www.geekybob.com

The Eye of the Beholder

02 July 2013 • by Bob • Art, Rants

I have a very easy measuring scale for determining what I consider art: "If I Can Do It, It's Not Art." This may not seem like a complex rule to live by; but when you consider it, it's rather profound. There are a lot of people who will pass off their work as art even though it is actually a bunch of junk.

I have been to a lot of art museums because - I actually like art. But I have witnessed a lot of pieces that are not art; they are elaborate hoaxes by conmen who rebrand their particular style of garbage construction as creative genius.

For example, when I went to the the Neue Pinakothek in Munich, Germany, one of the paintings hanging on the wall was a large canvas where the artist had painted a one-inch red dot in the center of the canvas. This was titled "Red Object #2," or maybe "Red Object #3..." I can't really remember. The point being that this painting was obviously part of a whole study the artist had done on... red objects. Of course I'm looking at this creation and I'm thinking, "I can do that; I could have done that with a crayon."

I've gone to the Seattle Art Museum several times, and I find it absolutely amazing what some people consider 'art'. Now don't get me wrong, there are some amazing pieces of artwork inside the Seattle Art Museum. But there was one canvas where the artist had simply painted an already white canvas with the color white. That's it - just white paint; nothing else. Once again I'm thinking, "I can do that."

At a different museum that I went to in Germany, the Lenbachhaus, it was very evident that an artist had stood at the end of several canvases that were lying on the ground and simply threw buckets of red paint at them. Once again, I can do that - it's not art.

I realize that the perception of art is subjective, and there is a lot of truth to the statement that "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder." But I always fall back on my personal standard that if it's something that I can do, it's not really art - it's just what people pass off as art. (For an example of how I think most modern artists come up with their ideas, you need to watch the movie The Wheeler Dealers with James Garner and see how the character Stanislas creates his artwork.)

Another perfect example of the ways in which we think about art can be typified by an experience that I had when I visited the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The museum was presenting an exhibition on impressionism, and I'm a big fan for many of the classical French impressionists: Renoir, Monet, etc. During my visit I entered one of the rooms, and there was an enormous painting by Gauguin hanging on the wall. I'm not a big fan of his artwork; however, I at least consider it art because I can't do what he does.

But as I analyzed this particular painting, I was thinking to myself, "I just don't get it; he only used four colors." I started to think about this painting based on my personal scale; I could have done this, so it can't be art. I (embarrassingly) spent several minutes studying this piece, and I tried hard to determine what it was about this painting that other people can see and I must be missing.

It's like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes; at some point you begin to worry what's wrong with you. If everybody else can see it and you can't, perhaps it's a character flaw. Maybe you're just not cultured enough. And this was the mindset that I had while I was wasting away my afternoon studying that single piece of art.

After I had been standing there for 5 to 10 minutes, a ten-year-old boy entered the room with his mother in tow. He took one look at the painting, laughed, and exclaimed loudly, "That's crap!", and then he walked off.

At that point I realized that I had been duped. I learned that I needed to stick to my instincts and measure every piece by my personal standard that if I can do it, it's not art. This philosophy actually helped me enjoy the rest of the day at the museum. I could walk into a room, I could look at a Renoir and say, "Now that's a piece of art." Or I could look at another Gauguin and say, "That's crap."

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

17 September 2011 • by Bob • History, Politics

When you study history, you are invariably introduced to Carroll Quigley's seven stages in The Evolution of Civilizations. In chapter 5 of his book, Quigley describes the seven states in the history of a civilization; these are:

1. Mixture: The mixture of diverse, smaller societies to form a unique, larger whole.
2. Gestation: The gestation of that large society, specifically in the development of a method for accumulating an economic surplus and investing it in methods of expansion.
3. Expansion: A period of vigorous expansion in population, territory, technological competence, wealth, knowledge, etc.
4. Conflict: A period of major conflict between societal elements or geographical areas within the civilization.
5. Empire: The development of a universal empire ruling over the entire civilization, which far from being a golden age represents a precursor to decay and collapse.
6. Decay: The decay of the civilization as exemplified in the ossification of institutions and structures within the empire.
7. Collapse/Invasion: The collapse of the civilization, usually through invasion by a younger civilization that is in the expansion phase.

