a postcard

The other day I got a post card in the mail from SAM (Seattle Art Museum) promoting an upcoming exhibit of two collections that will run June 24 into early fall. One collection is "Remembrance" featuring the work Andrew Wyeth, the late American Realist painter (1917-2009) and the other is "Target Practice: Painting Under Attack 1949-78," a collection of Abstract pieces by various artists who sought to challenge the conventions of the painting medium.

I'm sorry, and a little embarrassed, to say I that am not familiar with the work of Andrew Wyeth. I have come to learn that he was a popular 20th C. American Realist who died in January of this year and whose work was known for its sepia, muted brown, blue and green New England scenes, seascapes and people. His work is considered by critics as "Regionalist" for its selection of these colors and subjects, by which they mean boring, unoriginal, quaint and drab. Others find true genius and beauty in his work, suggesting Wyeth's work possesses a surprising complexity; what at first seems simplistic is merely constrained genius and talent. Noting that the artist restricted himself to painting subjects in his native New England and refused to use oil (opting for what some would say is the more difficult medium of water and the unusual medium of egg tempera), they suggest the artist's creative genius lay in the fact that he conveyed emotional richness and complexity within self-imposed creative constraints. To remove those constraints would have altered and depreciated the essence of his art.

"Target Practice: Painting Under Attack 1949-78" on the other hand, is essentially about throwing off all artistic constraints. We learn from the blurb on SAM's website that this art was produced as a part of a phenomenon "that occurred in all parts of the world, and the exhibition documents why artists felt compelled to shoot, rip, tear, burn, erase, nail, unzip and deconstruct painting in order to usher in a new way of thinking." Yes, you read right: rip, tear, burn, erase...

If the picture on the promotional post card is any indication (a depiction of an artist painting his own face, literally), the exhibit will be eye opening, if nothing else. I tend not to favor the deconstructive impetus (and that's putting it euphemistically), but I am eager to learn of the movement's history, particularly its end. In my experience deconstructive movements are short lived since they must leech off a positive affirmation. What happens when there's nothing more to deconstruct (to rip, tear, burn, erase...)? Was the movement's "negative" purpose achieved in some way that has altered art? Hmmm. Maybe this would describe how the much-awarded-lauded-gifted Andrew Wyeth is regarded in some critical circles to be an illustrator rather than a true artist? He didin't rip, tear, burn, erase...anything.

At any rate, viewing these collections together will be interesting, to say the least. Not only are the two exhibits contemporaneous, and therefore comparing them is not chronologically contrived, but most things about the exhibits directly counter one another, from mode, to purpose to medium, to message/s. Although I have my pre-understandings of what I will and will not enjoy from art in general and this exhibit in specific, I'm willing to be suprised. We'll see.

smiley faced fascism

I just finished a book by Jonah Goldberg entitled Liberal Fascism. The book reads like a response to current economic and political developments, such as government bailouts of private companies and entire industries, government takeovers of car companies, the passing of huge economic stimulus bills, the accumulation of massive debt to foreign lenders, and the like. But it's not a response to any of those things. The book has been out in hardcover format for about a year now, and tomorrow will hit stores in paperback. So it is not only timely and chilling, but also a prescient read on our current American context.

Jonah argues that the American form of Fascism, what he calls "smiley faced Fascism," is a very real, if less violent, form of Fascism than that found in, say, Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. But Fascism, Jonah argues, nonetheless pervades our culture, and has for years. To illustrate, he gives a working definition of the word Fascism (because apparently we use it variously and often wrongly), and then he the walks through the various chapters of American history that have been particularly fascistic. His explication is revealing; the result frightening.

The book is heavy on argument and for good reason; Jonah knows that Americans have a natural antipathy to Fascism and a great deal of assumptions about the topic. It is necessary and good, then, that his case is cogently argued, skillfully researched and accessibly written. He understands that our assumptions on the topic are so deeply rooted that readers will think he's a bit crazy and a little mean. His task of convincing us is a huge one.

Here is a paraphrased sampling of the kinds of "arguments" I personally had with the book:

"Wasn't fascism a brief, extremely conservative period during 'The McCarthy years' or (some would argue) during the years of George Bush?" No, Fascism in America didn't start or end with Bush, or even McCarthy for that matter. It has been around since before FDR. American style Fascism has little to do with classic Liberalism or even Conservativism, but instead has its roots in early 20th C. Progressivism. Progressives tend toward the Democratic side of the political aisle but the Republican Party has its share, as well. "Wasn't fascism primarily a European development, one that we snuffed out in WW11?" Fascism was indeed a driving ideology in Germany and Italy during WW11, but many Americans--from politicians to actors to housewives--admired aspects of Fascism (particularly those centered "Il Duce") decades before the war, and only denounced it after the world discovered concentration camps. "C'mon, isn't Fascism about jackboots, violent nationalism and genocidal racism?" Again, the most widely recognized forms of Fascism, such as those in Italy and Germany were extremely violent and obviously coercive, but American Fascism is "friendly," more American, if you will. No jackboots, stormtroopers or genocidal racial nationalism here. But Fascism IS here, as is evident in the bullying politics of the 1920s, the massive "New Deal" project of the 1930s (complete with exploitation of the Great Depression) the reinterpretation of the 1950s as culturally oppressive, and the riots and domestic terrorism of the 1960s. (Jonah does not comment on the current political and social situations, as again, his book was published before the 2008 presidential election). "How could Fascism be prevalent in current American life and the general public not fight or at least acknowledge it?" Mostly we see Fascism played out here in seemingly reasonable, culturally accepted ways such as in: the imposition of political correctness in public life, the teaching of revisionist histories and literature in schools and universities, the use of "white guilt" to promote minority groups, the proliferation of anti-American propaganda in Hollywood, the exploitation of fear regarding the climate, the imposition of racial quotas in the workplace, and the control of populations via eugenics and abortion--just to name a handful of examples.

The above is just a taste of what Liberal Fascism has to offer. There is much to be mined (and argued over!) in this book. It has recently become a bestseller, and for good reason. It's a must-read for anyone with an interest in intellectual and cultural history--not to mention a concern for America's future.

food and fascism

i found an article today that combines--albeit bizarrely--two of my favorite topics: food and culture. it's archived from the UK paper times online. the surprising, almost humorous, phrase "italy bans kebabs" in the article's title caught my eye, as did the accompanying photo of a fork of enticing pasta. but reading the article neither left me all that humored nor enticed.

the article informs the reader that, in seemingly musollini-esque fashion, there is now a push by the berlosconi government to ban all foreign foods in italian cities. specifically, the "kebab" and its purveyors have been targeted in the town of lucca. officials say the move is meant to protect italian culture through promoting italian food, but critics say: not so fast food fascistas. the motivation, detractors insist, goes beyond the love of italian gastronomy into the territory of "food racism" and even amounts to "culinary ethnic cleansing."

that seems way over the top, but at the very least the controversy shows how seriously italians take their food and that's something to admire. as an american raised in the era of the golden arches, i appreciate the italian food sensibility; for example the slow food movement, which began in rome about 10 years ago when locals successfully blocked the coming of mac donald's to st. peter's square and thereby sent a powerful signal to the world about their disdain for fast food culture. but, i must say i smell an overcooked paella here.

the banning of kebabs and other "foreign foods" in lucca seems to have as much to do with socialist laziness (the kebab vendors will work longer hours and it will be "unfair" to other food outlets), selective xenophobia (notice they're not protesting schnitzel), and food snobbery (do they think they invented gastronomy?), as it does about concern for preserving food culture. besides, do backers really think italians will completely abandon bisteca alle florentina for a kebab?

other observations

one more advent muse and a bunch of miscellaneous ones...

*
at advent we wait in hope for the arrival of god's gift to us, the christ child. our president elect admonishes us to "be the hope we've been waiting for."

*
the country wanted change so badly, it voted in a president with a very meagre record; that is change.

*
barbara walters voted sarah palin one of her most interesting persons of the year and interviewed tina fey as a result.

*
labor unions want to vote in a " card check" measure that requires all workers to disclose what they vote for; this is sure to produce discord.

*
to honor president-elect obama, washington d.c, will keep its bars open until 5 a.m. during inauguration week. now, that's change i don't think we need.

*
housing in d.c. during inauguration week is sold-out. keeping the bars open might help those without lodging attend the inauguration. but will they remember it?

*
recent taxpayer funded bailouts of companies that are "too big to fail" leave taxpayers feeling they are too small to succeed.

*
the same economists who lament that consumer spending is down counsel consumers to pay off their debt.

*
the presidential candidate who positioned his opponent as representing "bush's third term" has now appointed two members of bush's team to his own cabinet. obama: bush's third term?

*
martha stewart, the media mogul who served time for insider trading, suggests that citizens "suck it up" when it comes to paying taxes. what a great country.

*
people say the iraq war is too expensive; whereas world world II pulled our country out of depression.

*
the first-lady elect receives kudos from the public for wearing j-crew, but fasion designers love her because she wears clothing from the runway.

*
to protest the killing of a teenager by police, greeks are rioting in the streets, wrecking at least 21 vehicles, several store front windows and a building. fighting fire with fire?

*
hillary clinton, newly minted secretary of state and jeb bush, former governor of florida and possible 2010 senate candidate, could face it off in 2016 in a general election. might the clinton and bush years not yet be over?

*
being a u.s. senator is the only job in america that gives employees a leave of absence in order to try to land a better job and still get paid 6 figures doing it.

*
those who signed bad loans and are now in home foreclosure may get sweet, new deals on their loans, while renters who didn't get into bad loans get nothing. how much might self-respect buy them?

*
people never seem to have free time, but they do have lots of free minutes.

*
fast food mongers lament that $.99 burgers now cost about $1.09, while the true price of hamburger is about $2.49/lb.

*
americans obsess over inhaling chemicals from the environment, all the while eating food that is grown with chemicals.

*
gas has not been this cheap for about 6 years, but the economy hasn't been this bad in about 30.

*the washington state and the university of washington football teams have a combined record of 1 win and 23 losses. they do know that the point is to win, right?

*
it used to be that the romans battled the barbarians in the coliseum; now the humanitarians host a bowl game in the boise state stadium (no one dies, except maybe careers).

*
bose and ipod headphones help drown out environmental noise, but what about the noise inside our own heads?

the most publicized coffee break in the world

So, I'm sure you've all heard--or felt--that Starbucks closed early on Tuesday for "retraining." Okay, just looking back at that first sentence makes me want to get all comic bookish on you: Egads! Zoiks! Blam! Starbucks closed early? Whatever are we going to do? Maybe it's the cynic, or the slightly jaded ex-"partner" in me, that wonders what the angle was for such a move. Has quality declined that much or so sharply that such a move was needed? Will the drinks really be that much better on Wednesday morning? Hmm. So I got to poking around into this little mystery and here are some ramblings that came out of my search.

To start, I heard about "the story" on today's morning news, the day after the fact. That alone should give pause to several people I know who think I go ape over Starbucks (and who thus give me Starbucks stuff in my stocking). No, it's not that I hate them or their coffee --I've been known to grab a cup while cruising around Target or to meet friends at one of the three stores in my town--but I seem to have a reputation for a being a devotee when I'm really not. I think the Mac Donald's factor comes in to play here: you don't like it that much but it's familiar and the farther you are from home the more comforting the brand--and the clean bathrooms--are. I've spent a considerable amount of time away from home--in places with truly crappy coffee--so I've frequented Starbucks in several countries and states. But I digress: my point is that I never would have noticed that Starbucks closed early unless someone writing the morning "news" shows thought it was newsworthy.

