art stuff

[danschank]

i kinda get mad at myself when i claim to have a big post in the works and then i just post about art stuff. the truth is that i'm fired up and ready to write about a number of things right now, some of which are worth it, and some of which would amount to righteous ranting (suffice to say i think roman polanski belongs in jail, and all my RL

Comments

[shady_lamarr]

Please never apologize for an art post, it's like reading an interview with a slugger like Ryan Howard where he says he would much rather put balls into play rather than just relying on home runs.

In any case, I totally get the protests against the Roman Polanski arrest. He HAS been unfairly targeted, and he WAS double-crossed by the slimeball judge, but here's the thing: Take away Roman Polanski's name, and say Generic Sex Criminal #282, after decades of hiding, has finally been arrested for raping a fifteen year old girl.

In this situation, would anyone, ANYONE, even have a second thought about this arrest?

thanks

[danschank]

though i think i have more in common with the washington generals than with the currently-losing ryan howard (ho hum), especially in the above. but whatever.

as for polanski, i'll just say that i agree with everything jay smooth puts forth in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqSkZKKPfk8

(apologies for annoying vlogger-isms, but that dude is pretty spot on)

i also hate the way the case has defaulted into this bohemian-artist-man-of-passions stereotype. like, where roman polanski doesn't buy into our bourgeois social norms or whatever because he's true to his carnal desires blah blah blah. that bullshit is for dudes in black berets that sleep with their students. real artists give those guys wedgies.

[mistercreepy]

washington nationals?

[villagecharm]

Both are hapless, but the Washington Generals are hapless by design - that's the team that loses to the Harlem Globetrotters every night.

the interesting question to me

[mistercreepy]

is not whether or not roman polanski belongs in jail. but what you do with the films that he's provided to the world. do his crimes and should they affect his work?

is his work valuable enough to the world that there might exist some way for him to keep producing films while being punished? or are these impossible to resolve (is allowing him to continue to make films not truly punishing him)?

i don't have answers for that whatsoever, some interesting questions. but it's much meatier topic than the one of whether or not a likely rapist deserves jail time.

[bing_crosby]

I always love seeing what you're up to. Exciting stuff!

[danschank]

thanks! i wish i had more to show for myself.

[villagecharm]

My critical vocabulary, when it comes to art, hovers just below 1930s movie cavemen in terms of sophistication, but I'm always impressed by your work. Both of the examples here are impressive, and I'm really knocked out by the first one. It has a certain Chinese fairy tale quality that's really striking.

I realize that I might as well be saying "Me like!" and that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Still, though: Me like.

[danschank]

haha, thanks!

most of my above malaise is more about a sense of phoning-it-in, by the way. i'm reacting in the negative to my own lack of ambition more than, like, how the work turned out i guess.

[apresminuit]

this post is the absolute best smartest thing i've read about the whole ugly business w/ polanski thus far.

good post

[mistercreepy]

I also enjoyed Dan's link above, and that guy had another vlog about holding people accountable for what they do as opposed to who they are. And I think this ties in perfectly in undermining the Free Polanski argument.

We're not here because he was born a rapist or hasn't had trauma in his own life or because we refuse the possibility that he didn't receive a fair trial. We're here because when you commit a crime, in this society, you're punished for it, and he hasn't been. He committed a crime; he's avoided punishment. He should be punished for his actions. What he's done was wrong.

i'm looking forward to checkin out dan's link when i get home & have sound

[apresminuit]

joyce carol oates wrote a piece for the guardian about ted kennedy & chappaquiddick that i think intersects w/ the polanski narrative in really interesting & unsettling ways.

Re: good post

[danschank]

this is kind of where i stand. i don't think this is a particularly ambiguous case, and i feel like the "debate" and "ambiguity" surrounding it look more and more like an apology for his actions.

two more irksome things to me: why do we assume that great artists need to be great people? or that great artists transcend accountability? i'm all for art transcending morality (at times), but not artists.

looking to your earlier comment, i'll add that if polanski wants to shoot something on a camcorder from his jail cell than more power to him. slick rick wrote some good songs in jail. and jean genet (the subject of an earlier artist-as-criminal controversy) turned jail into his promary subject. so go ahead and make films from inside the big house, roman. they'll probably be more interesting than the pianist!