Every great civilization has gone through this formula - with no exceptions.

From my perspective, the history of the United States has emerged in the following way:

1. Our Mixture phase was pre-1750s as European settlers began to arrive and colonize the East Coast.
2. Gestation followed the 1750s through the early 1800s as the colonists won their independence from European rule and began to establish a new nation.
3. Expansion was from the early 1800s through the 1860s as the new nation pushed west toward the Pacific Ocean.
4. Conflict was from 1860s through the latter 1890s as the United States grappled with the Civil War and its aftermath.
5. Empire was from the early 1900s through the latter 1950s as the reunified United States fought a series of World Wars and established itself as a dominant world power.
6. Decay began in the late 1950s and early 1960s as the generation born during the post-WWII Baby Boom spat on the prosperity that had been fought for and freely given to them, and all vestiges of ethical and moral standards were removed from public education. This period was marked by dramatic rises in crime rates, drug proliferation, corruption, divorce, unemployment, abortions-on-demand, corporate greed, and worst of all - the political ineptitude which prevents anything from being done about it.

According to Mr. Quigley's formula, all that the United States have left to face are Collapse and Invasion; civilizations do not recover once they have entered the Decay phase.

What is tragically ironic is that the people who vociferously claim to be trying to save the United States, namely Progressives and Liberals, are actually doing the most damage. As Quigley illustrates in his book, when members of a civilization become so preoccupied with arguing about what they perceive are their "rights" instead of contributing to society and adhering to an ethical set of standards or morals, the fabric of civilization unravels, and eventually implodes as an emerging civilization invades and conquers.

In this present day and age, people are rushing headlong into their inevitable demise; all the while they are wearing blinders which prevent them from seeing what is obvious to the less-outspoken of their peers. It is a sad manifestation of The Emperor's New Clothes; and even though the irony is missed by those who are too foolish to see themselves as members of the deceived, future generations will have the perspective granted by history with which to judge this time period with impartiality (and thereby with greater accuracy).

Several hundred years from now, historians of that coming era will look back with amazement as they analyze how the American civilization was ripped apart by the selfish desires of those who claimed to be acting in the best interests of society.

In closing, I think the rock group Rush expressed that sentiment quite well in their song "A Farewell to Kings":

A Farewell To Kings
When they turn the pages of history
When these days have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness
For the seeds that we let grow

We turned our gaze
From the castles in the distance
Eyes cast down
On the path of least resistance

Cities full of hatred, fear and lies
Withered hearts and cruel tormented eyes
Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise
Beating down the multitude
And scoffing at the wise

:-(

Domestic Terrorists Come in Many Forms

11 November 2005 • by Bob • Military, Opinion

As an honorably-discharged veteran, it should come as no surprise that an opinion piece with a title of "Why America needs to be Defeated in Iraq" would catch my attention. When I first read this ludicrous pile of drivel from a gentleman whom I shall henceforth refer to as "Mr. Whit," I was merely offended. His errant ramblings seemed to be another entry in a long line of deranged brain dumps from scores of deranged imbeciles that I seemed to discover whenever I ventured into another dark corner within the vast wastelands of west coast propaganda. I lived in Seattle for a decade or so, and I've seen this type of close-minded lunacy before. To paraphrase the Bard, the author of that particular op-ed, Mr. Whit, has no more intelligence in him than in a stewed prune. (Methinks he doth possess a great deal less.)

After a bit of time had passed, I pondered more about the context of Mr. Whit's article, and I was appalled by the abhorrent vulgarity of what his brief manifesto actually represents: Mr. Whit is a US Citizen who is outspoken and unapologetic about his desire that some form of harm should come to other US citizens. That admission makes him, using today's parlance, a domestic terrorist. Plain and simple. When one American's wish is that other Americans must suffer in order to make a political point, then that American is no better than the abomination that was Timothy McVeigh. After all, the late Mr. McVeigh only wanted to make a political statement when he and his accomplice bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, right?

