Saturday, February 11, 2012

Adventures at the Wichita Art Museum #8, Part II: Pairings from the Permanent Collection

Edward Hopper, Sunlight on Brownstones (1956). Image found here.


Joseph Lorusso, Red Brick and Shadow (ca. 2000). Biography. Image found here.

In yesterday's post, I mentioned that the WAM's selections from the permanent collection "look a little different these days." That's due to the fact that the museum has hung the pieces (or, in a few cases, has arranged sculptures and other objects alongside paintings) in pairs, inviting the viewer to compare and contrast them. The introductory placard notes that the most obvious pairings are those in which the subject or theme is similar, as with the two paintings you see here; at times, the pairings are attributable to that time-honored art museum curator's principle, "whimsy." Whatever the case, this very simple idea provides us with at once a decent survey of the collection, a good way to get less-frequently-seen pieces out of storage and on view (I'd estimate that I'd not seen a good 1/3 of the pieces currently being exhibited), and (for me, at least) a good way to look more closely at some paintings I thought I already knew.

Below the fold, a discussion of that last.

One of the exhibition's pairings is Louis Bouché, Summer of 1941 (1941) (sorry: no decent-sized image available to post here; here is the WAM's image and discussion of the painting) and Andrée Ruellan, River Men (On the Savannah) (1941) (same deal as above; here's the link). The Bouché will be familiar to regular visitors; as for the Ruellan, I had not seen it before. I admit to being underwhelmed by the Bouché when I'd seen it in the past, to the point that, when I'd visit and see it in the gallery in the distance, I wouldn't go look at it. As you'll see at the link, it's a woodland scene set by some water; off in the distance you see a family; the style of the painting reminds me of mid-20th century advertising art. So, this time around, I started by paying closer attention to the Ruellan, with its painterly yet well-composed rendering of the African-American workers taking a brief rest on this austere, even bleak-looking riverbank that serves as their workplace. At first, the only reason I could see for these paintings' being paired was that they both were painted in 1941 and that water figured in the settings of each. But as I took a closer look at the Bouché, I saw some things I hadn't really noticed before. In the left middle ground I noticed, for the first time, the presence of the maid, who appears to be African-American; and then I looked carefully at the foreground: a wastecan and a couple of washtubs whose contents I can't determine. Yes: Images of work, and a worker, are, in more ways than one, front and center in this painting that is supposed to be depicting a leisurely family outing; meanwhile, the family who is ostensibly providing us with the occasion for the making of this painting, is well off in the background.

Is this painting, then, actually a wry commentary on the work (of others) which makes possible the leisure of others? According to Elizabeth Navas, who selected the painting for the collection and whose comments are based on a letter from Bouché, it "presents the effect of pleasure and relaxation of an American family. The maid is present, and so are the dogs." This begs to be put on the couch and poked at a bit, don't you think? My larger point, though, is that if not for the pairing of these two paintings, I may never have given any subsequent thought to the one painting I thought I knew so well. I don't know if I like its aesthetics any more now, but I do find it much more interesting to think about--and I certainly won't skip over it the next time I visit.

Read More...

Friday, February 10, 2012

Adventures at the Wichita Art Museum #8: Chuck Close and Provincetown artists

An unidentified man looks at a jacquard tapestry of a Chuck Close self-portrait at the Austin exhibition in August of 2009. The original is a large image, so be sure to click to enlarge. Here is the exhibition in book form. Image found here.

I will confess: I visited the WAM last Saturday because I didn't want to start my morning off by doing laundry. A quick perusal of the website, and the Chuck Close exhibit was the first thing to pop up. "Hey! I've heard of him!" So off I went--not expecting much, I confess.

More below the fold. Short review: The WAM will be well worth visiting for the next couple of months, even on days when you have to pay. Make that "especially on days when you have to pay": I for one want to do what I can to support more exhibits of the quality that are/will soon be there. The roof repairs that had most of the second floor closed have been completed, and the place is jammed with things to see. Even that part devoted to pieces from the permanent collection looks a little different these days, for reasons I'll talk about in a later post.

A Couple of Ways of Doing Something, from what I gather, has been making the rounds in this country for the past three or so years and has finally made it here. It's a rather unassuming title for an exhibition that really must be seen in person in order to appreciate fully. The show consists of portraits of Close himself and various artist friends of his (most I didn't know, but those I did were Laurie Anderson, Philip Glass, Andres Serrano, and Cindy Sherman) reproduced in various image-preserving media: Close started with daguerreotypes, then made copies of them in digital pigment prints, photogravures and, finally, the jacquard tapestries, which were woven with a digital loom.

