Art Chicago Part II

More notes about artists at Art Chicago 2007

William Conger is a Chicago painter who works with bold, strong color geometric patterns and designs with distinct lines in abstract patterns. There is a hint of a reference to the natural and man-made world in these paintings, as the titles suggest. The patterns consist of solid, firm shapes of mostly solid color and a sturdily constructed forms that seem to have mass and substance, even though they are rendered for the most part as flat on the canvas surface. Personally, I like the abstract, controlled line and form with which Conger works.
http://www.art.northwestern.edu/faculty/conger_portfolio.html

Don Colley had one painting at the Carl Hammer gallery, a gallery that had a lot of art work I liked. His painting showed a human-like creature, perhaps a gremlin, perched aboard what looked like a bomber plane. This painting evokes a sinister atmosphere with its limitation to conveying the scene in dark blue that turned into violet blue and black. The clown and satiric, cartoon-like figures that Colley paints work well in adopting a critical attitude toward weapons of war. This particular painting reminds me of the social engaged art that satirizes authority in Jose Posada's broadsides and some of the German expressionists like Otto Dix and George Grosz. http://www.artnet.com/artist/153021/don-colley.html

Nathan Slate Joseph creates fascinating works by applying pigment to steel and then riveting the individual sections to a canvas like surface. The subtle variations of one color, here it's blue, the slight hint of surface texture and varying depth created by overlapping the individual mostly rectangular blocks of steel creates quite a visually compelling surface. Also the steel glistens and catches light in different areas and from different angles, adding to making this apparently simple surface quite complex. This is a work of amazing originality and makes you realize that though it's no doubt difficult to use materials originally, it can still be done. http://www.artnet.com/artist/26481/nathan-slate-joseph.html

To be continued.

Visiting Art Chicago April 2007 (Part I):

Another large scale art show, Art Chicago, was held at the Merchandise Mart, an enormous building which is mainly used as a design trade show building. This is the second year for the show at this site, after having been held for thirteen years at Navy Pier. It seems to have been a success, judging by the crowd size, the number or red stickers marking sold artwork, and a bit more of an international presence of galleries than two years ago, which is good news, since there was talk of the decline, and perhaps even demise of this annual exhibit, since it hadn't been doing so well in its last years at the Navy Pier site.

Along with Art Chicago, there were several other large scale shows staged simultaneously, in the same building or nearby building, as well. This is a prudent business strategy, since Art Chicago itself had had difficulty attracting large crowds in recent years, so clearly the strategy is to hope for spill over crowds from the large antique show, the outsider show, on a floor below, as well as a local show, the bridge Art Fair, in an adjacent building.

http://artchicago.com/showInfo.html

I had last visited Art Chicago two years ago and felt the show was much better and the location overall much better this year, for it was more accessible, near an elevated train stop, and there is no need to walk through crass commercial tourist halls and arcades that now fill up Navy Pier in order to get to the exhibit space. A special bonus was offered to bike riders, they I learned got free entry to the exhibit! But probably, if judging by what clothes people wore, few took advantage of this offer.

The only shortcoming of the new location is the unavailability of space for oversize and enormous art works, in particular sculpture, but this probably only leaves out at most a few art works. In addition, it perhaps felt a bit more crowded than it would at Navy Pier, since there was perhaps less floor space overall, but in the future, the exhibit can always spread to another floor. As it was, there was an exhibit of outsider art on another floor, The Inuit Show of Folk and Outsider Art, along with an antique show; I saw most of the outsider show, which seemed to occupy about a quarter of a floor.

It's an exhausting task to try to take the art in, in one day; I spent about five hours looking and was a bit rushed doing so; really two full days are needed to look more thoughtfully and repeatedly at the art to let it sink in, or at least those works that appeal to you. My friend who I met at a nearby cafe, left after a few hours, and I stayed on until closing time. Most of the galleries were from Chicago and New York and the Midwest area of US, there was a considerable international dimension to the show, mostly with galleries from Canada, England, France, Germany, and Korea. Still there are only 33 foreign galleries out of more than 125, which gives us about 25% or so. Especially odd, was not seeing more galleries from this hemisphere, that is, galleries from Central and South America.

