Giuliani's Aesthetic Inconsistencies
Dear Mick--
Good morning. Do you, as a former resident of New York City, miss the great
headline-writing abilities of the staff of the New York Post ? They have
an editorial today about the Brooklyn Museum of Art's Giuliani-opposed
exhibition of young British artists headlined "One Stink-ular Sensation," a
reference, as I'm sure you know, to Chris Ofili's use of elephant dung, among
other media, in his painting of the Virgin Mary. This editorial asserts that
"the greatest fear among cultured folk is that they will say something critical
about a perplexing new painting, play, book, or novel that will, in a hundred
years' time, be considered a towering masterpiece." I like to think that I'm as
timid as any other member of the cultured folk, but my greatest fear is public
speaking.
In a less catchily headlined article on the same event ("With Art Battle in
Spotlight, Mayor Revels in the Glare") the Times , reviewing Giuliani's
appearances on the Sunday-morning talk shows, quotes him as saying, in
furtherance of the argument that he bases his position on principle rather than
personal distaste, "Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be on either side of this
dispute. We can't support religion. We shouldn't support vicious attacks on
religion, either." I would like to say, flat-out, that it is not my fear of
being looked down upon by the cultured folk of the 21 st century that
drives me, cowering, to say that the Ofili painting doesn't to me look like an
attack on religion, vicious or otherwise. In fact, it looks religious. But, to
move to less disputed territory, although I haven't had time to go to the
Metropolitan Museum of Art today to check, I have a distinct recollection that
they have quite a few depictions of various religious images in their
collection. Does this mean that Giuliani is going to pull the funding they
receive from the city? I think if he's going to be coherent in his aesthetic
politics, he should give it a try. According to the same Times article,
he rebuts the accusation that he is doing this just to get the Conservative
Party nomination on the grounds that a New York Daily News poll shows
that New York City residents oppose him 2-to-1 on this issue. Am I wrong in
thinking that this rebuttal has nothing to do with the accusation? Since when
has the Conservative Party picked its candidates based on their poll-based
potential for winning? The Brooklyn Museum debate seems to me to be the epitome
of the kind of issue on the shoals of which the contemporary Conservative Party
always founders.
Elsewhere in the world of politics and culture, George W. Bush yesterday was
reported by Maureen Dowd, in an unusually affectionate mood, to have not been
to see a movie in five years. And why, indeed, should he bother putting down
his 10 bucks to see people meet violent and untimely ends, when most weekends
he can just drive out to wherever they do the lethal injections and see one
that he himself sanctioned?
I feel that I haven't given you anything to really start a fight about here,
so I am going to close by saying that I really like the Backstreet Boys,
especially Howie.
Love,
Mim
