All posts in Opinions

Right now, conservatives are circling the wagons, defending themselves, claiming that the rhetoric of Palin, Beck, Coulter, Hannity (really, most of FOX News) cannot possibly be blamed for the actions of one psychotic young man in Pima, Arizona.

And they may be right: preliminary evidence suggests that the shooter was not, in reality, motivated by the rhetoric of the Right so much as he was suffering from a violently psychotic personality disorder. We could argue that Republican cuts on mental healthcare or the most liberal gun control laws are to blame, but I don’t want to focus on those issues at the moment.

What is illuminating is that many people across the political spectrum jumped to the conclusion that it was just this sort of outlandish conservative rhetoric that was behind the tragedy in Pima. And this fact alone — that so many thought it a not-unreasonable proposition that inflammatory words led to violence and murder — should cause those on the Right to reconsider their tactics, their language, their stance. It is fine to disagree, even strongly, but calling for the elimination of certain people with whom you disagree — putting targets over your opponents in campaign posters, for example — is a fundamentally dangerous proposition. For example, ignoring all facts and claiming our President is a violent Socialist Muslim bent on the overthrow of our country will obviously lead some unstable people to violence, and some splatter of blood will be on the hands of those who argued this fallacy, even if they didn’t pull the trigger.

Do you own what you say?

For decades, conservatives have tried to enact laws prohibiting certain kinds of speech they feel is damaging to society. They’ve tried to criminalize specific forms of speech like flag-burning; they’ve brought lawsuits against rock and rap bands they feel are destructive to our moral fabric; they have called for the removal of certain books from public libraries.

In other words, conservatives understand very well that words matter, that words can incite dangerous, destructive behavior, and they have gone so far as to argue certain kinds of language should be banned altogether. Therefore, it is the height of hypocrisy to now claim that the words of those who spew hatred and fear on the Right are not in any way responsible for the culture of violence and intolerance which is brewing in our country.

Words matter. Words are powerful motivators. Everyone from Madison Avenue to the most petty dictator understands this fact. Before action comes thought. If Sarah Palin, for example, claims that her words don’t really drive violent action among certain individuals (mentally unstable or not), then she is either a blatant liar or pathetically stupid.

Would Christ sanction this language?

Therefore, I would say to those across the political spectrum, mind what you say. Our collective dialogue is devolving into dark and dangerous territory. If we don’t choose to change the tenor of our political discourse, we shouldn’t be surprised if yesterday’s events repeat themselves with greater frequency in the months and years to come.

And to my more conservative friends, you have a chance to say that you really do believe in the ethos of personal responsibility. Hold FOX et all responsible for their words, and demand a more reasoned, thoughtful dialectic. If you don’t, if you defend those in your ranks who continue to incite violence with their words, you lose the credibility to claim the moral high ground you so desperately seek.

Today’s Big Picture features amazing images from the soon-to-be-opened Shanghai World Expo.

One thing struck me, however: many of the international pavilions demonstrate design that is full of whimsy and beauty, whereas the U.S. pavilion looks surprisingly like a metal-clad industrial park building.

The Serbia Pavilion.

The USA Pavilion.

So, what happened? Am I missing something? Did someone forget to send an RFP to America’s most creative architectural firms? Frankly, this looks more like a Nissan dealership than a demonstration of the best we have to offer.

The "Nissan Pavilion."

Ah, now I know the reason: one visit to the USA Pavilion’s official website, and your eyes will be blinded by the dizzying array of corporate sponsors. I cannot imagine any designer or architect pulling off a work of staggering beauty under the blinding glare of that many blue suits.

It may be time to wake up and realize the road to success and innovation no longer lies in turning everything over to the mega-money-machine. (Wow, when I started this post, I never imagined I’d end up in a rant. I really just wanted to post some pretty pictures of the Shanghai Expo. Honestly.)

Update No. 1

Here’s a brief exchange with NPR’s Louisa Lim in Shanghai:

HANSEN: What are people saying about the U.S. exhibit?

LIM: Well, the U.S. pavilion has had a difficult road. It almost wasn’t built. America has very tight restrictions, making federal funding for expo pavilions almost impossible. So they had to raise $61 million from corporate sponsors to build the pavilion and it was designed by a Canadian, in fact, and has been compared to a suburban office park….So far it’s not among the very sort of hot pavilions. The newspapers quoted one man as saying maybe he was too old for it, but he found it very dull. And young people have complained that it’s too commercial.

Update No. 2

For an insider’s view of what really went wrong, read this piece by Bob Jacobson.

David Hockney once said, “It is very good advice to believe only what an artist does, rather than what he says about his work.”

A similar sentiment was conveyed by my graduate school mentor, Marvin Harden, who asked that we not speak about our own work during critiques. Instead, our classmates and, of course, Professor Harden himself, would give us their thoughts on what we were showing.

Obviously, one’s initial impulse is to argue, to explain, to defend. But, as Professor Harden always reminded us, if we are fortunate enough that our work is someday shown in a place of prominence, we won’t be present to explain it to every viewer.

Some will argue that it’s important to know what the artist was thinking, but do we ask ourselves what the chef was thinking before he prepared our meal? Do we ask what the composer was thinking? No, we eat, we listen, we judge.

The idea that artists’ words are more important, or as important, as their work is a recent phenomenon, and in many ways parallels the movement from work that is easily assessable by the average person to work that is more abstract, both in form and meaning.

As art moves from the realm of accessibility to obscurity, the tendency is to blame the masses. “They just don’t get it,” is a common refrain. But, if they don’t get it, explanations won’t necessarily help.

For commercial artists, i.e., designers, this is not a new concept. We don’t defend our work: we present it, and await feedback. We hope people see in it what we want them to see, and if they don’t, then we ask ourselves where we went wrong. We don’t assume that our explanations will suffice. They won’t.

Artists might take a cue from designers: being clever is all well and good, but when clever gets in the way of meaning, you’re no longer an artist, you’re a performer, and your work is a prop. Stop relying on explanations and make sure your work speaks for itself.