I didn't much like Andy Rooney tonight.

[e_m_k]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/20/60minutes/rooney/main662013.shtml

I agree that the "Pigs on Parade" in Downtown Seattle, for example, may not be as artistic as the Mona Lisa or Beethoven's 9th - but that type of vague comparison and system of judgment don't justify his argument whatsoever. Simplifying a complex subject down to a ridiculous

Comments

[john1082]

What was his point?

[e_m_k]

I think his "point" was that he doesn't care for most public art. I guess it's really not so much a "point" as a matter of taste, which is why I felt like it was a stupid editorial. I would rather have heard him talk about people he passed on the street that he though were ugly or smelled bad.

[pathwriter]

Andy Rooney has intentionally created the persona of an ignorant curmudgeon. Don't take him seriously.

[e_m_k]

Oh, I know ;)

Part of my point was that with the type of discourse he engages in, he can't be taken very seriously. But I worry that people (specifically old, ignorant curmudgeons) listen to him. Have you heard about the chain email full of ridiculous comments with his name attached? I honestly think it's an attempt to grant bigotry credence by attaching his name to it. So in that respect, he's someone that people listen to. Which bothers me.

[pathwriter]

The problem is that humans are pattern-spotters. It's built in at the very core of our brains and its why we (and other primates) function as well as we do. The downside, though, is that we're very good at seeing patterns that aren't there. My point in this is that people will always find someone who is saying what they want to hear, whether it's Andy Rooney, Fred Phelps, Rush Limbaugh, or Christopher Hitchens. As much as I'd like to permanently stifle every opinion I consider stupid, it's not feasible nor, really, as advisable as it sounds.

[e_m_k]

Very true, although at least Fred Phelps and Christopher Hitchens have sources and expertise to back up their beliefs, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Rooney is arbitrarily decrying something that even he would have his audience believe that he knows little or nothing about. Rush Limbaugh, well, I could say a lot about. Perhaps most relevant to this discussion - he's a liar.

[ilovelibby2]

Yeah, I saw that too. Very interesting.
While Andy made me cry, the previous story on the show about how it costs two cents to make a penny made me laugh a little bit.

[e_m_k]

Yeah, I also liked the bit on pennies.

[philmach]

I don't much like Andy Rooney in general. He's getting old and senile.

[e_m_k]

I agree. I think that people who think he's on top of things are mistaking his jumping to unfair conclusions and fast grumpiness for sharp, incisive wit and thinking.

[byzantinespy]

Andy's main point seems to be, "Look at this. Isn't it awful?" While that certainly isn't a helpful argument, I have to admit that I agree that there's a lot of public art that I think is crap. I do have reasons for thinking this, but I'm too lazy to articulate them here. :-p

[e_m_k]

I mean, to be totally fair, yes I have seen public art that I think is either bullshit or poorly done. In some cases, it has simply dated itself. But in general even the stuff I don't much care for still leaves me with a neutral feeling.