#214 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday December 6)
Good morning!
We are nearing the end of the week of Hanukkah, the “Festival of Lights.” It seems appropriate to take a moment to focus on light, rather than darkness, as we approach the Winter Solstice.
GOOD NEWS
Notwithstanding the bad news, I want to focus for just a moment on just a few positives (some of which are positive opportunities based upon negative news):
Perhaps the various major weather events, while devastating and costly in lives and property lost, have caused people to wake up from their complacent behaviors. Perhaps the prevalence of these events is a positive omen and can lead to meaningful change. Ten years ago, the idea of global climate change and its effects was a theoretical concept that had not yet “caught on.” Today is seems that all but the most stalwart acknowledge the problem, if not all the potential solutions. Ten years ago, it was not easy to describe or define the extent of the problem, nor were short term ramifications readily apparent. Sadly, people consider the problems of the day, rather than projecting forward to seek solutions for problems that they know will arise in the near future. The repeated events, one on top of the other, may encourage action on climate change.
The absurdity of the recall of California’s governor (regardless of the shortfalls in his administration) was beaten back. I think people learned that these recalls are a waste of time and money and are merely political theatre in search of an abnormal result that prematurely can displace the duly elected leaders from their posts. Now California needs to modify the absurdities resulting from a too-easy recall system and the plethora of ballot measures that are sponsored by partisans and lobbyists and are confusing and misleading.
As much as the Afghanistan debacle is over and the Taliban are in charge, I’m cautiously hopeful. Our longest war is over. The Taliban may be a little different now than before. Now they must govern; and their rhetoric rings hollow. They now must act to address the many problems in that country. Let’s remember that the world is different from the world when they last governed. A lot can happen in 20 years (just look at the Republican party for an example).
Israel has relations with more countries in the Arab world. Perhaps the new coalition government, with Arab participation, will take bold steps to further resolve the multi-generational problems in the Mideast and seek a solution, even if only interim, to the West Bank occupation.
Vaccines work and scientists are heroes. Notwithstanding the protestations by people who are partisan, anti-government or still “conducting their own research” (on the Internet or on Facebook), we have staved off what might have been much worse. Yet, we likely are looking at regular boosters and non-stop outbreaks for the foreseeable future.
Trump continues to be proven ridiculous. The danger of a future presidential bid will hopefully be thwarted, as lawsuits against him and his companies, based upon his sheer mendacity, tax avoidance, and self-dealing occupy his time and energies. I still think he’ll run. And perhaps, just perhaps, there will emerge more reasonable leadership on the right to challenge his hold on the party.
Dominion Systems is suing the perpetrators of the canard about the “bias” and “pre-programming” of their voting machines, putting the lie to the “stop the steal” rhetoric of people like Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani.
Facebook finally seems to be getting its “comeuppance.” Not that I care about their business or stock price; what I care about is that we are able to rein in the mass dissemination of lies, conspiracy theories, hate and vitriol that is plaguing our society. It is anti-social media, which by their own studies confirms their participation in election fraud, distribution of false medical claims about COVID (and other maladies), increases anxiety, depression, and tendencies toward self-harm, all while affecting election results, eroding our democracy and putting children at risk.
MUST EVERYTHING BE POLITICAL?
Last month, Andrea and I visited the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. If you haven’t been, it’s really extraordinary and should not be missed. Where can one go and find a Rauschenberg, a Warhol, and a Jim Dine on a single wall. The broad survey of modern art is remarkable.
One of the most impressive installations is a giant mural by the great Mexican artist, Diego Rivera. He created this mural in 1940, during the Golden Gate International Exposition, as fascism was on the rise in Europe. The piece, The Marriage of the Artistic Expression of the North and of the South on This Continent, commonly known as Pan American Unity, is an extraordinary multi-layered story of Mexico and the United States, beginning in the Aztec and Toltec civilizations, through the founding of America, the end of slavery and the growing challenge of fascism.
The mural speaks for itself and is to be interpreted by the viewer, as all art necessarily is interpreted and reinterpreted by viewers. Yet the curator apparently didn’t think that was enough, electing to virtue-signal that Rivera’s work was incomplete and not reflective of the “truth,” as the curator defined it. So that person imposed their political views regarding the piece, its message and what Rivera’s work lacked. Here’s what the installation’s description says:
“While Rivera depicts an Indigenous people in Mexico thriving in an idealized past, he largely omits their contemporary presence on the other end of the mural, where colonization by white settlers has scarred the California landscape and dispossessed its original inhabitants of their lands.”
Is the curator’s reminder that white settlers are the “bad guys” important to understanding the works of an artistic genius? And for that matter, are the white settlers the sole contributors to the scarring of the landscape? Are there other, more positive, results of European colonization? Would the land be scarred, whether or not Europeans came to California? Was the dispossession something universal to the entirety of the state or merely the villages in which the earlier inhabitants lived?
There is something audacious, bordering on offensive, that the curator thinks he or she is empowered not simply to interpret the work as art, but also impose their current political perspective. That Rivera failed to address the curator’s view of the world ought not be perceived as the failure of Rivera’s art. Isn’t it enough to see what Rivera actually intended and to allow the viewer to react accordingly?
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: