rage of decadent
period of nullity
at our past titans
If there is a common theme in the current news cycle about the upcoming Presidential election it is that, seemingly, a majority of voters agree that two leading candidates are not what or who the voters really want.
Then why are they the leading candidates?
Reading the article, Threatening to dissolve masterpieces in acid is a pathetically banal stunt for our shallow times by Jonathan Jones (The Guardian, Feb. 14, 2014), I feel like I have an answer to that question.
Mr. Jones comments on the report that Russian artist Andrei Molodkin will destroy works by Picasso, Rembrandt and Warhol if Julian Assange dies in prison.
Mr. Jones wonders why Mr. Molodkin would do this and asks, “Why is violence against great art such a trope of our time? And why is it seen by some as fair enough, or at least not anything to get worked up about?”
Mr. Jones answer is, “The truth is staring us in the face. The reason the 21st century seems so interested and perversely attracted to destroying the masterpieces of the past, is that we know deep down we are incapable of rivalling those achievements. No artist is now making anything that comes close to the revolutionary genius of Picasso, so we try to “cancel” him over factoids culled from biographies we have never read. And now Molodkin proposes or pretends to destroy one of his works with acid.
It is the rage of a decadent period of artistic nullity against the titans of a past whose energy and originality we can’t bear. We will be happier when all the masterpieces are destroyed and the museums no longer shove our decline in our faces.“
Ask again, Then why are the leading candidates the leading candidates when few people want them?
And I will answer:
The truth is staring us in the face.
The reason the 21st century seems so interested and perversely attracted to destroying the democracy of the past, is that we know deep down we are incapable of rivalling that achievement.
No President is now making anything that comes close to the revolutionary genius of Thomas Jefferson, so we try to “cancel” him over factoids culled from biographies we have never read.
It is the rage of a decadent period of political nullity against the titans of a past whose energy and originality we can’t bear.
We will be happier when the democracy is destroyed and the history books no longer shove our decline in our faces.
As Ben Franklin answered the lady after the Constitutional Convention on what kind of country we had, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The lady continued, “And why not keep it?”
Franklin responded, “Because the people, on tasting the dish, are always disposed to eat more of it than does them good.”
No Haiku For You 