[Edit (Saturday, Feb. 11): These reproductions of the daguerreotypes, just to be clear, are not mere copies in other media. They have a common origin, but in each iteration they become a different image. In this excerpt from a review of a short story collection by William Gibson, Margaret Wappler talks about Gibson's appreciation for "the copy": "Not the original, because as recontextualization, mash-ups, memes and other clever varietals of simulacra have possibly forever detonated our sense of originality and authenticity, the first is simply the start of an idea and not necessarily the best iteration, at that. Instead, Gibson knows that each copy adds more nuance to the object of our cultural fascination, imparted in its own weird, sometimes trashy but wholly individual code." Though Wappler is speaking of so-called exact copies here, I think that something very much like this dynamic is at work in the Close exhibit.]

Never was an artist so well surnamed for the kind of art he produces. Close got his start in photorealist painting, and when he moved to photography the watchword of closeness came with him. All the images are extraordinary, each in its own way: the daguerreotypes for their overall sharpness; the digital pigment prints for creating such saturated images that, in some instances, their actual skin seems to be there, reflecting light, and not an image of their skin. (And I know I'm not saying this well. You have to see them in person to see what I mean.) As for the tapestries . . . the picture of the tapestry that you see above does not do it justice. That picture of Close on the tapestry is not printed on the fabric but is actually a woven image. What's more, you must stand about as close to it as the man in the picture is before you can actually see that it's woven and not printed--the image is that precise, the threads that thin (they appear to be about the thickness of standard sewing thread).

In addition to the images, the prints are accompanied by another "way of doing something": poems by the founder of the first Poetry Slams, Bob Holman. These are pretty experimental in terms of both language and layout; I'll confess to thinking that in many cases I felt as though I had to work too hard to get much out of them. But one poem's stanzas, if that's the right term, were laid out as though it were a genealogical chart, which struck me as a really interesting idea. I also liked the two-line poem that accompanied the picture of Robert Wilson: "Not looking at something/Is looking at something."

Technique--and, thus, a kind of virtuosity--are what is on display in this exhibit. But what is also on display is that in the subgenre of hyperrealistic reproduction of images, the media aren't interchangeable. Each reveals some quality of the image the others are less suited for. Moreover, they serve as something like a survey of these technologies, with the digital loom simultaneously being a quite advanced technology and yet, via the weavings it produces, one that is quite ancient. Anyone interested in photography or, more generally, the mechanical reproduction of images, or, of course, Chuck Close, will want to see this exhibit.

The Tides of Provincetown is another sort of survey: a sprawling selection of paintings (it's not just hanging in the downstairs galleries; they have pieces hanging in hallways, too) by over 100 different artists associated in some way with Provincetown, Massachusetts, a coastal community which toward the end of the 19th century began attracting artists and, in the ensuing decades, has become one of this country's most important artist communities. Because the exhibit covers the better part of a century, what's on display serves as something like a visual survey of American art: from the late realism of Charles W. Hawthorne and American Impressionists all the way to the Abstract Expressionists of the '50s and '60s Pop art. You've heard of lots of the folks whose works are here--Edward Hopper, Mark Rothko, Andy Warhol, Milton Avery, Adolph Gottlieb, Franz Kline--but I think the better reason to see this show really is to get a visual sense, via work produced in association with one place, of the shifting, changing nature of 20th-century American art.

Read More...

Sunday, February 05, 2012

Sunset project

Sunset, Wichita, Kansas, January 20, 2012, by the Mrs. Click image to enlarge.

It's pretty simple: Take a picture of the sunset each day of the year. This is the task that the Mrs. has set for herself, and you can see all the results that she's so far posted here. If you'd prefer not to click a whole lot, here is a slideshow of the sunsets she has taken thus far this year (that she has posted).

With the exception of a couple taken in Topeka and one taken somewhere along the Kansas Turnpike, all of these were taken near where we live in Wichita. To be sure, the one posted here is the exception that proves the rule that most sunsets, at least in Wichita, are pretty uneventful. But that seems appropriate for a phenomenon that occurs every, um, day.

Enjoy.

Read More...

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Bleeding Kansas, bleeding Congressmen

The famous caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks on the floor of the House of Representatives, May 22, 1856. The misplaced apostrophe aside, the caption (though quietly sympathizing with Sumner) is pretty accurate. Image found here.

People don't hurl invective like they used to.

Partly because it's the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, and partly because it comes so highly recommended by Ta-Nehisi Coates (who for the last three years has been conducting a sustained and very in-depth discussion of the war, what led to it, and its aftermath--here is the list of posts), I've picked up and begun reading James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. What I like very much about it so far is that it provides considerable historical context before getting to the election of 1860, yet it reads so easily and smoothly.

