Sep 25, 2023·edited Sep 25, 2023Liked by Franklin Einspruch
Yes, but one must remember that, just as there is "good" hypocrisy, there is also "good" BS. Of course, they are both restricted to leftists, among whom both have been entirely "normalized."
The blithe obliviousness of the promoters of "Latinx" to their obnoxious presumptuousness is, perhaps, a sign of delusional stupidity, but that doesn't make the business any less offensive. At best, it is cringeworthy--and by the way, I could play the "Latinx" card, but I reject even the "Latin" one.
The art museums, whose job is to present the best possible art to the public, not pursue "social justice," should absolutely pay the price for failing to do their real job, not to mention for presuming to be sanctimonious moral or ethical guides. They are certainly paying it as far as my business goes.
And now we have a situation in which a contingent like the author at the NYT thinks the museums should go away because they're based on wicked premises, and another contingent thinks they should go away because they've forsaken their essential mission. As I said, the warning signs are flashing.
But, as you've also said, nothing will change as long as the funding holds up somehow. It's the same as the situation with the contemporary art scene in general--the only thing that really matters is for the money supply to hold up. The rest is talk, and talk is cheap.
As for the New York Times, I suppose a lot of people never overcome a need for (and dependence on) some version of the Oracle of Delphi, which is anything but truly progressive. One can hardly blame the NYT, of course, for trading on the fact that so many people take it for holy writ. Sad.
There's a famous "terminal rally" in Violetta's death scene in Verdi's Traviata (from 1853). Alas, the terminal rally under discussion here is not at all artistic, let alone affecting.
Excellent, love the "Would you like some more salsa verde on your culinary bullshit?"
Yes, but one must remember that, just as there is "good" hypocrisy, there is also "good" BS. Of course, they are both restricted to leftists, among whom both have been entirely "normalized."
The blithe obliviousness of the promoters of "Latinx" to their obnoxious presumptuousness is, perhaps, a sign of delusional stupidity, but that doesn't make the business any less offensive. At best, it is cringeworthy--and by the way, I could play the "Latinx" card, but I reject even the "Latin" one.
The art museums, whose job is to present the best possible art to the public, not pursue "social justice," should absolutely pay the price for failing to do their real job, not to mention for presuming to be sanctimonious moral or ethical guides. They are certainly paying it as far as my business goes.
And now we have a situation in which a contingent like the author at the NYT thinks the museums should go away because they're based on wicked premises, and another contingent thinks they should go away because they've forsaken their essential mission. As I said, the warning signs are flashing.
But, as you've also said, nothing will change as long as the funding holds up somehow. It's the same as the situation with the contemporary art scene in general--the only thing that really matters is for the money supply to hold up. The rest is talk, and talk is cheap.
As for the New York Times, I suppose a lot of people never overcome a need for (and dependence on) some version of the Oracle of Delphi, which is anything but truly progressive. One can hardly blame the NYT, of course, for trading on the fact that so many people take it for holy writ. Sad.
There's a famous "terminal rally" in Violetta's death scene in Verdi's Traviata (from 1853). Alas, the terminal rally under discussion here is not at all artistic, let alone affecting.