December 30, 2004
Don't require anything of me, please
In some six-degrees blogroll surfing -- don't ask me to unravel the thread of connections -- I discovered two different pairs of threads that seem closely related. First, Michael at Here's What's Left skewers the art of Thomas Kinkade by comparing it to that of Caspar David Friedrich, a 19th-century German. Turns out Kinkade, the end-all and be-all of commercial American art, has borrowed heavily from Friedrich. Of course, in the process, the soul and struggle of Friedrich's work gets siphoned out, leaving only a glib, one-size-fits-all "inspirational" motif.
The Kinkade post is Michael's second in a series on "Conservative Art". The first entry dissects an essay by Larry Kudlow, in which Kudlow promotes his wife's art show by arguing:
I just call it conservative art. Let me tell you what it’s not — it’s not modernistic, abstract, self-centered expressionism. It’s not just throwing paint at a canvas. It doesn’t tear down art, or the rest of the world, for that matter. It’s not the negative pessimistic crap that too often passes for art in blue states like New York and, well, you know where else. These are just beautiful, calm, pleasant pictures. Stuff you can enjoy looking at, which is what I think art should be.
In the Kinkade posting, Michael observes:
Thomas Kinkade, who has met with George W. Bush and apparently prays for him, is not a "conservative artist" because of his political connections or his Christianity, but because he reinforces a strain in modern conservatism that brings out the worst in its adherents. His art is a paltry and more easily digestible weak misreading of basic tropes that have been around for a long time. It is done with the intention of not requiring thought, and perhaps enforcing a lack thereof.
The second related thread was on Jason Chervokas's blog, where a musing post about Led Zeppelin raised some critical questions about the band's more embarassing moments (Tolkien, huge hair, caterwauling, three-hour drum solos, etc). The post got a link on a Zep fan board, and Chervokas was heaped with abuse from dedicated, drooling fans ("Dude, you are one huge fag. I think your secretly into rap" and "Anybody who does'nt worship zeppelin is a lost soul, and I feel sorry for them."). Chervokas responds to the attacks in a very thoughtful followup post in which he laments the preponderance of uncritical, worshipful fans, which, he argues, are bad for the music:
The life cycle of a performer's career seems to begin with that kind of exchange, but, if an artist is lucky enough to hit it big, he or she inevitably seems to reach a point where the kind of sheer adulation preferred by these Zep fans becomes the norm. An ugly cycle begins to dominate a performer's career. Self-indulgence of the worse order sets in (because audiences will lap up any shit they are fed), and a simulacrum of exchange begins to replace real exchange in performance.
Michael's "simulacrum of exchange" in adulating Zep fans very closely mirrors a "simulacrum of thought" by the unthoughtful, unworried Kinkade aficionado. No troublesome thoughts or difficulties need be countenanced; in the conservative view, what is necessary from art (or music) is just pure enjoyment, unrippled by waves of distress or disaster. Those waves might turn your tastes toward "negative pessismistic crap" best enjoyed by a blue stater (read: Other) just as questioning Zeppelin's more absurd moments renders you a gay rap fan (again: Other).
This urge not to think spreads far and wide in our culture. It's the reason plasticine androids like Paris Hilton, who has done nothing on her own initiative except be born rich and famous, are more popular than subtle, intelligent, crisp Tina Fey. It's the underpinning of George W. Bush's support, and the reason his factually-challenged "resolve" isn't exposed for the sham it is. And the whole process of not-thinking perpetuates itself, as Michael observes in his Kinkade essay:
Thomas Kinkade's art is not interesting or complicated, and you don't have to spend much time on it to get it. And if all you look at is Thomas Kinkade's art, you will be trained not to spend much time looking at art. So, like Pavlov's dog, you'll continue to like Kinkade's art precisely because it doesn't require much of you, because you've been trained to do so.
Precisely.
[UPDATE 1/7/2005: I've followed up on some of the larger issues -- namely, the roots of American kitsch and anti-intellectualism -- in this post.]
Great post, yo. About three years ago, I worked with a woman who left to open a Kinkade gallery as part of the TK multi-level marketing scheme. She had been inspired by a dream she had where she had been talking to Kinkade and he had turned away from her. She said, "I'm not finished!" He turned around and had Jesus' face and replied, "No, you're not." Four months later, she had quit her job in the pharmaceutical industry and was peddling art(tm) at the mall.
True story. Weird breed, the Kinkade Brigade.
Posted by: apostropher at December 30, 2004 05:24 PMI came to your post via another post on The Apostropher and I want to try and connect two of your thoughts, namely the purpose of art and your comment about the lack of critical thought in our society.
First, I agree with you that critical thought appears to be lacking in many areas. What's funny is that I hear my conservative friends echo the exact same phrase about Clinton supporters that you just mentioned about Bush supporters (and I happen to agree with them). So who is right and how does this tie to the purpose of art?
Well, I am much like you in that I would never buy Thomas Kinkade because it does nothing to inspire me. I don't want to waste the money. But I would bet that there are moments in everyones life when we need the "simple things." There are times when I need the technical clarity and inspiration of a good Clifford Brown trumpet solo and then there are times when I want to hear Karen Carpenter sing "Close to You." Does my love of all kinds of art diminish me in some way or does your disdain of people that need a "light" form of entertainment now and then diminish you in some way? I belive that art exists to "take you away" either by challenging you or by touching you simply.
Often when I make the arguement above I am greeted with the response, "you surely don't mean to say that people that only listen to top 40 are somehow great thinkers!" and I would agree, I am not saying that. My comment is even those people that are at some level in life where their critical thought is at some lesser stage does not mean that they will never progress beyond that. I look forward to the day when they grow and will be patient until then.
Posted by: VARepublicMan at December 31, 2004 07:22 AMVARepublicMan--
You ask "does your disdain of people that need a "light" form of entertainment now and then diminish you in some way?"
It's a good question. I don't disdain those who need some light, escapist art from time to time. After all, I have my guilty indulgences too -- and I certainly don't think that you can be intellectually "on" your entire waking life. Of course some downtime, some relaxation, some just Being, is needed.
What I disdain is people who, perhaps defensively, build the need for escapist art into a prescription for *all* art. I disdain those who scorn the intellectual life as if it's a character flaw. That, I think, was the thrust of Kudlow's article ("negative pessimistic crap") and of the raging Zeppelin fans: as if understanding, questioning, and criticism somehow destroyed the objects on which they're focused.
So there's a difference between turning off your brain temporarily, and never using it -- or wanting to use it -- in the first place. I was criticizing the latter, not the former.
Chris,
The point I thought you were making was that people drawn to Kinkade's derivative and banal creations are typically those with a preference for an incurious, simplistic and close-minded worldview, one in which a comfortable, simple faith is their escape from an uncomfortable reality. With that view, I agree totally, and I don't see the "disdain" VARepublicman wishes to read into your post.
The Led Zep connection is thoughtful, and to some extent a valid parallel, but the criticism of Zep fails to mention my major complaint about the band, which is the fact that they stole their material from American country blues artists without so much as a hint of atttribution. But that's another topic.
Great post.
Posted by: shoveldog at December 31, 2004 12:59 PMThanks for the clarification Chris. And I appreciate your clarified point. While I choose to talk about your approach to art, you could extend what I said to your comment:
"It's the underpinning of George W. Bush's support, and the reason his factually-challenged "resolve" isn't exposed for the sham it is."
And with that I do think the disdain was evident.
As i said in my previous post, I hear conservatives say the same type of things about liberals; Larry Kudlow is a prime example. I have always felt that about 20% of each camp (liberals or conservative) can thoughtfully and persuasively argue their points of view, making about 40% of the voting public with a considered viewpoint. The parties then get to split the remaining 60% of voters. The party that captures the largest percentage of the "rabble" wins (and I use rabble in a friendly sort of way).
Therefore I think that the true "underpinnings" of the Bush support are the thoughful 20% of conservatives. It is also the true that the underpinnings of the Clinton support were the thoughtful 20% of liberals. Bush grabbed a larger share of the rabble than Kerry and Clinton grabbed a larger share of the rabble than Dole. But in the United States the rabble have their say too.
Posted by: VARepublicMan at December 31, 2004 11:54 PMVARepublicMan--
Some good points there; it's true that some large fraction of the electorate just doesn't think about politics in any organized way. They, of course, are entitled to their vote. But they aren't entitled to say to the thoughtful ones that nuanced thought is dangerous/treasonous/gay/French. Well, they're entitled to *say* that, but not to legislate it. What worries me is that the thoughtful Bush supporters are using the unthoughtful faction as a lever to purge those who aren't simple party-line operatives (see: CIA, Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell, etc etc etc). They are using thoughtful processes to arrive at unthoughtful ends (the Bush flack's quote about the "reality-based community" being irrelevant comes to mind here). And with Kinkade and the rabid Zep fans, you see that kind of dynamic expressing itself in the rest of society. That troubles me.
I am going to work up a longer post about anti-intellectualism and American habits of thought and schooling. I don't think George Bush created the phenomenon, but he both benefits from it and helps to propagate it. This will have to wait until later this week, though, when I come back from vacation.
Boy! A vacation after the holiday vacations! You must be employed in a service based industry! (he said, silently wishing Chris some very nice time off)
Posted by: VaRepublicMan at January 1, 2005 05:34 PMSaw a great 60 Minutes piece on Kinkade last July:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/21/60minutes/main318790.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
Mind-blowing in every respect: The rabid collectors, the assembly-line production techniques, the adamant insistence that art should soothe, never challenge.
But I don't get how "Tolkien, huge hair, caterwauling, three-hour drum solos" are examples of Zeppelin's embarassing moments... These are some of the hallmarks that made them inimitable -- unapologetic, absolutely unafraid, unconcerned with "cool" and therefore cooler than ... everyone else.