Anyway. McPherson is very good about mostly staying out of the way and letting primary sources convey the heat as well as the substance of the debates of the time (which, just to confirm, for Southern representatives to Congress really did all come back to the protection and expansion of slavery--there's simply no other way to understand their own words). It's that heat and substance that leads me to present to you the image that's here on this post: Something I don't remember knowing, if I ever knew it at all, was that the speech (two days long!) that Sumner delivered that led Brooks to assault him was about the horrific events then taking place in Kansas Territory. Those events included not just the guerrilla warfare between pro-slavery people and Free Soilers, but also blatantly-rigged elections, territorial constitutions not ratified by the electorate before being sent to Congress as mandated by law (the conventions were stacked with pro-slavery types, but a majority of the population was by that time anti-slavery), two territorial governors driven out because they could not either of the two legislatures (yes, there were two existing at the same time, there for a while) to even really acknowledge the governors' authority, much less come to any sort of agreement, etc., etc. Sumners was outraged by all this and so took to the floor of Congress to speak against it.

I think of our political rhetoric these days as more heated than it should be, but it's positively milquetoast compared to Sumners' description of the Missourian "border ruffians" crossing into Kansas: "Murderous robbers[, . . .] hirelings picked from the drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy civilization, [committing a] rape of a virgin territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery" (McPherson, 149). (It was Sumner's characterization of South Carolina's Andrew Butler--a "Don Quixote who had chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who . . . though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight--I mean the harlot, Slavery."--that caused Brooks, Butler's cousin, to assault him, Sumner not being socially-elevated enough to be dignified by challenging to a duel.)

I have to admit that I laughed when I first read all this and joked to myself that it's too bad for KU fans that "drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy civilization" would be hard to work into a stadium cheer. But in the very next instant I reminded myself: Living in the Kansas Territory during that time and standing for whichever principle literally was a matter of life and death; meanwhile, for the nation as a while, by 1856 it had become increasingly clear that the South would be content with nothing less than the national government's affirmation and promotion of slavery, no matter the will of the majority of the people. The Dred Scott decision, which would come the following year, would only fan the flames and all but assure Lincoln's election, which, in the eyes of the South, was the final straw. Before Lincoln was even sworn in as President, seven states had seceded.

As I said here a while back regarding my own relatives during the time before and during the War, it's hard to remember, in the wake of all those years, just what that world and time were like for people living in the midst of them. Hard, but important. While I'm glad that we've not had Congressmen assaulting each other in the House Chamber for a long time now, I need to be a bit less glib about that time when, on occasion, such things did happen. McPherson's book is so far proving to be an admirable guide through that time.

Read More...

Sunday, January 22, 2012

"You are a scrawny brown guy!" "No, you are a scrawny brown guy!": Lamb and the Jesus of History

Christopher Moore. Official website. Image found here.

Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal.

This is the first Christopher Moore novel I've read. It comes recommended to me by two people: the Mrs., who is a long-time fan; and my pastor. Talking with them both about both Joseph's absence from the Gospels after the scene with the boy Jesus in the Temple and about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas led both of them to recommend Lamb--the Mrs. because Moore's book covers that territory and because she thinks Moore is funny; my pastor because "it contains some serious Christology." And because he thinks it's funny. Indeed, he told me that if it weren't for the book's profanity, he'd not hesitate to use it as a teaching resource. More on that idea in a minute. As to its artistic merits, I'll just say here, Art this ain't. But it did make me think, which is why I'm posting on it.

As you may have divined from the full title of Moore's book, Lamb is comedic in nature. But the writer has also done his homework so that, in his Afterword, he can tell us what parts are more or less historically/culturally accurate and what parts are more like Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Thus, the plot--Biff tells about growing up with Jesus (here, named Joshua or Josh), who is aware that he's the Messiah but has only the vaguest understanding of what that entails (God remains silent on this matter), and so embarks on a journey to India and China to find and obtain some enlightenment from the Wise Men who visited him--is filled with some decent silliness. Examples: While in China, Biff and Josh invent a kind of unarmed self-defense that comes to be called "Jew-do;" also while in China, the boys celebrate Josh's birthday by eating Chinese food, thus establishing another old tradition, this one for Jews if not for Christians.

However, as I read it I was reminded of something one of my college English teachers was fond of saying: "Comedy is deadly serious." And indeed, as I told my pastor, what kept me reading was the fact that Moore explores a question that gets acknowledged doctrinally via the Creeds but is at best glossed over if not simply ignored in the Church: We understand as Christians that Jesus is God's only begotten son, but what are the implications of Jesus' humanity for us in this world? Just how slippery is the slope when we think, for example, Well, Jesus was fully human, so that means he could be tempted to sin--that, for example, he was a man and so, we can assume, felt the desire for physical intimacy with women; or that, when a child he had not only those powers we assume God to have but also a child's tendency toward rash, impulsive behavior when angry. (Regarding this latter, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas assumes those tendencies as givens in the boy Jesus, and one doesn't have to read for very long before one sees why it's not in the canon.) These questions make many of us uneasy: we don't want Jesus to have had a sordid inner life like the one we all have. We say, doctrinally, that he was fully human, but I daresay we don't really believe that (or don't want to believe it, perhaps) because to do so would call into question, even to the point of cancelling out, his divinity. The same is true of the world into which he was born and in which he lived. We tend not to dwell at Christmas time on the fact that, never mind what the Gospels say, Mary's pregnancy had to have been a scandal. It clearly was for Joseph, at least initially; and in the sermon on Mary's visit to Elizabeth and the Magnificat that I heard on the Sunday before Christmas, the pastor said in passing, "And we understand the reason for that visit--the unwed pregnant girl being sent into the country to live with relatives," to which one can only say, Yes: that had to have been the case.

