Items of Interest, High Philistinism Edition
"Are these judges of dignity deemed to be the most moral among us?"
Veronique de Rugy, Government-Backed Censors Confuse ‘Disinformation’ With Mainstream Opinions. “The consensus in favor of genuine free speech is eroding as the focus shifts towards fighting ‘disinformation.’ Separating truth from fiction has become more difficult in certain respects, but does that mean we should target speech that merely makes some people uncomfortable? If we interpret this speech as a form of violence — as many people now do — then a politically opportunistic government might well be tempted to classify those guilty of nothing more than being politically out of favor as dangerous.”
Eric Kaufmann, The Indoctrination of the American Mind. “We asked a random national sample of 18- to 20-year-olds whether they had heard (from an adult in school) of pro–Critical Race Theory (CRT) concepts such as ‘white privilege’ or ‘systemic racism’ as well as radical gender concepts such as the idea that gender is separate from biological sex. An astounding 90 percent had been exposed to CRT and 74 percent to radical gender concepts at school. In 7 of 10 cases these beliefs were presented as fact, or as the only respectable view to hold.”
Erec Smith, Individualism Is a Social Justice Issue. “Group identification devoid of true individualism is one of the main obstacles to real social justice because it suggests a dogma that, by definition, does not take into consideration the details and distinctions of an individual life. By extension, such group consciousness hampers our ability, as a society, to have generative conversations across ideological differences.”
Carole Hooven, Academic Freedom Is Social Justice. “If we restrict research on the basis that it may undermine ‘dignities,’ then we place severe limits on our ability to discover what is true. And to whom should we bestow the power to determine our ‘dignities,’ and what qualifies as undermining them? Are these judges of dignity deemed to be the most moral among us? Would they represent everyone’s views, or just a subset of society? Or would they be elevated to the position by others with power?”
Julia Friedman, The art of ignorance. “[There] is no efficacy requirement among the backers of ‘Pablo-matic.’ The criteria they use are aspirational… This approach redirects the museum from its traditional mission of enlightenment towards something like a struggle session, where the art objects are incidental illustrations of sin (the canon) or virtue (anything underrepresented or minority-themed).”
Aidan Harte, The Art of Monstrous Times. “The Piazza della Signoria has more masterpieces per square mile than most anywhere on Earth. As a sculpture student, I used to go jogging there early. Dawn’s the best time to see the old city uninterrupted. Most tourists come to marvel at the David copy outside the Palazzo Vecchio. Nothing wrong with that but they stand with their backs to Perseus with the Head of Medusa, one of the most sublime bronzes ever cast. It was made by Benvenuto Cellini, a total bastard.”
Seana Sugrue, A Win for All Americans. “In truth, those who characterize 303 Creative as a defeat for LGBT rights are quite wrong. The case is a victory for the freedom of speech that Christians, the LGBT community, and all Americans enjoy.”
Pascal Bruckner, The Conquest of Art. “Art is becoming once more what it was during the classical period, and again in the 1930s and 1940s—a dangerous, or at least delicate, concern that can’t be left to just anyone.”
SimpleX is an encrypted chat app that does not employ user IDs.
On now: “Gwen John: Art and Life in London and Paris” at Pallant House Gallery. Review by Christian Kile at The New Criterion.
Content at DMJ is free but paid subscriptions keep it coming. Please consider one for yourself and thank you for reading.
We are in the midst of an Asynchonous Studio Book Club reading of Anne Truitt’s Yield. Obtain your copy and jump in.
I love the bit about the Brooklyn Museum director assuring the public that “Pablo-matic” is not an attempt to cancel the artist. So kind and considerate of her, no? So big of the museum to be so condescendingly generous and, you know, inclusive. Because being a great artist is just not good enough to grace the walls a museum now; the artist must be judged according to currently fashionable morality, such as it is, and the art itself also judged accordingly. And yes, the responsible members of the establishment are still swearing that they live for art and are all about art. Bollocks.
The "Pablo-matic" business, dubious on its face, should simply be a risible embarrassment, but if it were seen for what it is by the "correct" people, it would never have happened. True, maybe they can see it as well as anybody and are just playing the currently "in" game, but it's still disreputable. However, as I've noted before, the point is to project a certain image, the kind that "looks mahvelous" to a particular audience, and pretty much to hell with the rest, even those who live in Brooklyn and are supposed to be served by the BM. I keep asking myself who museums think they're meant to be serving, because it cannot be the general public--my local museums are certainly NOT serving me.