Mark Steyn: The Love That Doesn't Like You Speaking Its Name

The Atlantic Monthly ^ | December 2003 | Mark Steyn

[91B]

Just so you understand: I can't enjoy her films, because every time I see her on screen I think of her beating her helpless daughter mercilessly with that hanger.

[liberallarry]

I do understand. Perhaps it's a difficiency on my part that I don't react that way...and am thankful for it.

[CyberCowboy777]

To judge art by political standards is to understand political art.

Much art in the form of movies, books, painting and architecture is political or at least reflects the politics of the artist.

To understand Hitlers writing you must understand his politics. If you simply enjoy the way the man puts a sentence together you have fooled yourself into thinking you appreciate art.

To understand his writing is to hate his art, no matter how well the "rules" of the art form are followed.

You come off as a skin deep kind of guy, never understanding what is below the surface, what makes it art. You seem to grasp the semantics, what it is suppose to "sound" like, but never what is actually being said - which is the art.

There is no loss to those that choose to pass on you narrow understanding of art. I watch movies, read books and listen to music - some our fellow FReepers choose not to. But I do not claim some superiority because I subject myself to the horror of what many "artist" have to say.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Where is the anti-Marxist movement today?

Good question. I think part of the genius of the revolutionary left today is its ability to hide in plain sight. They are everywhere, even in high-placed federal jobs. But they avoid presenting a target by never threatening to overthrow the US government.

I will mention a couple of their foes. The New Criterion is a genuine intellectual publication that exposes Communist remnants, critical theory, transgressive art, etc. Mark Steyn is often published there. David Horowitz is having some success engaging American academia's discrimination against conservative thought.

[liberallarry]

Aah...Baloney!

Lots of people were Nazis. There was only one Hitler. You don't know what you're talking about.

[m1911]

Wow, he shot/gassed/experimented on all those subhumans himself? Didn't the guy sleep?

[liberallarry]

Focus. Try to focus.

[little jeremiah]

Why can't I celebrate their talents...and judge their politics separately?

You can if you want to be a soulless, amoral sociopath.

[little jeremiah]

Shakespeare should be bowdlerized for prigs.

What do prigs have to do with opposition to communism???

Beds and tables should wear skirts to hide their legs.

My dear boy, you are mixing not apples and oranges, but grapes and armadillos.

Amish shouldn't dance because it's sinful.

Now you're mixing green beans and gravel.

I think you ought to lay off the (whatever it is you're taking that is shorting out the neurons).

[liberallarry]

Better a soulless, amoral sociopath than than a pinched, narrow-minded, miserable wretch.

[kabar]

That's the way the world works...unfortunately

Contemperaneously yes, but ultimately history will be the judge. Muhammed Ali has been lionized while still alive. Kazan received belated recognition.

[m1911]

"They were the polite front of an ideology that led to mass murder, and they expected Kazan to honour their gentleman’s agreement."

You are part of the gentleman's agreement - no matter how repulsive the ideology, no matter how dangerous the artist, you will help propogate the message by supporting it financially and through word of mouth, because some aspect tickles your particular artistic tastes. The saddest part is that you are obviously intelligent enough to see what is behind it, but you won't break through the conformity of art appreciation to simply reject the prettily wrapped package they present you.

Praising their talents lends support to their efforts and helps spread their message - "Hey, that Reifenstal movie was great, did you catch it?" "Wow, Adolf is a truly powerful public speaker, you should hear him".

Thus, many others were indoctrinated into the Nazi party, some to the point of doing Hitler's dirty work. Many were swayed by the immersion in Nazi ideology promoted by Reifenstal's great movies and Adolph Hitler's political theatre which you celebrate.

- Thus the whole point of the article, which you appear to have missed and are now condescendingly telling ME to focus.

[fish hawk]

I hope I'm not alone in saying, I do judge people by their politics. For instance I have an old friend who hates Bush and knowing how I feel about him , calls him Shrub. I just don't associate with her anymore. Also if I was ever to marry again, the woman would have to be a conservative and a Christian. If not she will not even be considered. A lot of you wont agree with me but isn't it great we live in American where I can live by my standards?

[little jeremiah]

Too bad. Your loss. When I see a great artist I see a great artist.

When I see a "great artist" who also may be (whichever): a criminal, a traitor, a child molester, I see a miserable sorry excuse for a human being who I don't want to either support or taint my mind by absorbing their "art".

And I get to do that in a free country!

[little jeremiah]

On and on like that. To judge art by political standards is to miss the much of the world's beauty and diversity.

It's not just "politics" as though art is being judged by whether the artist is a Republican or Democrat.

I wonder if you draw the line anywhere - you know "Dr." Kevorkian paints pictures - and maybe even Jeffrey Dahmer did. If they were talented artists, would you have one of their paintings?

[liberallarry]

I'm intelligent enough to see at least some of the complexity of reality.
I can appreciate a person's artistry AND hate his politics...very important if I want to understand what he's saying and make MY point.
Those who can't will never understand propaganda or rhetoric or the arts of persuasion (there's a great documentary on Leni Reifestal where she explains).
I criticized you because I failed to see the relevance of your previous post...and still don't.

[liberallarry]

I don't want to ... taint my mind by absorbing their "art".

Don't forget to protect your bodily fluids.

[liberallarry]

I wonder if you draw the line anywhere...

Oh, I'm sure I do. Nobody's perfect.

[m1911]

Ok. In response to CyberCowboy's post, you commented that there was only one Hitler. I noted that Hitler needed a lot of willing help.

I thought you would understand the point about the intersection of the art (specifically political art) you celebrate, the persons who make the art, the messages they project, who is influenced, and the results, so I didn't spell it all out for you.

The funny thing is, I agree with you as far as not letting the artist's politics interfere with art. I break on two issues: first, not letting the art's politics change my perception, and second, using the word "celebrate" regarding Hitler's ability to motivate mass murder.

[liberallarry]

I understood CyberCowboy to be saying that Hitler's message could not be separated from his art - that it automatically negated art. I thought that pseudo-intellectual sophistry and pointed out that many others proferred the same message but none were even remotely as effective because they didn't have his talent, his art. So he had help in executing his policies. How is that relevant?

I'm not sure what you mean by the art's politics...but I think you atribute a weakness to me where none exists. I'm not unduly influenced by the opinions of others in any context.

I could have chosen other words but "celebrate" is quite appropriate when talking about an appreciation of a skill, talent, ability. That these may be used for ignoble purposes is a separate issue - the point I've been trying to make.