Sometimes it can seem as though we're more comfortable with the fact that Jesus died than that he lived.

Lamb is, it seems, very comfortable with the fact and implications of Jesus' having been a flesh-and-blood human being. It presents the reader with a "Josh" and a world that don't pretend to absolutely rigorous historical fidelity to what we know of the place and time of Jesus' life, but it is not at all shy about dramatizing the general messiness of human life as experienced by all mortals--yes, even the fully-human Son of God, too. Indeed, his life, as imagined by Moore, seems much messier than ours. Moore has Josh remain celibate throughout his life, but he imagines, quite reasonably, that Josh struggles to resist the temptations of various women--in particular, his childhood/adolescent friend Maggie (better known as Mary Magdalene). Moore also has Josh say to Biff that he (Josh) feels he need to know something about sin, the better to preach against it. Josh's solution: to have Biff narrate some of his sexual encounters with women. (Biff, you will not be shocked to learn, is only too willing to oblige.)

Lamb, in other words, is filled with scrawny brown guys (and girls), just as the world of the Jesus of history was. One character, who is blond, is referred to as a "freak" by some of the other characters. Josh's early childhood isn't a beautifully-painted creche. Sure, there's some bawdiness in this novel, but there are also lepers and dogs and dust and Roman soldiers and Pharisees who must be avoided or appeased . . . and a little boy who senses that he is God's son and not Joseph's and therefore has been set apart but has only the vaguest notion of what that means for his life. Joseph knows this, but there's only so much he can do for this boy whom he loves but who exasperates him so much: "You go with Joshua," Joseph tells Biff. "He needs a friend to teach him how to be human. Then I can teach him how to be a man" (17).

I should make clear that Lamb makes no doctrinal claims--that is, the Christ of faith is not its subject. Some events are indeed miracles, in that they aren't explained away, and some are given explanations . . . of a sort. Here, for example, is the walking-on-water scene:

"Master, you're walking on the water," said Peter.

"I just ate," Joshua said. You can't go in the water for an hour after you eat. You could get a cramp. What, none of you guys had mothers?"

"It's a miracle," shouted Peter.

"It's no big deal," Joshua said, dismissing the miracle with the wave of a hand. "It's easy. Really, Peter, you should try it."

[snip]

Then Peter stepped with both feet onto the surface of the water, and for a split second he stood there. And we were all amazed. "Hey, I'm--" Then he sank like a stone. He came up sputtering. We were all doubled over giggling, and even Joshua had sunk up to his ankles, he was laughing so hard.

"I can't believe you fell for that," said Joshua. He ran across the water and helped us pull Peter into the boat. "Peter, you're as dumb as a box of rocks. But what amazing faith you have. I'm going to build my church on this box of rocks."

"You would have Peter build your church?" asked Philip. "Because he tried to walk on the water."

"Would you have tried it?" asked Joshua.

"Of course not," said Philip. "I can't swim."

"Then who has the greater faith?" (390-391)

One could quibble with some of the particulars here, but I'd argue that an attentive reading of the story as told in Matthew reveals no harm done to its essence as a story not of a miracle, but of faith.

In his Epilogue, Moore says something curious in the midst of a paragraph in which he discusses his book's mixture of real and invented scriptural passages and whether or not he should have distinguished them from each other in some way: "The problem arises, however, that if the reader knows the Bible well enough to recognize the real references, there's a good chance that he or she has decided not to read this book" (442). I suppose that that is a fair characterization of some Bible-readers, but I'd hope that it doesn't describe all of them. And in any event, I'd hope that of all the books toward which one might become complacent, the Bible would/should be waaay down toward the bottom of that list. A book like Lamb, though no one will mistake it as a work of serious historical or theological scholarship, nevertheless takes seriously the idea that Jesus really lived and was a human being, and that he lived in a three-dimensional world, an exceedingly complicated one whose complexity the canonical gospels don't always reveal. Reading it, and works like it, makes me less complacent about the Bible and make Jesus feel, well, human even as he wrestles with the burden of knowing that he is also divine. And, for me at least, thinking more about Jesus' humanity makes me feel his divinity all the more powerfully.

Read More...

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Back to school . . .

Thanks, FailBlog

It's back to back-to-school meetings this week. The chief activity has been to coin yet another phrase for what we need to be doing that means "assessment" and yet sound different enough that our various constituencies will believe that we're doing something different. Anyway: I have syllabi to write, so I hope to have something of substance next week.

