Dancing Dunciad

The popular culture has a way of discrediting itself with alacrity. This is probably — more than postmodernist rhetoric — what generates so much ironic distance in the general culture — we are swimming in the fraudulence of media hype and the foolishness of commerce selling itself.

Yet another confirmation of this self-discrediting came from Dancing With the Stars tonight. A wonderfully conceived and executed show, with a terrific chemistry between dance partners, with enormous audience involvement, devolved in one stroke into a joke in the final voting. They didn't devise a strategy to tally votes that would yield a satisfying result.

The sound you hear, of a diverting and fun show going down the drain, started when they pulled the plug on Stacy and her partner — voted off first in the finale. There was an audible gasp both from the audience and competitors. It's pretty evident leaden-footed Jerry Rice never should have been in the finale (and whatever he says, he knew it), and that the enormously talented Stacy should have won the competition.

The judges learned from vociferous audience reaction that it is no fun to be judged. The male judges were fairly accurate in their votes after initially stumbling, even if their rhetoric played to the audience, they were credible finally in their voting. The woman judge, beaten down by audience disapproval of her comments and judgments, simply stopped making negative comments and retreated into the cracks, playing to audience prejudice, which finally is what the show was all about.

Dear Teacher

Behind its innocuous surface this article about the effrontery of student's emails to their professors is an interesting sociological issue: how important is the artifice of deference?

The article itself takes the angle that some students adopt inappropriate manner and assertion in contacting their professors electronically.

…”Should I buy a binder or a subject notebook? Since I'm a freshman, I'm not sure how to shop for school supplies. Would you let me know your recommendations? Thank you!”

At colleges and universities nationwide, e-mail has made professors much more approachable. But many say it has made them too accessible, erasing boundaries that traditionally kept students at a healthy distance.

Well, okay, that question by the student was over the top. What do you expect in an entitled narcissistic culture? — some, with the warm encouragement of their percolating youth, with the clammy familiarity of insidious immaturity, will go over the top — comically so, as this article makes clear.

But what really got my notice were the sign-off paragraphs:

Meg Worley, an assistant professor of English at Pomona College in California, said she told students that they must say thank you after receiving a professor's response to an e-mail message.

“One of the rules that I teach my students is, the less powerful person always has to write back,” Professor Worley said.

The first chuckle here is that Meg, er, I mean Assistant Professor Meg, thinks she has the status to support this noxious demand of authoritarian deference. She teaches at Pomona College. Stanford, Harvard, I'll bet the professors there are far more accessible and down to earth than Assistant Meg. And, putting aside the obviously inappropriate emails exploited in this article — is it such a bad thing — a tearing down of false barriers? Should the focus be on decorous “thanks you's”? (Note the student quoted above who asked about proper binders said Thank You!)

A student's feeling that he or she can be, well, collegial, has merit — as is indicated by gifted teachers:

Still, every professor interviewed emphasized that instant feedback could be invaluable. A question about a lecture or discussion “is for me an indication of a blind spot, that the student didn't get it,” said Austin D. Sarat, a professor of political science at Amherst College.

College students say that e-mail makes it easier to ask questions and helps them to learn…”

Podcast Rec

As I've started to listen to podcasts regularly some have turned out to be better than expected. Podcasts quickly reveal why the major media have job slots like producer and director. Podcasts are uneven in presentation — distractingly so.

One good podcast, now only a few lectures into the series, is called The Solomon Katz Distinguished Lectures in the Humanities. The podcast I just listened to was part of this series, a reading by Herbert Blau from his autobiography, a man deeply involved in modern theater.

Blau is pugnacious and bright — he reminds me of Mailer; Blau is of Mailer's generation. The autobiography from which he reads is filled with braggadocio and regret, with too much theory, and too much clearing of his throat, but he is in this podcast, a serious, interesting interpreter of his experience — a nuanced writer.

How can you miss — give it a listen…

Website: University of Washington-podcast website

Podcast URL:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/media/uw-katz.xml

Rembrandt

This article by Robert Hughes about Rembrandt is worth reading. Hughes can often be a dismissive narcissist in his criticism, waving off with grandiosity complex issues and images, but he likes art and looks at it — add to that his ability to write, and you got something.