There were some familiar and famous living artists featured, like Chuck Close, Fernando Botero, and a few deceased, like Paul Delvaux. Looking through the exhibition catalog, my only quibble with it is that I'd fault some of the galleries for featuring famous artists with a reproduction of their work; of course, they want above all a sale, but why not feature an artist who needs more publicity?!

There was a considerable amount of minimalist art, conceptual art, which I generally don't like, since much of this art is antithetical to beauty. Some of it evokes a negative sense of the sublime often through a minimal use of form, color, line. Much of it eschews elaboration of the basic elements of art--color, light, line. That said, I still do like some abstract art, particularly if it does elaborate elements like color and light, and my own taste is generally for richer, bolder, strong use of color and form and materials, as in William Conger's work.

There is really no way to do justice to every single gallery and every artist, so I will select only a few that caught my eye. Also, I should say that my choices are guided by simply my own taste.

Let's begin with the realist figural artists, of whom only a handful were in evidence, since figural art occupies a small niche on the contemporary art scene, but several notable artists stood out, like Philip Pearlstein, who paints life size, or slightly large than life size female nudes in pairs with symbolic objects near them. A spirit of world weariness and pondering pervades the nudes of Pearlstein's paintings, bestowing a dignified tone to them. His rendering of figures reminds me a bit of figures from Max Beckmann's early work. For a few samples of Pearlstein's work see this link:

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/finch4-9-07_detail.asp?picnum=1

Charles Browning, who is represented by the Schroeder Romero gallery in Manhattan http://www.foundrysite.com/browning/ offers a parodic representation of the past, which provokes us to smile. In Browning's paintings, we are viewing the past informed with a social critique of its purported virtues. Browning's paintings mock historical paintings that monumentalize, celebrate, and thus distort the past. For example, in the painting above, Browning mocks a wealthy man, who sits beside a donkey, or is it an ass, and overindulges in food unceremoniously, while someone who looks like a servant, paints him in a dignified pose.


Vasily Shulzhenko, represented by Maya Polsky, is a Russian painter in whose works there is a Renaissance monumentality of figure and a seriousness of theme, but the subjects are placed in mundane settings, which generates an energizing frisson in our perception that has been conditioned to expect something more noble and sublime. I can't help but think that Shulzhenko is also parodying the monumentality of Socialist Realist work commissioned during Soviet rule in which he grew up and lived as a young man. http://mayapolskygallery.com/artists/shulzhenko/index.html

Caleb O'Connor, who is represented by Ann Nathan gallery doesn't offer any of the critique or parody one senses in the previous figurative artists I have mentioned, and seems a notable exception in this regard on the contemporary art scene. To the left, you can see an example of his work, which is simply an impressive realist work of art. But in other paintings, O'Connor offers realism with a twist, or else, I can't imagine him being in show of contemporary art in which just straight realism is anathema. I couldn't find two other paintings I saw of figures walking a tightrope high above a cityscape, which give a surrealist, Magritte-like dimension to his work. http://www.annnathangallery.com/pages/caleb_o'connor.htm


More artists and paintings will be continued in the next post.

Essays Noted: On Evil

The word evil has been bandied about by the current president Bush more than any other American politician. Too often and too easily. Usually, you hear the word used less frequently, and often to describe someone or an action that defies understanding or whose horrific effects are mind-boggling in scope. Reading through some essays in the online publication Demokratiya, I came across a review of a recent book devoted to the topic, and expected to find a compelling and complex consideration of the topic, but came away disappointed, for the reviewer came up with an unequivocal answer to an inherently complicated topic. You would not expect such an answer from a philosopher or writer. Think of Fyodor Dostoevsky's great detective novel Crime and Punishment.
http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=80