Read More...

Saturday, January 07, 2012

"The Idea of Order at Key West" (and some shameless spousal promotion)



For she was the maker of the song she sang.
The ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea
Was merely a place by which she walked to sing.
Whose spirit is this? we said, because we knew
It was the spirit that we sought and knew
That we should ask this often as she sang.
If it was only the dark voice of the sea
That rose, or even colored by many waves;
If it was only the outer voice of sky
And cloud, of the sunken coral water-walled,
However clear, it would have been deep air,
The heaving speech of air, a summer sound
Repeated in a summer without end
And sound alone. But it was more than that,
More even than her voice, and ours, among
The meaningless plungings of water and the wind,
Theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped
On high horizons, mountainous atmospheres
Of sky and sea.

(Full text of the poem here.)

Taken at Galveston, Texas, Summer 2009. Image by the Mrs.; click to enlarge. Shill alert: More of her work here; Facebook page here. Send her some love (and some work . . . her slogan is, "Has lens; will travel.")

Read More...

Friday, January 06, 2012

"I was just in the neighborhood . . . " III: The disquieting quietude of cul-de-sacs

New Year, newish-to-us neighborhood: Your correspondent and Scruffy take a brief pause from exploring the headwaters of Gypsum Creek in the wilds of east Wichita, January 1, 2012. That's the western edge of our neighborhood in the background. Image by the Mrs.

As I noted in my first post on our newish neighborhood, we now live in a neighborhood that might as well be a cul-de-sac: three streets form a loop whose midsection is traversed by three short streets; one north-south street provides direct access to Kellogg St., Wichita's major east-west artery; another street forms a T-intersection with the north-south and briefly runs east before abruptly turning north to intersect with Kellogg. Appropriately, that second street loops around a large car dealership. At any rate, a footbridge spanning the creek on the west side of our neighborhood provides the only other entrance/outlet. Significantly, though this neighborhood was built in the late '50s, the footbridge--intended to provide easy pedestrian access to the elementary school on the other side of the creek--was installed only in 2001.

As I noted in that first post, I have never lived in a quieter neighborhood before. In this post, I want to try to examine that quiet. I'm supposed to like it, and sometimes I do, but sometimes it leaves me a little disquieted.

This sort of space is a good place to try to examine the tensions between what people say they want in their living space and how much the requirements (and some of the unintended consequences) of the automobile actually dictate the shape of that space. That tension arises from our conflicting desires for removed-ness from others (limiting their access to our immediate surroundings) and for easy access to the world that others live in. The automobile makes it possible to meet both those desires, but because, in this country, most people have a car and, see the above conflicting desires, one clear result is that our typical post-WWII suburban neighborhoods are attempts to satisfy those desires: the sprawl of suburbs made possible by both the availability of outlying land no longer needed for agriculture and the automobile's ability to provide access to that land.

Enter the cul-de-sac. As it were.

Subdivisions designed around cul-de-sacs, with their vastly-reduced through traffic, certainly are effective at creating calm areas in the midst of large urban spaces while providing access to those spaces. On the surface, they would seem to be the ideal solution to meeting those conflicting desires. A closer look at some of their iterations, though, reveals something strange: The absence or near-absence of sidewalks in these places. The clear assumption on the part of these subdivisions' builders is that there's no reason to walk in these spaces, aside from going to other people's houses--and, recall, these folks are living in the 'burbs to be away from others; sidewalks would only facilitate interaction. Put another way: the absence of sidewalks mean that these houses' occupants aren't connected to each other, but (via their driveways) only to the street--only to the means of getting in and out of their neighborhood. Those few of us who actually walk or ride bikes through this neighborhood must do so in the streets, which are a bit narrower that suburban streets are nowadays and where many people park their cars (the houses' one-car garages a sign that when they were built, households tended to have fewer cars than they do now). The message is subtle but unmistakable: This space is not for people but for their cars.

Because it is the inherent nature of cars to both provide mobility for their occupants and isolate them from the space through which they move, and despite the physical closeness of these houses to each other, the absence of sidewalks feeds in me the overriding sense of the houses' existential isolation from each other.

Perhaps this is also true of at least some of their occupants. Several people who are out and about greet people who greet them; however, just about every morning for the five months that we've lived here, Scruffy and I pass a woman who walks her dog in the direction opposite that which we take. I long ago stopped greeting her; she never once has spoken to me.

I confess that I don't feel especially good about myself for having stopped greeting her.