Here is a good example of Hughes' ability to enter into the life of a painting with great empathy and insight — Hughes at his best — a snip about Rembrandt's great Bathsheba at her bath :

… Bathsheba clearly has an internal life, not merely an external beauty. She is engaged in moral reflection - the fact that she is no longer reading the letter makes that clear - and her pensive expression has a gravity beyond that of any other Bathsheba. Will she? Won't she? Does she want to? If so, how much? The questions are left hanging in the air, but we are left intensely conscious of them - of the ambiguity, so to put it, that hangs over all beauty, all desire. But then, her beauty is of a different order to the conventional; those broad hips, those sturdy hands, connect her to the actual world we live and feel in. And what lends a further dimension to the subject is that we know, if we are Biblically literate, something that Bathsheba, inside the Bible story, does not: that the amoral King David wants her so much that he is going to murder her husband, get him out of the way by putting him in the front line of battle.

Dancing Judges

The issue on Dancing With The Stars has become the judges. The woman judge is antagonizing everyone. First she irked the other judges, already contentious, and now even one of the professional dancers — the woman who partners with Jerry Rice — looked like she wanted to tear the heart of this female judge right out. It was a legitimate reaction — no other professional dancer had had their choreography criticized. This female judge seems to play more to the audience and her prejudices than to what is in front of her.

The other judges are something of a comedy duo: the hyperbolic Latin gesticulating over the top zero to sixty in two seconds judge; and the proper, most decorous and restrained judge. They could take the act on the road. Frankly, I've always been amazed at the level of credibility judges, critics, and gatekeepers in general receive — good judges are as rare as the top performers in any field. You really can't sniff their resume, you have to listen to the judge to figure out if they warrant consideration. Critical thinking required, always. In the arts the test is always, can they write? If a critic isn't a good writer, hasn't mastered a relatively minor form of writing criticism, how can you consider them credible when assessing a complex art form?

I don't think any of the judges could dance as well as Stacy, who is remarkable. So, Jerry will be voted off, then Lisa, then the guy who is the brother of the other guy who was married to the famous what's-her-name… and then Stacy will win, and all will be right with the world.

The NYT said Dancing got better ratings than one of the other top shows, Survivor or CSI. Not at all surprising — it has a positive spirit does Dancing With The Stars.

Catalog Of Paintings

I just added a link to a new catalog of my selected paintings which can be purchased here. The permanent link to this pub will be at the top of the navigation column to the left side of this page.

I am happy with the way it turned out — consider taking a look.

49 pages, 6×9, brief text, many plates, all in color, with some fascinating quotes…

Podbit: The Universe

I've been listening to, what has turned out to be, one of the better podcasts — a series of lectures about astronomy. The podcast comes from Ohio State. The teacher, his name is Richard Pogge, has gone from the evolution of stars to the most recent podcast, which described characteristics of spiral galaxies. He speaks quickly, you miss a lot, and don't understand more, but overall, it is accessible and excitingly presented.

The subject is thrilling, awesome. And the podbit: Pogge said that the sun, which has a lifespan of about 12 billion years, will, before its death, have circled the center of the Milky Way 50 to 60 times. That is, one full revolution of the galaxy, carrying our little solar system with it, occurs every 200 million years.

The Olympics Not

We tried watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympics but ended up watching Dancing With The Stars. George Hamilton was voted off, which was logical — he is really not a gifted dancer. Hamilton stayed as long as he did on sheer charm. On the social plane, Hamilton has perfect pitch. He knows what to say and what not. He manages to praise without making your teeth hurt. He has a sense of humor about himself. The man is old but he has a human energy that substitutes well for the animal energy required of ballroom dancing.

Although it is a hype calling the celebs on this show “stars”, they nevertheless have all been winning. Lisa, who at first seemed the best dancer — and the woman does have the most graceful, balletic hand movements — has been eclipsed by Stacy, who it turns out has the whole package and then some. She is not only the perfect body type, she is vibrant, yet down to earth, making herself accessible. It almost isn't fair. They said at the outset that they rejected any celebrities who have had real dance training, but Stacy performs like a professional dancer.

