View current page
...more recent posts
Artist Claire Jervert derives her work entirely from television. She freezes images on the small screen, photographs them, and then converts the photos into iconic, contemplative objects. Her pictures appear in a variety of formats: laminated on honeycomb aluminum panels, digitally printed on large canvases, arranged on the wall as grids of polaroids. On her website, she presents four series: UFOs (significant blobs and smears from sci-fi films and "documentary" sources--see my essay from 1999), skies (tracking the popular degradation of the romantic sublime), game show audiences (people waving and gesturing in Pavlovian fervor), and something new--"fossils" of the homes of Cleavers, Jeffersons, Bradys, and other TV families (using the "stone effect" in a digital imaging program--this is pretty obvious, but it works).
This weblog is mainly concerned with visual art, but the events of 9/11 have necessitated a certain amount of political commentary. The following is of the latter variety. For recent commentary on art, please see the "Weblog Archive" link above.
From a 10/25/01 New York Times article: "Saudi authorities assisted the United States in confirming the identities of the hijackers, helping American investigators reach the conclusion that 15 of the 19 were Saudis. American investigators also say some recruiting, financing and planning for the attacks occurred on Saudi soil."
It's been blindingly obvious since 9/11 that our attackers are dissident elements within a country that is supposedly our "ally." What we should have been doing since 9/11 is vigorously debating how relations with Saudi Arabia, whose citizens killed 3000-plus of our citizens, should be changed. Do we demand more intelligence-sharing from Saudi officialdom, and reforms of their autocratic government? Do we withdraw our military support, leaving the 10,000 playboy princes to be beheaded by the dissidents, and then cut a deal with the new Islamist regime? (Don't think they wouldn't be corruptible.) Do we just go ahead and invade Saudi Arabia--or "annex" it, as we've done with many territories in the past (Mexico, Phillipines, Hawaii)--making "their" copious oil "ours," and be prepared for a long, ongoing guerrilla war with the dissidents, at home and abroad? Do we rehabilitate Saddam Hussein as our ally, as he was during the Iran-Iraq war, and then bomb the Saudi oil fields, in effect shutting in their oil? Or (ha ha) do we discuss ways to become less dependent on Mideast oil, through conservation, greater cultivation of Western hemisphere resources, etc?
What we've been doing, instead of debating these options, is treating Saudi Arabia like the Great Taboo Subject. Instead of confronting our real problem, we're bombing and starving one of the weakest countries on the planet, to satisfy a desire for instant revenge. Our war against Afghanistan, commenced with only four weeks' planning and against a country not one of whose citizens was alleged to have been a hijacker, is just plain stupid, and has all the signs of a Vietnam-style quagmire. I know, bin Laden and his "terrorist training camps" are there, but ordinary Afghans are too poor and hungry to hurt us. "Ordinary Saudis," however, are rich, educated, motivated, and at least 15 have hurt us. Why aren't we focusing our anger where it belongs?
Someone I know received a cyber-postcard from a friend in Europe, captioned "New York 2006." (To view, click here.) The first thing you notice in this gag rendition of the Manhattan skyline is the big mosque in the center, roughly where the WTC towers were. Next you notice that there lots of minarets mingled with Western skyscrapers. The last you notice is the boat basin in the foreground--is this even New York? Obviously some Europeans are enjoying a little Photoshop humor at our expense, spinning a fantasy that is either vengeful or utopian, depending on how you look at it. The revenge fantasy is obvious: that we not only "lost the war" on terrorism, but surrendered to bin Laden, and our new Islamic masters have been gradually imposing their architecture on us. The utopian fantasy is that we saw the error of our ways, and adopted the architecture of the people we formerly exploited. (Yeah, right.)