This is, physically speaking, a cozy little neighborhood, but there's no feature here that can enhance that coziness in a more intangible way: no sidewalks, no park (the greenbelt along the creek, despite its width in places, has no tables, no benches, no playground equipment--its sole function, though an undeniably important one, is to help control erosion). I was wrong to assume in my first post that most of the people here are older; on the contrary, there seem to be lots of young families with kids here, who know and seem to like each other (back when it was warmer, they'd often be out and about in the afternoons), so it's not as though this is a neighborhood of people physically restricted to their houses. At least from this fairly-early vantage point in our stay here, it seems as though cars so define the physical form this neighborhood takes that it cannot help but affect the people who live here, too.

What does it mean to live in such a place? By which I mean, how does "I live here" get defined by these houses' occupants/dwellers/owners? I don't mean that question in an insulting way but in a genuinely interrogative way. I suspect that you'll see some occasional posts here that try to explore that question.

Read More...

Friday, December 30, 2011

David Foster Wallace, All-Around Good Guy

Factoid from Although Of Course: The bandanna was not an affectation; Wallace was as prodigious a perspirer as he was a writer. Image found here.

Um, I am probably not the smartest writer going. But I also--and I know, OK, this is gonna fit right into the persona [of the falsely-modest wunderkind writer]--I work really really hard. I'm really--you give me twenty-four hours? If we'd done this interview through the mail? I could be really really really smart. I'm not all that fast. And I'm really self-conscious. [. . . But] I'm not an idiot. I mean I know, you know, I mean I can talk intelligently with you and stuff.--David Foster Wallace.

This bit is from pp. 218-219 of David Lipsky's 2010 book, Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself: A Road Trip with David Foster Wallace, which Santa Claus found via my Amazon Wishlist and was kind enough to send my way this Christmas. As you may gather from the passage above, this book is a transcription of the raw material for a Rolling Stone article/interview on Wallace that never got published--five days' worth of (very lightly edited) recorded conversation between Lipsky and Wallace as they travelled together on the last leg of Wallace's March 1996 book tour for Infinite Jest. As long-time readers of this blog know, I'm kind of a big fan of Wallace's work and powerfully drawn to the big ideas behind it; so this book worked like cat-nip on me, especially once it became clear that, notwithstanding an abundance of passages like that quoted above, there's plenty of meaty, articulate commentary on writing and, in particular, a thoughtful claim about the Web's effects on our social fabric that picks up on, from another angle, Hannah Arendt's examination of the effects of technology on culture. Also, while it's true that these interviews were conducted 12 years before his death, Although Of Course has surprisingly few moments which I felt were especially portentous. He was in, as the kids and therapists say, a Good Place: At the time of these interviews, his dark time was almost exactly ten years before; in the now of the interviews, he feels fortunate just to be alive, much less garnering the sort of recognition for his work that he was, and acutely aware that getting too emotionally caught up in the perks of (relative) fame would be destructive to him. So, Wallace comes across as being, just as he says in the italicized passage above, very self-conscious, but not in the sense of his affect's being studied or mannered. Rather, it's in the sense of his being fully aware of his great good fortune yet not forgetting where he's from and what he's come out on the other side of.

So, whether he's interacting with Lipsky, with his dogs, or with a waitress at a Denny's, he's never condescending, never "on." He behaves, and (as he says several times) wants to be regarded as, ordinary in the best sense of that term: no matter how special the adulation he's receiving, he isn't going to be the one who insists on the perks of that adulation. Though this is nine years before his Kenyon College commencement address, we see him here acting on his own advice to those graduates to be "conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience" so as to avoid being "totally hosed" by Life. His advocacy in Although Of Course on behalf of treating people "with extraordinary decency and love, and pure uninterested concern, just because they [are] valuable as human beings" and that "I think part of the job we're here for is to learn how to do [that]" is also a presaging of Kenyon College.

And speaking of presaging: Another thing that makes this fun to read is that, yes, there's a lot of space given over to Infinite Jest, but in his description of editing that novel it feels, to me at least, that we get glimpses of the ambiance, at least, of The Pale King.

Sometimes, it's extremely unpleasant to read about the personal life of a writer whom you admire. Joel Williamson's William Faulkner and Southern History, for example, has made me happy that I never got the opportunity to consider turning down an invitation to be in the man's presence for more than the time required to receive an autograph; despite its title, Williamson's book is in large part a few-holds-barred recounting of Faulkner's slow killing of himself through his drinking, and the destructiveness of his serial, not-even-secret infidelities on his wife, daughter and friends. After reading Although Of Course, though, I have to say that my earlier admiration for Wallace as a writer is now augmented by my admiration of him as a person. His work is autobiographical in the sense that he seems to have embodied in his manner of living the ideals he espouses in his writing.

Still, I can't give a full-throated recommendation for this book, not even to all of Wallace's fans ("students" of Wallace and his work will want to read it, though). For one thing, there's a lot of repetition in it. Some of it may be due to Lipsky's forgetting that he's already asked those questions, but much of it is due to Lipsky's own obsessions. One is his constant probing of the nature of Wallace's excesses with drug and alcohol back in the mid-'80s. Lipsky keeps saying he's trying to confirm/refute rumors he's heard; and, because addiction is one of Infinite Jest's big themes, and because some of that novel's characters have backgrounds that mirror Wallace's own biography in fairly significant ways, Lipsky seems to be making the assumption that the novel approaches autobiography. After some polite jousting, Wallace finally tells him, politely but a bit testily, that, sure, he has some knowledge of substance use/abuse, but a) addiction ultimately works in the novel as a metaphor and b) one of his gifts as a writer is his ability to imagine and re-create in words the psyches of people other than himself. Wallace does some assuming of his own--he says at one point that Rolling Stone's audience will be interested in tales of substance abuse, hence Lipsky's harping on the subject--but by insisting on the metaphorical dimensions of addiction as it appears in Infinite Jest, he wants to make sure that people are reading the novel correctly, and for the right reasons.

Lipsky's other obsession arises from, as he confesses in the introductory material, his quiet envy of the acclaim Wallace has been receiving for Infinite Jest. I don't know Lipsky's work, but he's apparently well-regarded. However, his own "book tour" for his book The Art Fair consisted of a single reading at a bookstore in New York; Wallace's, by comparison, is a several-stop, bi-coastal and upper-Midwestern affair. So, Lipsky keeps trying to get Wallace to engage in a little literary chest-thumping, and Wallace refuses to do it. Wallace instead says, in a couple of places and in different ways, that he's a writer to be a writer and, sure, he wants to be read, but he's not a writer so he can get invited to certain kinds of parties.

The upshot is that, in at least a couple of places, I wonder if Lipsky is really listening to Wallace. I understand that interviews have to establish facts and that in order to be truthful records of the interviewee the interviewer has to push, return to certain matters, etc. Moreover, I understand that what we're given here isn't a polished, edited interview--in that sort of text, the subject's responses become more foregrounded. But still, I found myself thinking, as I was reading, Really now--what is your deal? a little more often than I would have liked. Lipsky, or the nature of his questioning, becomes the subject, at least in places.

I'd intended to share and comment on some snippets from the book as they pertain to Wallace's observations about pleasure and addiction and how television participates in those, and how the Internet will require some pretty substantive re-thinking of what holds culture together. This has gone on long enough, though; that other stuff will come in a later post.

Read More...

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Pictures from Mexico City: La Merced, Monuments, and Maps

(Earlier post here. Belated best wishes to all during this season of wonder and hope.)

A stack of banana leaves at a vendor's stall at La Merced, Mexico City. Banana leaves are used as wrappers for steaming/holding together food, especially in the southern regions of Mexico. In person, these were various beautiful shades of dark green, but that quality didn't show up so well in the color picture; so the Mrs. switched the image to black and white and revealed these marvelous textures. Click on this and the following images to enlarge them. This and all images by the Mrs.

In yesterday's post, I said that our primary goals for our trip were "1) Visit the Basilica on the 12th; 2) Be a little more selective about where we ate some of our meals; 3) Relax." Yesterday's post was primarily about the Basilica, so here we'll sort of cover 2) and 3).

For me, at least, the two blur together more than I'd like. Thanks to some intrepid researching by the Mrs. we ate some very good food indeed, at prices that didn't exactly break the bank. In a couple of instances, though, these places were in parts of the city that were either brand-new to me or that I had not visited in many, many years (brief example here: all I remembered about my mid-'80s visit to the National University to see its famous mosaics was that I'd gotten off at the University's Metro stop and climbed a hill . . . I had forgotten the part about walking about a mile--important because by that day on this most recent trip, the Mrs. had developed blisters), and it so happened that I was without my trusty flip-map of the city. (It is in some box, somewhere, that I know it made sense to put it in at the time as we were packing for the move, but I couldn't find it the day before our departure.) The Mrs., however, had her equally-trusty smartphone with GoogleMaps and GPS, and more than a few times that did indeed come in very handy. One morning, when in search of a restaurant that, the reviews assured us, "everyone" knew (advice to Comp students: Beware of those absolutes!), we were able to use these marvels to help out our taxi driver when he got a little turned around in the neighborhood where the restaurant is.

But I still found myself missing my map's fixed scale and, for that matter, its much larger "screen." We'd look on the Mrs.' smartphone's screen at the little dots showing where we were and where we wanted to go (sometimes having to decrease the image to make both dots appear on the screen) and she'd ask me, "How far is that from here?" and I'd have to say, "I'm not really sure." Only the very oldest part of the city (the Spanish-built, mid-16th-century part) is laid out on anything resembling a standard grid, so it's pretty easy to estimate distances there; the rest is a crazy-quilt of self-contained colonias, each with its own autonomous determination of the shape and dimensions of a city block. Lots of fun if one is wandering through on foot--the way to really get a sense of this city, huge as it is, is to a good bit of walking in it; but it's not so much fun if one is looking for a specific place and one's feet really, really hurt.

