Sunday, January 18, 2009

The Meaning of Cool

In the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) Justice Potter Stewart failed to come up with a definition of pornography but, he added "I know it when I see it." I thought of that this weekend with the death of the much ridiculed painter Andrew Wyeth who Robert Hughes once called so much "styrofoam and saccharine"; Justice Potter's name also re-entered my mind following an excellent interview in The Guardian with my favourite living poet Ciaran Carson. Neither of these gentlemen are hip to the in-crowd but to me they are a couple of bad asses. I can't tell you exactly why I think they're cool, but unlike Justice Potter I'll try.
...
Andrew Wyeth's obituaries used terms like "middlebrow," "second rate," "dull" etc. Slate Magazine even called him a "con man." He was the antithesis of Andy Warhol and the New York hep cats. Art critics hated the fact that he lived in rural Pennsylvania and painted largely pastoral landscapes, "rejecting the twentieth century." But a closer look reveals something odd about these landscapes, something off putting, something creepy. Cyberpunk author Bruce Sterling has talked about "slipstream fiction," i.e. fiction set in the real world but a real world in which everything is slightly off kilter. That's what Wyeth's pictures are to me with odd people and a hyper minimalist subject matter (as in Wind From The Sea above). This isn't a celebration of nature, this is nature after a catastrophe that has left only a few human survivors wandering around, dazed. Wyeth was popular with the general public and conservative Presidents so of course he was ridiculed by the intelligentsia, but to me his pictures (like Robert Frost's poems) are crafted in the architecture of weirdness. The perceptive Mark Rothko said of Wyeth, "his paintings are about the pursuit of strangeness," and that I think will be the final word, not the sneering from the supposedly cool crowd who wrote the obits.
...
Ciaran Carson has won most of the major UK poetry prizes for his work over the last thirty years but he's largely unknown. He lives a quiet life on the Antrim Road in Belfast but he grew up in the turbulent Falls Road area. The Guardian's interview with him reveals a man more interested in the shape and sound of words than in ideologies. How a poem is made, Carson says, is just as important as what it says. Carson's work includes such masterworks as Belfast Confetti and The Irish For No as well as an award winning translation of Dante's Inferno and yet he is not as well known as Paul Muldoon, Seamus Heaney or Late Review critic Tom Paulin all of whom were at Queens University with Carson in the early 70's. Ciaran Carson's problem as John Banville sees it in The Guardian is that he made the singular error of not migrating from insular Belfast to cosmopolitan Dublin. I don't know about that, if he'd gone South he would have moved in a different set, had different influences and perhaps fame would have hurt him. Perhaps not. Still Carson seems happy enough where he is and I wouldn't trade any of his Belfast poems for any productons that might have come from living in Malahide or a year in Berkeley or Princeton.
...
So what is cool to me? Cool to me is an artist doing his own thing, following his own muse and not giving a damn what other people are doing or saying about him. Of course how I exclude Bono and Chris Martin from this definition I have no idea.

36 comments:

Jim said...

I had the pleasure of several hours of far-ranging conversation with C. Carson at a conference in Georgia several years ago where he was the featured reader (and whistler). His novel Shamrock Tea is fascinating.

adrian mckinty said...

Jim

Where's that paper you were going to send me? At the very least give me on the online link.

Havent read Shamrock Tea (for my sins) but I do have it on order at the library.

seanag said...

Jim, besides Adrian, I think there are several scholarly types who comment here who might well find your paper very interesting.

Adrian, I don't know Ciaran Carson, except as a name, but I will attempt to remedy that, first by reading the Guardian interview.

Wyeth is another matter, though, and I must say that your analysis seems on the mark. I remember the whole Helga flap, of course, though less what I my own personal response was back then. But my main memory of Wyeth is that one of my close friends in college turned us on to a book called Wyeth's World (I think)because she loved it, and we loved it too, as sort of an influence of love, these things spreading in somewhat that fashion, I think. I'm very happy to think that we all just delighted in it without any judgment about whether it was cool or worthy to do so.

I mean, I expect we already thought we were pretty cool to have found Wyeth, but we didn't really consult any experts about it.

Anonymous said...

I see those 3 years of law school have finally come in useful for something...

seanag said...