In any event, this is a topic that I considered several times while reading and writing about it in graduate school, only to come away feeling frustrated in not feeling I got a grip on it. Only after I graduated did I come across what I considered a thoughtful, clear presentation of the concept and from what perspectives it can be addressed by Adam Morton, a philosopher, who wrote a brief, lucid book about the topic for Routledge's Thinking in Action series of books. If anyone has an interest in this topic, I would recommend reading this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Thinking-Action-Adam-Morton/dp/0415305195/ref=sr_1_1/104-7265340-8642336?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177720268&sr=1-1

Essays Noted: revising the American literary canon

In light of a new biography of Edith Wharton, a reviewer argues that Wharton, Willa Cather, and Dawn Powell are just as deserving a place in the American literary canon as Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Faulkner. I could not agree more, having read and used in class novels by Wharton (Ethan Frome) and Cather (O Pioneers!, The Prarie).

Why aren't these women ranked higher in American literature? The reviewer suggests the relatively staid and reclusive personalities of these writers vis-a-vis their male counterparts and a lack of experimentalism in their writing accounts for the critical neglect. Click the link below for the text of the article, or see the comment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070412-094043-1459r

Film Notes: Tim Burton's "Ed Wood" (1994; dvd 2004 )

Watching the special edition version of Tim Burton’s biopic film, “Ed Wood” (1994), which came out in late 2004 on dvd was quite moving and entertaining to me. Though the director of B-movies Ed Wood has become the epitome of this film gencre, and his name synonymous with inept, bad film making, Burton's film offers a decidedly sympathetic and idealistic portrayal of this zany, cult director of B-classic films (Glen or Glenda, Plan 9 from Outer Space). Burton focuses not so much on the films themselves, but on how Wood managed to make them despite operating on a shoestring who made makeshift films on the fly and cheap. Burton in his commentary states that he regards Wood as a folk artist, that is, someone who was not educated in the medium nor that skilled in it, yet who had a distinctive and likable style, which has led to his becoming a cult hero among some film buffs today.

Despite Wood's lack of connections, despite his limitations as a film director, still amazingly he managed to find financial backers to produce his films. In one case, he even finds a group of Baptists to fund his film, as long as he agrees to star one of their members in his film, change its title, and join the church for good measure. It was Wood’s vision, his belief in himself—delusional and misguided, to be sure--his indefatigable effort in the face of rejection, criticism, and flat out failure, which allowed him to succeed—if by that we mean—make a film, no matter how shoddy and disjointed.

That quality makes Wood into a likable rogue, but he is more than that. For while he misled or simply deceived his financial backers, he also cared about other people: he gathers together a group of cast off and misfit actors and characters, who he befriends and discovers, to make his films, most notable of all, the aged and forgotten Bela Lugosi. In fact, the film’s most touching relation is Wood’s concern for the Lugosi. Martin Landau, who played the part of Lugosi, received an Oscar for best supporting actor.

To be yourself in the face of disapproval and rejection—that’s the most moving impression I took away from this film. After all, it’s a universally shared sense of sympathy we all have for the underdog and misfit. Surprising was just how Wood dealt with his crossdressing, in particular his predilection for wearing women’s angora sweaters—he made a film about it in 1953! Predictably, the film wasn’t screened, and its producer shocked and angered by just what Wood had done with his purported take on the Christine Jorgenson story of the first recorded sex change by an American from male to female, which was what the film was supposed to be about. But personally, I conjecture, Wood by making this film overcame his own nemesis, his own hidden, dark secret, his desire to crossdress, thus perhaps gained the confidence to believe in himself and not back down from any obstacles. And he didn’t. He continued making films and then writing books until he died, prematurely, from a new nemesis—alcohol, which unfortunately relegated him to the furthermost margins of B-film-making and hack writing.

Another moving aspect of Burton’s film is how Wood manages to assemble a group of misfits around himself to make his films. First, he finds Crispin, the tv medium; then, Tor, the giant wrestler, finally, Vampira, the tv movie show hostess. Just how he joins the group we don’t see, but there is also Bunny, the fey bon vivant, and, of course, Lugosi. The culmination of the group’s success occurs when they all go see the film premier of “Plan 9 From Outer Space.”

As in all of Burton’s films, the carefully created sets are a pleasure to see beginning with the opening credits of the film, which allude to images from Wood’s films.

