If
conceptual art has a point at all, it is to get a rise out of aesthetes who know what's not art before they’ve seen it. Tom Piatak detects none in the work of a Yale arts major he wants
expelled for raising the artistic yuck factor beyond the realm of pickled sharks and plasticized cadavers, but thinks her case
grounds to remind that:
"Chief
Justice Story, the chief constitutional theorist of his day, explained the
purpose of the First Amendment" thus: “The real object of the amendment
was ...to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any
national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the
exclusive patronage of the national government.”
It is hard to criticize the uncreated. Moss Schvarts art exists in
part only in her imagination, and in this case even shee seems
unsure of what would go on display .But this much is clear- she does not favor the
overthrow of Roe V. Wade, and the responses to her position-- and this
article--- illustrate that rivalry
between Christian sects, and schools of art is alive and well. Many evangelicals, and traditionalists today are
not famously devoted to the separation of powers, let alone church and state,
and were Chief Justice Story still on the earthy bench; his constant vigilance
might be greatly exercised in curbing their zeal, especially since Miss
Schvart’s stunt is calculated to inflame
it . But let it not be said that her performance is original - let us not
forget the Sokal Affair.
A decade ago, cultural
relativists fell for physics professor Alan Sokal's fish slap to the credulity and incoherence of post-modern literary
theory. Contempt for Deconstruction as an academic way of life, led him to
draft, a paper entitled
"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"
which appeared in the “Science
Wars" issue of Social Text in
1996. The same month, in another publication, Lingua Franca, Sokal announced the Social Text article was a hoax, calling his own paper:
"a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning
references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense", which was
"structured around the silliest quotations I could find about mathematics
and physics"
The response was outrage -
and laughter. A dozen years later, a sophomoric version of the same wheeze has
come out of Yale, and the literally, or rather apocryphally, gory details
have driven cultural critics on the
right to heights of apoplexy worthy of
Captain Ahab, witness Tom Piatak's April 17 piece in Taki's Magazine “Mamas,
Don’t Let Your Babies Grow up To Be Yalies"
Thinking it a fair cop that Anne Coulter's anti- understudy at Yale should
succeed in rumbling the cultural apparat, left , right and center, I commented
:
"Tom, what part of “Sokaled” don’t you
understand? As
the e’patered party you may now challenge Ms. Shvarts to a pie fight, but along
with a barely passing grade in conceptual art, she gets an A for successfully
transgressing the boundaries of credulity.
Mencken would love it."
But
my fellow columnist would have none of it
"Mr.
Seitz:
Shvarts
doesn’t deserve an “A” for anything. She
either attempted the serial murder of her own children, or is a
publicity-seeking liar. What she did is
not “art” in any reasonable definition of the term. Indeed, the only thing she “transgressed” are
the standards any civilized institution would uphold. I agree with Yale alum John Zmirak: she ought to be expelled."
My objection merely incensed
him into arguing that the scientific terms on which Roe v. Wade in part hinges are subject to redefinition in the service of
religion and law alike- in other words, he began to slide into the cultural
relativism -- and legal activism--he customarily decries:
"There
is no need to amend the Constitution each time the Supreme Court misinterprets
it. Under Article III, Section 2,
Congress has the power to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and
to abolish all inferior courts). Congress also has the power to impeach justices and judges, and issuing
an unconstitutional decision, as Roe v Wade was and is, is a proper grounds for
impeachment.... as I’ve argued
I
don’t quite understand your comment about religion, either. The fact that my views on abortion are
informed by my religious beliefs do not make them illegitimate, nor would they
make illegitimate any properly enacted legislation inspired by those
beliefs. The ACLU’s interpretation of
the First Amendment has more in common with the French and Bolshevik
Revolutions than the American Revolution.
..
Chief Justice Story, the chief constitutional theorist of his day, explained
the purpose of the First Amendment: “The
real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance,
Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude
all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical
establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the
national government.”
I
agree with Chief Justice Story, and not with the leftists who have perverted
the First Amendment to advance what Story termed “infidelity.”
am of course relieved that
the ACLU is not the arbiter of constitutional law, but I am not so sure about Chronicles of Culture either.
It is hard to say how Story
and Marshall would view Miss Schvarts’ bizarre fiction, since ‘novels’ were as
new-fangled to the Founders as conceptual art is today. The Chief Justice’s name on a granite plinth in the Harvard Observatory suggests
he might find astrophysicist Sokal’s antic amusing-. Story’s last public act
was leading the subscription that bought the faculty of arts and sciences the world's most powerful telescope in 1845- an instrument
whose continuing utility amazed Russell Kirk in 1971.
Wondrous was the wisdom of
the founders, but today one fears for Princeton Observatory as much for Yale’s art
department. Some dark and cloudy night,
well-wined Federalist Society students might converge to look through the wrong end of the telescope in hope that the resulting broad view of man's place in the universe will improve
their prospects of a clerkship under Justice Alito.
Stimulating as some find Chronicle of Culture, Taki’s plays a different role. It is a salon des refusees in the face not just of PC, but the intellectual
captivity of National Review ,and the
aesthetic dominion of The New Criterion. Besides, other proponents of conceptual
minimalism, like the Taliban, have put Miss Schvarts efforts at reifying obscenity to shame. It pales before the
demolition of the Great Buddha of Bamiyan, in which the performance artist
known as Mullah Omar overthrew Althuserian conceptions of the linearity of time’s
arrow by showing that dynamite
artistically deployed can not only transform featureless rock into monumental
art, as at Mount Rushmore , but vice versa. Now that’s deconstruction!
It would be unfortunate if
by amplifying Miss Schvarts fame , Tom
Piatak’s essay were to overshadow her
Yale classmate Mr. Hashemi, the former Taliban PR man, when a timely grant
might enable them to devise a joint installation. But that is for the MacArthur Foundation to
decide--let others be friends to philistinism everywhere. We are guardians only
of our own. Can we look forward
to Chronicles giving The New Criterion a run for its money? As a metric, forget the Yale fiasco- count the galleries voluntarily running ads in its
pages.