Yet for either version to work, an "old world order" of city planning must still be in place. The theoretician Paul Virilio sees something very different looming on the horizon: "...I will underline that terrorism has just inaugurated an anti-cities strategy. This means that all towers are today threatened. Instead of being a place of dominion, as the dungeons of the past, the tower has become a place of weakness: vertically, it is henceforth the equivalent of the outer wall which the artillery blew up...." (Thanks to Jim's log for the quote.) The Japanese, who know something about collapsing cities, have been thinking along these lines for years, at least in their fantasy lives. In the 1995 anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion, "Tokyo 3" has skyscrapers that sink into the ground whenever the city is threatened from the air (which is about every other episode). Not only do they sink, they continue downward in rectangular silos and emerge upside down on the roof of a "geofront," which is an enormous cavern with another city on its floor. Below is a view inside the geofront, after the buildings have been lowered:
In this scenario, Virilio's dungeon once again becomes a place of dominion, and the city doesn't have to give up its beloved skyscrapers!
Here's the Artforum.com blurb on Rodney Graham's show at 303 Gallery: "The primary work in this show, Phonokinetoscope, 2001, recreates a bicycle ride taken by Dr. Albert Hofmann through Berlin's Tiergarten on April 19, 1943. Before hopping on his bike, Hofmann, a chemist researching ergot alkaloids, swallowed a quarter milligram of the then new compound LSD-25. Later he would write that it dramatically altered his 'acoustic and optical perceptions.' Graham's film, complete with bike ride, LSD (which he washes down with coffee from a vintage thermos), and music composed and sung by the artist, mercifully avoids any overt psychedelia. Instead, it focuses on subtle interconnections and slippages between visual and aural perception, offering instances where sight and sound merge, as when the wheeze of the film projector matches the visual rhythm of a playing card hitting the spokes of a spinning bicycle wheel."
Actually none of the above is precisely true. The 16 mm film loop is synchronized with an LP recording of a song by Graham, a kind of folk-metal ballad in the John Cale/Nick Drake/Syd Barrett mold. As the song begins, Graham is already on his bike. He pedals through the park, stops to stare fixedly at a statue, and rides across a bridge in reverse-motion--an homage to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, the press release reminds us. The playing card in the spokes of his bike, anchored with a wood clothespin, suggests he's regressed to a childlike (or dork-like) state. The lyrics to the song are as dumb as they are poignant:
Who is it that does not love a tree?
I planted one, I planted three.
Two for you and one for me.
Botanical anomaly...
You're the kind of girl that fits into my world...
You're the kind of girl that fits into my world...
Finally, at the end of the song, he sits down, and with power chords climaxing on the soundtrack, eats a square of blotter and stares entranced at the clothespin and the playing card, a Queen of Diamonds (as in Lucy in the Sky with...?). Of course, since the piece is a loop, you could interpret the end as the beginning, and imagine the film as a trip that lasts an eternity. EXCEPT Graham has deliberately made it possible for any idiot to walk into the gallery and lift the the tone arm off the LP, which stops the song and disconnects the "looper," bringing the film--which people are watching in a different room from the one with the turntable--to a sudden, jarring halt. The woman at the desk said many viewers have gotten angry when this happens.
In comments to the 10/8 post on this weblog, issue was taken to the use of words "reasonable" and "bin Laden" in the same paragraph. The post speaks for itself, but just to belabor the point: Presidents Bush, the one legitimately elected and the other one, have a habit of demonizing former allies in a rather sick, Orwellian way. Noriega was our guy, then, overnight, he was declared "evil"; same with Saddam. 10 years ago, bin Laden was called a freedom fighter, but now he's...insane? Whether or not we agree that the mass killing of civilians by burning, crushing, and defenestration is good way to accomplish political objectives, the 10/7 videotape was our first opportunity to hear the "madman's" demands. Up until that point it was just speculation. Turns out what he's asking for--get the US out of Saudi Arabia; get Sharon to the negotiating table--are desires felt by perfectly sane people all over the world. American journalists (and editorialists) have a responsibility to report this kind of information clearly, rather than construing it any way they want to because the speaker is "crazy."
Hell, what am I talking about? This just appeared in the New York Times: "The five major television news organizations have agreed to follow the suggestion of the White House and abridge future videotaped statements from Osama bin Laden." That's pretty good proof that someone's taking his demands to heart. If our government thought the man was an unpersuasive loon, would they be preventing us from seeing him? Obviously, they're afraid his message will sink in and undermine their ill-advised bombing campaign. And the networks caved right in. What a country.