Resolving the Crisis

In their appearance this week on Lehrer, Shields and Brooks discussed resolving the crisis of Muslim mobs killing, burning and rioting. This is what Mark Shields said:

There is two things: First of all, this is not the first time infidel has been used in the Middle East. I mean, you recall the crusades were about the infidels and those weren't organized by Muslims…

And secondly, I'd say that there is in the part, legitimate grievance about double standards. I mean, we oppose any nuclear ambitions for any Muslim state. And yet we never mentioned fact that Israel has nuclear capacity and that is just totally ignored. And I think that remains a sticking point and a very sore point that sends a double standard that is applied to them by no way condoning, justifying, excuse the violence…

So, for Shields and many like him, the crusades and Israel are a “legitimate grievance about double standards”. Using the logic and language of thugs, Shields thinks he is expressing “understanding”. Shields ignores the true “double standards” : Hypervigilant, hypersensitive Islamists behead innocents and remain silent about the slaughter of other Muslims; the failed societies that have bred these riots cynically deflect, once again, from their own illegitimacy — then claim moral outrage about cartoons. Apparently Shields shares this depraved hypocrisy.

Shields' moral equivalence has diminished much Progressive thinking — cluelessly enabling the brown shirts of the world. The Paleo-Right, greedy and anti-Semitic (Pat Buchanan its poster boy) finally self-corrected into what are called neocons, but really are Hamiltonian conservatives; the Paleo-Left, which Shields exemplifies, without a cogent message, cackling and sanctimonious, has yet to emerge with a coherent equivalent to the neocons; there are centrists like Lieberman, but they are marginalized by the Left; maybe Obama can find some colleagues and create a coalition of the honorable Left to give a true alternative to the neocons. The sooner the Democratic party rejects dinosaurs like Shields the better off it will be.

Super Bowl

Well, the Steelers did what most pundits thought they would do, but it wasn't pretty. The two teams seemed to neutralize one another, leaving for the viewer a pretty blah game until the end. I was pulling for the Steelers so I was glad about the outcome. It was surprising that the most traditional coach, Cowher, was the one most enamored of gadget plays. Those plays have a real entertainment value — and they worked. That Steeler wide receiver throwing a perfect touchdown pass was a reminder of how really great quarterbacks might have enlivened the game.

The style of the spectacle is some sort of wacky mind-merge of Las Vegas convention decor and the zombie like slick soulless corporate culture expressing its false energy technologically. The Rolling Stones looked like withered oaks trembling in the breeze. The sound was terrible, the crowd noise sucked the melody out of the music — fittingly, it was a shell of hype; somehow, buried beneath it all, the communal aspect of so widely watched an event and the sporting nature of the venue made it tolerable.

Michaels and Madden are an okay team, although I think Madden is better seen as a “character” playing a commentator than as a provider of much insight. Madden has the odd habit of pointing out something about a play that isn't there: see how he pushed him there, if he didn't push him, the play would not have worked; then they show the replay and no one pushed anyone. Yet Madden sticks to his story. Madden may be goofy, but he is likable — no doubt the reason he is there.

The story lines of the player's lives retailed in the press, the loyalty of Cowher, the wisdom of the Rooney family in letting the coach run the team, had me rooting for the Steelers.

The only commercial that worked for me was the one with the two monsters courting — I think it was for Hummer. It made no sense and was funny — perfect, considering the context.

Preening

Garrison Keillor in this review has found his true voice, abandoning cute affectations for direct expression. The writer being reviewed, Bernard-Henri Lévy, is aching to be seen as insightful, like Tocqueville, whose depth of understanding culled from a brief stay in America was prescient — Tocqueville was some kind of genius. Tocqueville proves that if you can really see the present with depth, you have a good chance of guessing the future.

Keillor can't stand the arrogant, shallow disdain of Bernard-Henri Lévy:

Thanks, pal…Thanks for coming. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. For your next book, tell us about those riots in France, the cars burning in the suburbs of Paris. What was that all about?…

The excellent critic William Grimes, in today's NYT, doesn't much like the preening Frenchman either:

[Bernard-Henri Lévy] is lazy. Tocqueville, faced with the bewildering logic of American politics and American habits, rolled up his sleeves and tried to account for what he saw. Mr. Lévy dashes off a few lines, shrugs his shoulders and tosses out rhetorical questions.