Art and the Times
Jack S. writes:
In today’s Times an article about the Age of Rembrandt exhibition at the Met, the author, Holland Cotter, can’t help but hammer readers over the head with his class-struggle meme.
He writes:
“Dutch painting, which had long enjoyed a vogue in the United States, where it was taken to embody ideals that the nation could identify with: unembarrassed prosperity, a Calvinist work ethic, family values, nouveau luxe.”
In his twisted mind family values and prosperity are embarrassments.
Discussing a room devoted to items donated by Benjamin Altman, he writes:
“Most memorable, though, are his Rembrandts stretching down the gallery, among them ‘Woman With a Pink,’ her face like a trembling teardrop, and a 1660 self-portrait with the tired-eyed artist in a hat as big as a halo. It’s a potent ensemble, though in the pride-of-possession context it still feels like just so many power-paintings in a row”
An amazing collection of priceless masterpieces generously donated to the Museum is dismissed as mere showing-off.
LA replies:
Thanks for sending this. Ten or 12 years ago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art had an exhibit of sculpture from the Athenian Golden Age, entitled “The Greek Miracle.” This was the real stuff, the top stuff, most of which I had never seen before. Before this exhibit I thought I knew what the Greeks were about, but I didn’t. I had no idea. The fifth century Athenian sculpture is probably the most sensitive art ever produced, embodying the classical Greek idea that natural form, and particularly the form of man, reflects the divine. Our notions of art and beauty really begin with the Greeks of the fifth century. I went back to the exhibit six or seven times. It was one of the great experiences of my life. In fact, this exhibit was far superior to the permanent Greek exhibit at the British Museum which I saw a couple of years later.
The reason I’m saying all this is that when the exhibit opened, Holland Cotter reviewed it in the Times. He sneered at the whole notion of a “Greek Miracle,” an exhibit that didn’t discuss slavery, women’s inequality and so on. Instead of appreciating and being grateful for this once-in-a-lifetime exhibit of the greatest art in the world, he resented it. If he had had his way, that exhibit wouldn’t have existed. Based on his comments on the Rembrandt exhibit, he has not changed. He is one of those who consciously hate and despise, and seek to make others hate and despise, what is good and great about our civilization.
- end of initial entry -
Mark J. writes:
I wish I had been able to see the Greek art exhibit you mention. It sounds like it was life-changing.
Regarding Cotter, you write: “He is one of those who consciously hate and despise, and seek to make others hate and despise, what is good and great about our civilization.”
Based solely on what is quoted of his writing in your post, that might be going a little bit far. After all, regarding the Rembrandts, he wrote that it’s “a potent ensemble”.
I don’t think it’s so much that he hates and despises what is good about our civilization, such as Greek art or Rembrandts, as it is that he thinks that if you pile up what is good and great next to what is despicable and unforgivable (slavery, etc) the despicable so far outweighs the great that to pay attention to the great is somehow dishonest. I imagine that when he hears someone talk about how great some aspect of our civilization is, to his ears it sounds as if some huckster is trying to fool people. Sure, he thinks, there’s some great things—but they don’t start to measure up next to the lousy things, things which must never, ever be allowed to be driven from the reader’s attention by the glare of some great thing.
So I’d say that yes, on balance he hates and despises our civilization. But that’s not the same as hating what is good and great about it.
LA replies:
An interesting distinction. I’m not sure it holds up, though. I’ll have to think about it.
I’ve thought about it. It doesn’t hold up. Slavery, women’s inequality, etc. were completely irrelevant to the exhibit I saw. It was an exhibit of Athenian sculpture from the fifth century B.C., not an exchibit on the class structure of Athens. All societies have injustices. Therefore to insist that the injustices of a society be mentioned and portrayed right alongside its greatest achievements, and with maximum impact to create feelings of disdain, shame, disgust, so that, for example, one would never look at a Greek sculpture without thinking, “These people had slaves, how disgusting” (just as the left doesn’t want us to think about any aspect of our historic society without being ashamd of it) is to make those negative feelings central to our experience of what is good and great about our civilization, and thus to kill the positive emotions connected with it. Further, as we all know, the left only performs this operation of spiritual murder on our own society, not on non-Western societies, which it uncritically celebrates.
Therefore I disagree with Mark J. The left insists on a “standard” that makes all higher values (at least if they are ours) impossible, that makes all true values (at least if they are ours) seem evil. We know this is the case because (1) to the left anything that is unequal or incompatible with equality is evil; and (2) any true value—whether arising from nature, culture, or religion—has a particularity and individuality that is resistant to leftist notions of equality. Therefore to the left, whatever is great, good, or just normal about our civilization, is evil. Only the unprincipled exception keeps liberals from falling into complete nihilism.
Or, to paraphrase the title of Christopher Hitchens’s evil book: Equality is not great: How liberalism poisons everything.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 18, 2007 03:19 PM | Send