Anonymous sounds like someone who maybe knows you a little too well.

adrian mckinty said...

Seana

I'm trying to figure out if there was a tinge of bitterness or not to Anon's comment.

Do you know Robert Bechtle? I've always liked him too and he lives just up the road from you.

adrian mckinty said...

Anon

Look for my new blog on classic law cases. Ah where to begin? Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball perhaps or Miranda v Arizona or even Griswold v Connecticut? And who can forget the one where the one eyed welder got a spark in his good eye, the immortal Paris v Stepney Borough Council?

Jim said...

Where shall I send it? I'm not seeing an email address?

adrian mckinty said...

James

Gimme your email & I'll email ya... or give me the journal ref and I can order it through Lexus Nexus. Fair enough?

I'd like to see an article or a book about that whole generation one day: Muldoon, Heaney, Paulin, Carson, Mahon, Longley - an impressive bunch.

Jim said...

It's not published ... it was just a presentation at a conference: floating ideas in hopes of getting useful feedback. JimBrowninPA at gmail dot com. I hope to revise and send it out at some point.

Of your list, some strike me as being held in high critical esteem that I don't fully understand, and some (like Carson) don't get near the attention I think they deserve.

seanag said...

I am not sure if anon is bitter, but there is a certain edge there. A certain sense of facts left unstated that you might feel were better left unsaid...Did you win the case for the poor half-blind welder, for instance? Or, god forbid, were you actually working against him? Because that might be a clue.

No, I'm not familiar with Bechtle. But a brief search on the web does make him seem intriguing. Very evocative of a time and place I'm quite familiar with, which is a different perspective from where I come into Wyeth.

adrian mckinty said...

Jim

Ok man great. I'll drop you a line tomorrow.

adrian mckinty said...

Seana

I like Bechtle a lot, of course he's considerably hipper than Wyeth but I wont hold that against him.

Alas my legal career never made it as far as Court. The Paris case was one of the many ridiculous tort cases I remember though. Of course the one eyed welder was going to get a spark that landed in his good eye. Did the Respondant have a special duty of care to a one eyed welder? Apparently so. Mr Paris won.

Brian O'Rourke said...

Adrian -

With respect to the one-eyed welder case, there's probably a "foreseeable" joke in there somewhere.

-B

adrian mckinty said...

Brian

I put a lawyer joke in Fifty Grand strangely enough that you might get but I doubt many other people will:

"Hey man, I'm trying to talk here, could you do me a favor and make like Clarence Thomas during oral argument."

seanag said...

I expect that the fact your legal career never made it to court is probably a good thing--no reflection on you.

As for Bechtle and his hip or unhip factor, here's one Jonathan David Leavitt who I came across in my search:

But there is much more to Bechtle than sunlight. (Van Gogh and Vermeer may have done sunlight better, along with other painters.) It is my contention that the very subject matter, the houses, cars and ordinary people, are themselves objects of worship, and as such have special meaning for us 20th and 21st century Americans, especially secular (that's right, secular) Americans.

John McFetridge said...

Marco is trying to teach us all HTML tags, so I'll say when it comes to lawsuits this one is one of the best.

marco said...

I did look up Ciaran Carson and Belfast Confetti after finding the citation in DIWMB.
Liked the poem very much.
It's interesting that he is a translator from the Italian (Dante's Inferno,no less) and that the Guardian article mentions Calvino as a strong influence.

adrian mckinty said...

Seana

I think a lot of people'd be in jail that wouldnt need to be if I'd stayed on as a defence lawyer.

adrian mckinty said...

Seana

I like the Bechtle of him in front of the car with his family. It's so late 1960's I can hardly bear it.

adrian mckinty said...

John

That was pretty cool. And very funny. If only lawyers were that funny.

I used to have a signed collection of Ian Frazier but I lent it to someone and he never gave me it back. Never lend books to anyone is the lesson there I think.

adrian mckinty said...

Marco

You know Belfast is the Florence of Northern Europe.

Or maybe the Genoa.

Ok maybe the Naples.

Ok maybe the...what was that city they were always bombing in Catch 22? Ferrara? That cant have been good.

Dana King said...

"Of course how I exclude Bono and Chris Martin from this definition I have no idea. "

The "you can't be a horse's ass and still be cool" exception applies here.

adrian mckinty said...

yes that's an excellent point - the famous "horse's ass rule"

seanag said...

