An exhibition has been closed in Berlin because of threats received over photos deemed offensive to Muslims. “Islamic Threats Shut Art Exhibit.”
The show by Danish collective Surrend is aimed at depicting what they say is the absurdity of extremism in all religions.
One of the 21 photos is of the Kaaba - the cube-shaped building inside the Grande Mosque in Mecca - with the inscription describing the stone as “stupid”.
Apparently the Muslims don’t agree that their holy site is stupid, and the exhibitors fear some Muslims may get carried away expressing their disagreement. Probably most Christians and Jews don’t believe that their holy sites are stupid either. Who knew?
This comes in the wake of Mozart’s opera Idomeneo being canceled in Berlin because it depicted Mohammed’s decapitated head. It also depicted Jesus, Buddha, and Poseidon similarly discombobulated. You needn’t be an adherent of any religion to be offended by such hogwash. Somebody should have cancelled this production merely in defense of Mozart.
But the exhibitors have caved to Muslim threats, and we are left to ponder the lessons. Some Muslims will learn the lesson that the art world is easily intimidated while reminding us that they do not follow Western conventions of civil discourse. What lessons will the artists take? Based on descriptions of the photos in the news, the exhibition presented aesthetically immature art perhaps more suitable to bumper stickers. The artists will surely feel vindicated concerning the absurdity of religious extremism, and then they will probably continue to lampoon Christianity and Judaism while steering clear of Islam. We can be reasonably sure that the lessons they take from this event will not include anything about the extreme absurdity of their own art.
Who ultimately escapes with their reputation unscathed? Not the Muslims, not the artists participating in this exhibit, but the religions with the confidence to rest their case on the testimony of far better artists over centuries of time.
February 29th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Religion, Visual Arts |
no comments
Lawrence E. Harrison of Tufts University writes in “The End of Multiculturalism” that the U.S. must be a melting pot and not a salad bowl. He presents a good case for examining immigration policies in light of the overriding imperative of preserving the culture.
A key component of a successful democratic transition is trust, a particularly important cultural factor for social justice and prosperity. . . . The high levels of identification and trust in Nordic societies reflect their homogeneity; common Lutheran antecedents, including a rigorous ethical code and heavy emphasis on education; and a consequent sense of the nation as one big family imbued with the golden rule.
Contending that multiculturalism is based on myth, Harrison prescribes some actions to prevent the creation of an underclass alienated from the upwardly mobile cultural mainstream.
The costs of multiculturalism – in terms of disunity, the clash of classes, and declining trust – are likely to be huge in the long run. All cultures are not equal when it comes to promoting progress, and very few can match Anglo-Protestantism in this respect. We should be promoting acculturation to the national mainstream, not a mythical, utopian multiculturalism. And we should take care that the Anglo-Protestant virtues that have brought us so far do not fall into disrepair, let alone disrepute.
Harrison is on much shakier ground discussing Iraq, however. He identifies Iraq and immigration as the two great disasters of the Bush presidency and claims that both result from wrongheaded forays into multiculturalism. While Harrison supports his argument on immigration, he presents no evidence in his article to support his contentions about Iraq. (In fairness, the article is excerpted from a longer version.) After noting that no Arab country is democratic and that the female illiteracy rate in some Arab countries exceeds 50 per cent, Harrison’s only statement on Iraq is contained in one paragraph:
What, then, are the implications for a foreign policy based on the doctrine that “These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society”? The Bush administration has staked huge human, financial, diplomatic, and prestige resources on this doctrine’s applicability in Iraq. It is now apparent that the doctrine is fallacious.
Here it seems that Harrison has fallen into his own multicultural trap. In saying that the values of freedom are not right and true for every person, he is essentially arguing that truth and morality are malleable. This is the very cornerstone of multiculturalism – that truth is a matter of taste and that what is true for us may not be true for others.
Certain aspects of Arab culture may indeed present formidable impediments to establishing democracy, and it may be a mistake to base our foreign policy on the imperative of bringing democracy to Iraq. But the fact that a particular culture lacks the building blocks for democracy, or even that some cultures might have a long history of disregard for basic human rights, does not change the inherent value of freedom one iota.
What Harrison calls fallacious is not the Bush policy, but the doctrine that “these values of freedom are right and true for every person.” The Bush doctrine as quoted by Harrison, however, is the antithesis of multicultural relativism.
Harrison errs, it seems, in conflating man’s nature with his culture. The culture that Harrison so vigorously defends on the issue of immigration is the one whose most eloquent statement speaks of freedom as an “inalienable right” bestowed on all men by their Creator. It is a statement about man’s nature, and surely Jefferson would apply the principle to Arabs as well. Our culture derives its strength and legitimacy from correctly discerning man’s nature and honoring his God-given rights.
Harrison may have intended to argue that all cultures do not value freedom, but that is not what he says. And, if you listen to the interview of Harrison in the podcast that accompanies his article, Harrison lays out steps for changing the culture of Brazil. Perhaps the prospects for success in Brazil are better than in Iraq, but that is not what he says either.
Harrison contends that our culture is better than others in significant ways. But when he argues that our values apply only to us and not to Arabs, he parrots the most fallacious doctrine of the multiculturalists. Multiculturalism fails to account for man’s nature. It fails to acknowledge anything that transcends culture, and therefore finds nothing that can serve as an objective standard by which to judge various cultures.
February 28th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
Musical Infidels has picked up the ball on the New York Philharmonic’s visit to Pyongyang, providing links to additional commentary by Warwick Thompson in The New York Sun, Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute, and Victor Cha of Georgetown University.
Also, Norman Lebrecht weighed in a few days ago with a column entitled “Maazel’s Troops Bumble Into Korean Ambush.” He followed this up with a blog post indicating that his mail was running 3 to 1 in favor of his conclusion that the trip was “morally and culturally unacceptable.”
February 27th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music, Politics |
no comments
USA Today reports that teens are losing touch with common historical and cultural references like Big Brother, McCarthyism, and “the patience of Job.”
This is news? Educational standards continue to decline in spite of a variety of efforts to prop them up. I could recount horror stories about my children’s education, but you don’t need my horror stories because there is little doubt that you have your own.
And, on the spur of the moment, I could make a long list of factors contributing to the decline of our cultural heritage. The problem goes well beyond the public school system, although secondary education is a key player.
“If you think it matters whether or not kids have common historical touchstones and whether, at some level, we feel like members of a common culture, then familiarity with this knowledge matters a lot,” says American Enterprise Institute researcher Rick Hess, who wrote the study.
I have no argument with that, but if the adults also lack knowledge of those historical touchstones, then who will teach the kids? Culture is what we transmit from one generation to the next. When the chain is broken, you have to fix all of the links.
The findings probably won’t sit well with educators, who say record numbers of students are taking college-level Advanced Placement history, literature and other courses in high school.
Yes, and what passes for “college-level” is also on the decline. Higher education is another link in the chain that frequently gets a pass in this debate. We still seem to think that getting into college is the goal, as though once there a good education is assured.
On that subject, I suggest you read last year’s article by Annie Karni in The New York Sun, “Students Know Less after 4 College Years.”
February 26th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Education |
no comments
On the state of the culture in the United Kingdom and Europe, you would do well to read Cranmer.
‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.
Cranmer has commented recently on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s unfortunate statement on Shari’a law, the New Labour Party’s complicity in advancing Shari’a law, the madness of Prince Charles, the undemocratic ceding of sovereignty to the EU, and other manifestations of enervation in the West.
Most recently Cranmer examines the United Nation’s investigation of religion in the U.K. and its call for the disestablishment of the Church of England. According to The Times Online, the U.N. Rapporteur concludes that census data showing that 72% of the population is Christian is erroneous and asserts instead that over half of the British people do not admit any religious adherence. Cranmer says:
In her attack upon the blasphemy laws, her objection to the privileges of the Church of England, and her assertion that its status does not reflect ‘the religious demography of the country and the rising proportion of other Christian denominations’, she is effectively calling for the Church’s disestablishment.
Quite what business it is of the UN to interfere with the historic culture and Christian traditions of the UK is unknown. But it is noteworthy that the ‘Special Rapporteur’, the report’s author, is one Asma Jahangir, who counts herself a very special Muslim indeed.
The U.N. report complains of anti-terror legislation that targets Muslims. It addresses religious education and worship in schools and school uniforms. It says nothing, as Cranmer notes, about the encroaching secularism that impinges on the conscience of Christians or the perceived privileges bestowed on Islam. New Labour, however, receives praise.
Concerning the issue of balancing competing rights, the ‘Special Rapporteur’ is delighted by New Labour’s anti-discrimination legislation, which ‘seems to be quite balanced’ because there are ‘specific exemptions or transitional provisions for organizations relating to religion and belief’.
Really? Does a year’s notice to conform or be closed down constitute ‘balanced’? Or is it merely ‘quite balanced’? Or is it rather that it ‘seems’ to be quite balanced. Well, tell that to the Roman Catholic adoption agencies who are closing their doors rather than being forced by statute to place vulnerable children with homosexual couples.
On this and other issues, Cranmer is outspoken and fun to read.
February 23rd, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics, Religion |
no comments
Against the ingrained, elitist tendency to assume that “high culture” belongs to folks with academic or artistic credentials living in urban areas, it’s always useful to be reminded of the contrary.
I bumped into Mr. B*, the local jeweler in our new town – a rural cowboy Texas town of 6000 (where the nearest Starbucks is 30 miles away). Mr. B* was taking trash out to the dumpster in the alley between the back of his shop and the back of my office. “Pardon me, but you’re the new music lady, right?” he asked. He recounted hearing the overture to Wagner’s early opera Rienzi on the radio over the weekend. The announcer had noted that, according to the liner notes, the opera had been pared down significantly to its present length. “That overture has always been one of my favorites,” Mr. B* sighed wistfully. “So where is all that missing music?”
We proceeded, trash bags in hand, to ponder the likelihood of excised measures of Rienzi still existing in manuscript, and what they might sound like. After about ten minutes of discussing Wagner’s early style (right as I was about to propose looking more seriously into the matter), Mr. B*’s cell phone rang. He apologized, excused himself, and went back into his jewelry store.