10/16/01 Postscript: Several of my friends continue to say that the views expressed in this and the previous post are "extreme." They feel that because bin Laden has attacked America in a spectacularly brutal way, and because his pronouncements prior to October 7 proposed wiping out the state of Israel and killing all infidels (or whatever), that my assessment of the October 7 demands as "reasonable" is naive at best and treasonous at worst. As one person put it, "Would you pay serious attention to Hitler's arguments for invading other countries?" The only thing I can say in response is, we ignore or misconstrue our enemies at our peril. Bin Laden's October 7 tape was an adroit bit of propaganda, all the more effective because it contained seeds of truth. The logic of Hitler's argument that Germany needed lebensraum (elbow room) in order to thrive as a nation stopped at the borders of his country. Bin Laden's arguments have much broader appeal. We should rethink our relations with the Saudis and press for a fair settlement of the Palestinian question not because he bombed us, but because it's the right thing to do.
New York Times columnist William Safire isn't just a splenetic armchair general, he's a senile, splenetic armchair general. In his column today, he urges Bush Junior to take out Saddam as part of the war against evil. As usual, Safire distorts facts, saying that Osama bin Laden demands an Israeli exit from Palestine and U.S. non-"interference" with Iraq.
Here's what yours truly posted on the NYT Safire chatboard (under a fake, "don't spam me" NYT sign-in name), and also sent in a non-pseudonymous email to the Times:
"In his October 8 column urging war to 'liberate' Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, William Safire misinterprets the demands stated in Osama bin Laden's October 7 videotaped speech. According to Safire, bin Laden requests 'the removal of Jews from Palestine and the end of America's interference with Iraq.' This is inaccurate. At the end of his speech, bin Laden says: 'I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine, and before all the army of infidels depart the land of Mohammad.' Of course, the 'land of Mohammad' is Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Bin Laden mentions Iraq a couple of times as an example of U.S. aggression, but he also mentions the bombing of Japan in WWII. It is clear he wants the U.S. to stop supporting Israeli territorial aggression, and to get our military bases out of Saudi Arabia. These demands seem quite reasonable to me."
The image below, a Kelly Freas (or Freas-ish) jacket illustration for Philip K. Dick's 1965 novel Dr. Bloodmoney, hails from a near-comprehensive gallery of PKD covers (thanks to dratfink for pointing it out). Of the wide variety of scanned, scuffed editions on display, the Ace Books covers from the mid-'60s consistently score highest in originality and emotional impact (in addition to Bloodmoney, The Simulacra also rocks). Can you imagine an illustration like the one below appearing today in a grocery store rack? It's just too weird, lonely, and raw by today's standards of bookselling. The hand-drawn letters add a hint of Strangelovian zaniness to the ghastly scene, especially the cartoon Fat Boy (or is it Little Man?) around the word "bomb." The flying man possibly merges two characters in the novel: Walt Dangerfield, an astronaut trapped in an orbiting space capsule, reading Of Human Bondage to an entertainment-starved populace after WWIII, and Dr. Bluthgeld, a Nazi scientist who emerges as a strange, elemental being in Marin County, where the book's action takes place.
A more recent novel threading its way through a Dickian, post-disaster cosmos is Jonathan Lethem's excellent Amnesia Moon. Also set in Northern California (but ranging east as far as Wyoming), Lethem's book keeps alluding to a past "crisis event," the particulars of which no one is sure of except to say that "everything changed" (shades of 9/11). People move in and out of each other's dream-worlds, Palmer Eldritch-style, with each scenario offering a different interpretation of what life would be like after a world-shattering disaster. One character imagines living on varmints in a Mad Max-like desert; another envisions a suburban dystopia of endless government testing and surveillance; yet another fights a losing war-of-attrition against an alien hive creature. Or are these really dreams? (Annoying personal synchronicity reference: a copy of Amnesia, which obliquely mentions Bloodmoney, was bought by yours truly at the World Trade Center bookstore a few days before 9/11. Cue theremin.)