Does anyone else here wonder how "Jim" got to be just plain "Jim"? I mean I would have made "seana" be my login, but even that was already taken. So this leads me to think that Jim, with a much more common name, must be some sort of inlaw of the founders of Google. But why does his picture show him to be behind bars? Could it be for stealing someone else's log in name?

Just wondering.

I saw that Bechtle family portrait without realizing it was his family. Yes, oh my god, I can remember the triumph of our family getting our first station wagon.

I think his paintings do hone in on what is iconic about these very ephemeral moments. But on the other hand, one of the people at our used book counter happened upon a little snapshot of a couple outside a suburban doorway, and they were instantly the seventies. The used book buyer showed it to me, saying "These could be my parents."

So what do you think that the painterly talents of Bechtle add? Having not seen the paintings in person, I don't think I can really separate subject matter from painterly technique in this case.

marco said...

I mean I would have made "seana" be my login, but even that was already taken.

Apparently Marco was not.

adrian mckinty said...

Seana

A photograph takes a second whereas a painting takes several hours. I think thats where the difference lies. The painter sees deeper than the photographer and has to work what she has seen with more physicality.

seanag said...

I think that whatever gateway I originally came into the Google empire, it allowed much less latitude for user names than now. So I expect Jim is off the hook--at least in this regard.

As regards, Bechtle, painting from photographs, etc, I think there is a different emphasis that the painter imposes or frames the picture with. But I do wonder, when cheap little snapshots seem to have such power to evoke an era, what a painting's further contribution is. I'm not saying that in an argumentative spirit, by the way. I really am just wondering.

adrian mckinty said...

Photographs dont move me in a way that pictures do. I think like people to make the effort and put themselves in the picture. Photography doesnt do it for me as much as painting.

Jim said...

Well, I don't log in as Jim. I have one of the most generic names around, so I can be anonymous without being pseudonymous. Not only do I have no connection to Google, I'm almost impervious to it!

marco said...

Photographs dont move me in a way that pictures do. I think like people to make the effort and put themselves in the picture. Photography doesnt do it for me as much as painting.

In general it may be true,but there are a lot of powerful,distinctive photographers:Arbus,Wegee,Sebastiao Salgado,James Nachtwey...

And as for A photograph takes a second whereas a painting takes several hours the beginning of Generation Loss by Elizabeth Hand says it well:


There's always a moment where everything changes. A great photographer -- someone like Diane Arbus, or me during that fraction of a second when I was great -- she sees that moment coming, and presses the shutter release an instant before the change hits. If you don't see it coming, if you blink or you're drunk or just looking the other way -- well, everything changes anyway, it's not like things would have been different.

But for the rest of your life you're fucked, because you blew it. Maybe no one else knows it, but you do. In my case, it was no secret. Everyone knew I' d blown it.


Generation Loss is a wonderfully written suspense novel about photography,art,music and various kinds of damage.
Here's the suggested playlist

adrian mckinty said...

marco

yeah they say that but I'm not entirely convinced. but yes of course there are great photographers out there, I dont Annie Liebovitz is among them.

Brian O'Rourke said...

Adrian -

Sorry, but I just got back to this thread. Laughing my ass off re: Clarence Thomas.

-B

adrian mckinty said...

nobody else is going to get it.

seanag said...

It's not that hard to get from context, and it's especially not that hard to get if you google 'Clarence Thomas oral argument', even for those of us who haven't been following the supreme court all that closely. However, I think you are right, Brian is probably the only one who will find it tickles his funny bone. And perhaps others who are legally inclined.

As for photography vs. painting, I do think the visceral aspect the artist himself or herself brings to it probably does account for the difference. But on a very primal emotional level, I think photos actually grab us more. I think we tend to read photography as 'real' in some way, and paintings at some remove from reality. Even if they of course may touch a deeper reality. So maybe what we really like in them is the distance and the artifice. I know it's an old, old discussion about what the function of painting is after the invention of photography. And I think artists have been grappling with it ever since. I don't know that there can be absolute answers.

adrian mckinty said...

Personally I find Clarence Thomas's written opinions to be hilarious. Unintentionally, alas.