Back-alley Wagnerism is alive and well, at least here!
February 22nd, 2008
Posted by
Professor Carol |
Music |
no comments
It’s Friday, and time to close up shop and take more pragmatic steps in the interest of cultural preservation. Nothing gets a good debate going like the subject of martinis. Today I link to a cogent article that speaks volumes in three words: Vodka be damned.”
There has, over the years, been a perverse crusade to kill the Martini. Egged on by vodka factory owners and aided and abetted by know-it-all bartenders, gin has been tossed aside, vermouth has been given leper status, and all the science and ceremony of mixing the perfect Martini has been abandoned.
I’m not saying I agree with the recipe, but I like the writer’s bluntness.
February 22nd, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Leisure |
no comments
George Washington’s birthday continues to be watered down into a lifeless celebration of “Presidents’ Day.” You may be interested in reading that the federal government did not callously mandate this name change and that the designation stems more from public inattention. Even if “Presidents’ Day” is taken to refer to the two presidents, Washington and Lincoln, whose actual birthdays slightly precede and follow the third Monday in February, the depersonalization inherent in this appellation contributes to our collective loss of memory. Thus, the culture withers.
Presidents like Washington and Lincoln are not honored for the considerable achievement of being elected to the presidency, but for making a distinct and lasting contribution to the ethos of the nation. They have a cultural significance beyond that of, say, Franklin Pierce or Warren Harding. Disassociating Washington’s name from the holiday, however, has the unfortunate effect of causing us to view Washington as just another president.
Today, numerous bloggers will recall Washington and praise his accomplishments. A few small-minded bloggers may complain that his America fell short of utopia and point out some of his human flaws.
Let’s take a glass-half-full approach. One of Washington’s accomplishments has received too little attention:
George Washington operated one of the largest whiskey distilleries in early America, producing 11,000 gallons in 1799. After almost 10 years of archaeological excavation, documentary research, planning, and construction, the distillery was authentically rebuilt on its original foundation and opened to the public in 2007. It is the only distillery in the nation to demonstrate the process of whiskey making as it was carried out in 18th-century America.
When I visited Mount Vernon last summer, the distillery was nearing completion and the The History Channel was busy filming footage. All of the information, including the video, is here. As the good folks at The Distilled Spirits Council remind us:
From the colonial era, where Whiskey had an important economic and social function in the fabric of the community, to the Whiskey Rebellion, through Prohibition and into modern times spirits have played a sometimes controversial but always fascinating role in our nation’s history.
Washington may deserve the distinction of being the only president to have produced more whiskey than he consumed. So let’s toast the president who ended his term with a surplus.
February 22nd, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
one comment
Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online interviews Bruce Thornton, professor of classics and the humanities at the California State University at Fresno, about his book Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow-Motion Suicide.
February 21st, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Lorin Maazel explains the decision of the New York Philharmonic to perform in North Korea. He says some important things about the West’s role in defending human rights. He talks about his experiences behind the Iron Curtain and says some important things about the role arts can play:
I have always believed that the arts, per se, and their exponents, artists, have a broader role to play in the public arena. But it must be totally apolitical, nonpartisan and free of issue-specific agendas. It is a role of the highest possible order: bringing peoples and their cultures together on common ground, where the roots of peaceful interchange can imperceptibly but irrevocably take hold. If all goes well, the presence of the New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang might gently influence the perception of our country there. If we are gradually to improve U.S.-Korean relations, such events have the potential to nudge open a door that has been closed too long.
And there’s the problem. How do you ensure that the event does not become political?
Maazel seems to have good appreciation of the situation with the former Soviet Union, an appreciation gained firsthand.
When I was conducting Russian orchestras in Moscow and Leningrad at this time, scores of ordinary citizens whispered surreptitiously, “Thank you for being with us.” The presence of foreign artists, especially American, somehow strengthened their belief that they had not been forgotten. We Westerners were their lifeline.
But the repression of North Koreans is magnitudes greater. The lunacy of Kim Jong-il and the past 50 years of tensions suggest that the situation is different than what we faced dealing with the former Soviet Union. It is not unreasonable therefore for people to question whether the New York Philharmonic’s performance in Pyongyang is a good idea. Serious people could have a serious debate.
But Maazel short-circuited that debate and turned it political with his comment last week that the U.S. is not in a position to criticize the North Korean’s record on human rights. He has not retracted that absurd remark. Instead, he has tried to obscure and emasculate his comments. Maazel now says:
I believe that America’s reputation as a safe haven for the persecuted must remain unassailable. . . . Woe to the people we are trying to help if we end up in a glass house.
Last week, Maazel did not say “if” we live in a glass house. He did not use the future or conditional tense. He said, if we examine our current record on human rights we will find that we are in no position to criticize others. That remark does not square with Maazel’s writing today. It does not square with his own account of how the values of the West were able to improve the lives of the Russians he describes.
So Maazel’s column today may help explain the role of the arts, but it does nothing to explain his own shameful remarks.
February 20th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music, Politics |
no comments