Anyway. This isn't a criticism of GPS, by any means (I've done a bit of that elsewhere in other contexts, if you really don't have anything better to do this holiday season), but just an acknowledgement that having a traditional map would have been very nice, but it was in large measure thanks to GPS and the Mrs.' aforementioned research that we had some truly wonderful meals.

In lieu of pictures of said meals, how about some images of some of the ingredients for those meals from La Merced? First some general words about this place: It is a mercado, but it's no tranquil, adobe-walled place with humble serape-wearing folk with their wares (often made or grown by the sellers themselves) spread out on blankets. Imagine a space that's, oh, the size of at least three Super Wal-Marts, filled with, maybe, three times the amount of displayed merchandise of those Wal-Marts, the shouts of venders hawking their wares, the polite pushing (if that's not an oxymoron) of shoppers, and a fair amount of visual chaos: no signage; just merchandise stacked way north of 10' feet high and the sudden awareness that, "Oh--this must be the shoe section, and that over there [one peers down a very long aisle and sees lots of gleaming cylindrical aluminum and stainless-steel things] looks like the cookware section. Maybe foodstuffs are next to that?" One should not go to this place when on a schedule or when looking for something in particular, both of which rules we violated: We went on our last day in the city (we had several hours before our flight left that afternoon, but I was more than a little concerned that we'd have trouble finding our way back to the entrance to the Metro station), and we were in search of vanilla for friends and family back home. (I could write a whole blog post on our quest for vanilla, but I'll spare you. It was just yet another reminder that I need to stop asking the rhetorical question, "How hard can this be?") But we promised ourselves that the next time we visit, we'll go there when we can just wander.

Dried chiles. This was by no means the only, or largest, display of chiles; its corner location lent itself well to photographing it, though. Incidentally, the Mrs. herself asked for permission to take pictures; no one refused us--indeed, the sellers were most gracious and even seemed pleased to be asked.


Heads of garlic. To get a sense of just how big these were, the heads to the right are regular-sized heads. These made our "elephant head" garlic look positively scrawny by comparison.


Huitlacoche. This is a corn fungus named by the Aztecs (it translates literally as "ravens' excrement"); it's used as a filling in tamales and quesadillas, and in soups. We didn't try anything with huitlacoche, alas, which I now am regretting; it has a mushroom-like, smoky taste, which sounds pretty good to me. Here is more information and some recipes, for the curious.


Mushrooms. We don't know what variety these are (they weren't labeled); we just very much liked their shape and very subtle gradations of color.


Flores de calabaza--squash blossoms. As with the huitlacoche, we didn't try anything with this as an ingredient; like huitlacoche, these flowers are used in soups and as an ingredient in variations on traditional dishes such as tamales and quesadillas.


Okay: enough food. Now, below the fold, some monuments.



El Ángel a la Independencia, or simply "El Ángel." Dedicated in 1910 to commemorate the centennial of Mexico's independence from Spain, this is one of the capital's most iconic monuments and, for American visitors, a potentially-crucial landmark--the U.S. embassy is just a couple hundred yards away.


El Monumento a la Revolución. This was two blocks from our hotel; we passed by it daily because it was on the way to the Metro station we always used. Last year was the bicentennial of Mexican independence and the centennial of the Revolution; in honor of the latter, this Monument has undergone a modest transformation: there's a small but very nice museum below it, and now there's a glass-enclosed elevator that takes you up into the dome itself, where there's access to an outer observation deck.


The elevator shaft that leads up to the dome of the Monumento.


The inner dome of the Monumento.


An inner stairwell leading out to the Monumento's observation deck.


Looking southwest from the Monumento's observation deck--for those familiar with the city, those tall buildings are about a mile from the Monumento and stand where Paseo de la Reforma enters Chapultepec Park. It was smoggy that day, and for most of our stay; as I noted in the earlier post, though, back in the '80s this would have been considered a pretty clear day.


Statute of Fidel Velásquez Sánchez (1900-1997), the founder of the Confederación de Trabajadores de México, or CTM, the largest and most powerful of Mexico's labor unions, located at one corner of the CTM's headquarters. His Wikipedia entry gives its usual dispassionate account; the short-and-polite-version is that, for decades and decades in the last century, Velásquez Sánchez had as much a hand in shaping 20th-century Mexican politics in concert with the PRI, Mexico's long-time ruling party, as any other figure--presidents included. He's here because the CTM's headquarters looks onto the plaza where the Monumento stands. The statue itself doesn't quite look onto the plaza, but it's close enough to doing so that a couple of times as we walked by him I thought about my post on "dialogic statuary" from a while back and thought on the appropriateness of its placement: both literally and figuratively, he was a child of the Revolution; and throughout his long life, for better and for worse, his actions helped shape the Revolution's meaning through the PRI's politics and policies.


If you've read this far, thanks.

Read More...