So although I'm not a daily Starbucks pilgrim (if I can help it), I did find it interesting that the company closed its 7,100 U.S. stores for 3.5 hours in order to "retrain." Maybe it's because a long time ago I gave up the lattes, the extra shots, the soy--everything that piles on top of your drink to make it $4--and settled for the short drip coffee with room for cream, or on a splurge day, a tall with room americano. Both drinks are under $2, which would still seem highway robbery to my grandma, but which by today's standards is a bargain. And both drinks are super hard to mess up, the first being coffee perked into a pot and the second being an automated shot poured into a cup with hot tap water added. So, I must have been out of touch with Starbucks' sudden need to retrain 135,00 baristas in basic drink-making, which Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz cites as the reason for the company's Tuesday evening coffee break. Schultz, who just regained control of the company in January in order to win back some of the 40% profit loss the company incurred in 2007, put it a little more dramatically: "Your drink should be perfect...We have to get back what made this company great, and that is to have the courage and curiosity and commitment to do things that have not been done before."

Like what, put, a petting zoo by the condiment bar? Or a merry-go-round by the drink case? They've automated nearly every machine in every store, have drink making down to a science if not really an art, and bring in mass-produced baked goods to every outlet. Plus, they're hawking cds on their own label and promoting kitschy major motion pictures like Akeelah and the Bee. Pardon the cynicism, but what's next, spa treatments and wheat grass drinks? (Oh wait, they do sell those from the dairy case). Well, worry not. We won't have to speculate long. Schultz plans to roll out a new save-their-retirement plan at the March shareholders meeting, complete with "five bold innovations." Saddle up the ponies.

In the meantime, we can only wonder (hope?): could it be possible that "bold innovations" or not, the sun might be setting on the coffee giant's empire? Gone are the days when everyone looked to Starbucks alone to set the cool tone--and high prices--for coffee. New (and not-so-new) kids are in town: Peets, Carabou, Tullys (not to mention the thousands of coffee shops that have been around for years in cities like San Francisco and Berkeley). Peets and others who bother to do branding seem to work their brand very similarly but possibly better (be the "third place" for your customers by providing cool atmosphere, comfy chairs, beaming baristas, at least not crappy music, etc). I know, I know, naive me thinking that maybe Starbucks will just fade away, or at least become even more mediocre, playing even more Paul McCartney albums. In a free market economy there is always a way to rebrand, to recast your image and make your customers forget you sucked last year. But it was not so long ago--the 90s really--that the bohemian coffee shop down by the Pike Place Market went from a local hole in the wall to a national conglomerate--starting with airports, moving on to major metropolitan areas and vacations spots. Not long after that it became an international brand, hitting Canada, Great Britain, then Japan and, you get the picture. Back in those good old days the expandability of the brand seemed endless (think selling expensive coffee to tea drinkers in Tokyo). But honestly, where to from here? Ceylon? The company stands to shut down 100 U.S. stores this year and lay off 200 corporate workers. Do I see clouds forming near Starbucks' blue skies?

Who really knows. But what the heck, my prediction: Starbucks will circle the wagons by ditching the stores that suck the most and will focus on international expansion, which by some stroke of luck or genius is already working. Case in point, in 2000, when I briefly worked at the flagship store in Seattle, I attended a barista training session with new managers who were being trained to start up stores in their respective countries/cities: London, Barcelona, and Vienna. When I met those people I thought, this company must really be bullet proof, that, or these people have drunk the Starbucks' version of the red kool aid and really believe that they can sell American mass-produced coffee in cities that were brewing and selling coffee long before Boston hosted its famous tea party.

Apparently, Starbucks' kool aid is pretty good (maybe it looks and tastes like a vanilla latte?) because the company's international profits are up around 8%, with the company slated to open stores this year in India, Israel, Istanbul...the moon, the end of the yellow brick road, the worm hole that the characters from Lost went through when they crashed their jet. So while I don't go out of my way to frequent Starbucks here in my own town, the next time I'm in Ankara I'll make sure to dash in, use the bathroom and order my short drip coffee with room for cream. Or maybe I'll splurge and order my tall with room americano. I will be using their toilet paper, after all.