Mr. McVeigh's vicious manifestation of domestic terrorism was responsible for the deaths of 168 innocent men, women, and children. However, for Mr. McVeigh, those people's fates were secondary to his cause. He believed that his principles were more important than his victims' lives. In the same way, Mr. Whit regards his self-appointed role as an oracle of truth as more beneficial to society than the meager value of average peasants, and therefore he believes that he has the right to condemn other lives to death in order to satisfy his misguided philosophies. The fates of those whom Mr. Whit would send to their graves are secondary to his gargantuan ego, and their lives are worth less than his sanctimonious convictions.

On the one hand, Mr. Whit accuses the US government of believing that "might is right" when it decides who gets to live or die, while on the other hand he freely chooses (from the sanctity of his word-processor) who else gets to live or die. Like Mr. McVeigh before him, Mr. Whit's deplorable appetite for others to suffer for his wretched aberration of morality is fully-vindicated within the boundaries of his twisted, little worldview. I am sure that somewhere inside his hollow, rat-infested cranium, Mr. Whit believes that the "ends justify the means." However, Mr. Whit doesn't have to face the consequences of his brain-dead decrees, whereas the innocent lives that he has condemned to death and their unfortunate families are left to suffer.

History has had more than its fair share of sociopaths who fail to take responsibility for their murderous actions, and Mr. Whit follows their example to the letter when he wishes death upon US troops while skirting away from any personal culpability by laying the blame for their deaths on the government. What Mr. Whit does not realize is that he doesn't get to have it both ways; he cannot pronounce a death sentence on others without being found guilty for his own crimes. He cannot claim that our government is guilty of terrorism, then advocate for the deaths of other US citizens and not be found guilty of his own brand of repugnant and unctuous terrorism. His self-righteous delusions do not grant him the title of judge, jury, or executioner.

It is ironic that short-sighted morons like Mr. Whit are quick to exercise their first amendment right to freedom of speech, while overlooking the sacrifices that were made on his behalf in order to guarantee his right to speak his mind without fear of reprisal. Long before Mr. Whit's feckless mortal coil ventured forth upon the country that he despises and condemns, the same sort of men and women on whom he passes his misguided judgment fought and died so that he might one day have the freedom to spit on their collective memories. Liberals like Mr. Whit never seem to realize that no one can have freedom in this world unless someone is willing to fight for it. It is clear that Mr. Whit will never personally fight for his freedom; he will continue to sit in the shadows and dispatch his putrid, little missives whenever a contrary wind ruffles his delicate feathers.

To be clear, I do not mind when someone exercises their freedom of speech. I do not mind when someone protests the war. (I have my own misgivings about the directions we are taking - or not taking.) I do not mind when someone calls the President a "war-monger." I do not mind when someone wants our troops out of the Middle East, and organizes a "million-man-march" on the capitol to demand that Congress should bring our brave men and women home. When you get right down to it, I do not mind when someone informs me that something I believe to be right or wrong might be true or false.

However, I damn sure mind when some hypocritical, warthog-faced buffoon signs a death warrant for members of our country's armed forces from the safe haven of his computer keyboard, tucked safely away in an office where no harm will come to him. And yet, despite my personal loathing for Mr. Whit, and in deference to my belief that simpletons like Mr. Whit are utterly useless to society, I do not wish that any harm should come to him. I served in our nation's armed forces so that even a miserable, vomitus mass like Mr. Whit has the right to share his pathetic sentiments in a public forum. And to be honest, if push came to shove, I would do so again. And this is the paradox that makes our country great: the strong and the brave will thanklessly sacrifice their personal safety to fight and defend the rights of the weak and ungrateful cowards who condemn them.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

UPDATE: This post is one of several that I had written that I later discovered had never been set to "public."

Blog Navigation

You are on page 5 of 5 pages.