the syllabus of the American History classes I attended. At best it rated a footnote. And yet the history of African slaves in the United States often filled half the textbook.
Whether or not the skit qualified as art is meaningless. It was racial propaganda. If I were to demand affirmative action and reparation payments for the descendants of white indentured servants I'm sure I would be received with something other than "skepticism and raised eyebrows".

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 27, 2009 1:29 PM

"Alphonse, what determinable and immutable law of art would cover Rubens, Rafael, Michaelangelo, Picasso, Jackson Pollock, DaVinci, Richard Avedon, and so on?"

You don't see them?

Posted by: I Don't Get It | February 27, 2009 2:08 PM

How naive you are! If I put together an identical skit that portrayed whites as the (in effect) slaves that they were, I'd be tarred, feathered and run out of town. I'm not refusing their perspective, they're refusing mine.

Why don't you try it? I'm betting you will receive no more criticism than what you are laying out in this blog. Prove me wrong. Put together a skit about it and let's see what happens. Or are you afraid?

And yet the history of African slaves in the United States often filled half the textbook.

HALF the textbook? I don't know what history books they had at your schools but it does explain some things about you. Unless you made that 'fact' up.

I'm done with you now. Don't bother posting a comment to me because I won't be reading it. Keep believing what you believe. Maybe one day your eyes will open and you will see that this little skit hurts no one.

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 27, 2009 3:53 PM

No, you're right, Esteban. It's very lightly covered, if at all, and that's my point--this is a point on which we're in agreement, I think--that the presentation of history is frequently distorted and simplified. That's always a disservice, no matter whose history is being over-simplified. Most historical figures are treated with this kind of distortion, and the inconvenient facts are rarely revealed about our heroes: Helen Keller was a communist, Abraham Lincoln was fully in the grip of the prejudices of his day, Woodrow Wilson was a virulent racist despite calling for the League of Nations, and yes, some Africans sold other Africans into slavery.

I don't see them, Alphonse--not as immutable rules, anyway. The differences between great artists and weak ones are more of degree, than kind--depth and complexity of insight, skill and facility with chosen medium, rigor of thought, hard work,relevance, critical stance on the important issues in human experience and so on. There's a big space between the best art and the worst 'art,' but I would give them space in the same field.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 27, 2009 4:37 PM

"I don't see them, Alphonse--not as immutable rules, anyway. The differences between great artists and weak ones are more of degree, than kind--depth and complexity of insight, skill and facility with chosen medium, rigor of thought, hard work,relevance, critical stance on the important issues in human experience and so on. There's a big space between the best art and the worst 'art,' but I would give them space in the same field. "

None of these factors really matter. I speak of the difference between Art and art. Art (with a capital "A") does not deal with human reality, which is mutable -- that is the subject of any art.

Posted by: Edward_H | February 27, 2009 6:17 PM

I Don't Get It

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to judge. The difference? Opinion says "I would never do that." Judgment says "YOU should never do that.

Damn, I guess all of us who have told a kid you should never , smoke, steal, drink and drive were just being judgmental!

Posted by: Steve Ross, Dilettante Artist | March 1, 2009 9:42 PM

First, that you'd even apply your thoughts on the matter to something like this slavery dramatization is ABSURD. That said, I too feel that art is of supreme importance, Alphonse. I hope that you're still reading these responses.

You've an art education, whether formal or not: I expect you must realize that opinions like yours are those which many artists actively work to subvert. Is their work then necessarily unsuccessful? I think it's contingent upon you to define "Truth" at this point.

Formulations for aesthetics have floated around for millennia and none went unopposed. In any event, people still painted and sculpted and made music, either thinking about these formulations or not. This is the nature of the development of all art, all intellectual endeavor; it is the very essence of being human. Does this mean that all artwork is good? To some audiences yes, to others, no. According to some principles and not to others. Your own categorization of Western art versus other localities makes this point more plainly than anything I could write: yes, there are principles, but they are specific to the culture creating and viewing them. In any event, the accretion of it all is what brings us to our present fancies and definitions of artistic Truth.

I don't think that it's odd that you mention science and art in the same breath. Art, like science and religion, is a product of and produced for humans - its very nature is aligned with human ideas, abstractions, and crises. A search, as you say, for Truth. (I believe that this can and should be applied to either the content and execution of the artwork as well as to the artist him or herself.) Here's the answer: there is no Truth. As such, we continue to seek it. Is this Modernist 'poppycock' (thanks for the laugh, incidentally) or just the nature of abstraction, and by extension, human cognition and expression.

Alphonse, I reject your evaluation of art. Or, more accurately, I reject your perception of art is.

PS: Capitalizing abstract words to mean something more fundamental than they mean uncapitalized is a weak, reaching form of argument.

PPS: Seeing, say, Pegwell Bay, Kent - a Recollection of October 5th 1858 is objective experience for you and subjective experience for me. Does that mean I haven't my own criteria the piece's success? Even if, as you will no doubt argue, your criteria are more correct than mine, will that change my reaction to the piece? Should it? How does all of this apply to the carpeted urinal on a gallery wall?

PPPS: If you can evaluate something critically and not appeal to subjective taste, does that mean that your opinion of a piece never changes? My obsession with J. W. Waterhouse has recently cooled. Am I more "correct" now than I was a year ago? Could it be that now I prefer a thicker application of paint? Of less classical content? The colors? The size? Subjective, subjective, subjective.

PPPPS: Some time ago you encouraged us to go to the Darwin exhibit at the BAC. While I walked through it, once again admiring Dyce's piece, I thought "Thanks Alphonse, I probably wouldn't have seen this until the hubbub died down." (I like seeing patrons' reactions to art when an exhibit is hot; the personal contemplation can come later.) You tried to inspire people with that post, to disseminate art. Now you dictate what art is. How disappointing.