Film Notes & Links: Why We Fight

I had hoped to watch the documentary film "Why We Fight" (2005) by Eugene Jarecki in the theater when I saw the previews for it, but now I have finally watched it on dvd. Though it presents a variety of viewpoints, ranging from the pilots who dropped the first bombs on Iraq, to neocon pundits, like Richard Pearl and Billy Krystal, who support a policy of so-called premptive strike, to Chalmers Johnson, an East Asian scholar, who is now a critic of American militarism, it's evident the director sides with those who criticize American militarism.

The tone of the film is moderate, not polemic, satiric, and confrontational, like Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911." Though less entertaining and humorous than Moore's film, Jarecki does a better job than Moore in dispassionately informing the viewer about what forces are compelling America to wage war abroad. Some of the politicians and people interviewed in the film claim war is waged for the sake of freedom, while critics argue it is either for the sake of power.

Jarecki focuses on how in America after WW II the weapons industry has itself become an invisible force that determines policy, that is, politicians don't dare question it for fear of losing voters. The film begins with old footage of President Eisenhower warning of the possibility that the arms industry will usurp political control, and includes a scene to illustrate its a fact, with one senator after another thankful that the arms industry is operating in their state. Addressing a largely empty auditorium, one senator, Byrd, observes that the issues of going to war have largely remained ignored, and it's obvious that virtually no does care to listen to him. Thus, Eisenhower, emerges as a hero of the film, or rather a politician like Eisenhower, someone who has the integrity to speak his mind, which no other American president has done, or been allowed to do so, regarding the collusion between the arms industry and American military and Congress.

And the best supporting actors or stand-ins for Jarecki's position are several commentators, who offer incisive remarks about American foreign policy--Chalmers Johnson, Gwynn Dyer, a military historian who is critical of American military, and Charles Lewis, the author of several books about American politics.

Jarecki also includes several individuals who lose their trust of the American government during the Iraq war from 2003 to 2005. One a retired policeman, who turns from a fervent supporter to doubter of the war, all the more because he lost a son in a Twin Tower, another a career soldier who balked at adding talking points in briefings about the causes of the war that were misleading, and so quit. With these individuals, Jarecki shows how supporters of American policy have come to question it, but unfortunately, the film also observes that there is little can and is being done to question and stop policies that aren't in the national interest.

Jarecki uses scenes that implicitly comment on other scenes quite effectively. For example, he interviews the air force pilots, who beam with pride about their bombing mission, though lose their smile when they explain that they just do their job which may kill innocent people, and then he offers scenes of the devastation wrought by the bombs dropped, which included innocent victims. It's especially moving to see the morgue director interviewed, and who can't hold back his own tears when talking about the people who died.

Some of the interviewees, I believe, could have been left out, like Pearl, on the right, and Gore, on the left, for both tend to make simplistic overstatements. While interesting in itself, the irony of a Vietnamese refugee who came to US, and who now works in the missile industry, could have been replaced with someone who provides us with more background information. Also, the young man who joins the military constitutes a well done portrait, but does not contribute directly to the film's underlying thesis of how the military-industrial-congressional complex is providing the means and impetus to fight.

Finally, and this may just be my personal reaction, but I think there is too much footage devoted to fighter planes in flight or on the ground. Doubtless, the director is engaging in a form of mock-critical appreciation, simulating awe, but in fact we sense that he is critical of the nefarious destructive force of these planes.

Perhaps to make his film more engaging and entertaining, with human interest stories and provocative statements, rather than a dry, but informative commentary, which some of it is indeed, Jarecki included this material. One realizes that is difficult to make a documentary that is both entertaining and informative, especially on a topic, like American foreign policy.

Moore was criticized for making Farenheit 911 too satiric and entertaining, but how else can a documentary feature film attract a large audience without making its message appealing? Jarecki was criticized for his film because it was too dry, more suited for showing as a television documentary, and too diffuse. Inevitably, Jarecki's fim was not a box office success, but perhaps, and hopefully, Jarecki's film will find a much larger audience distributed as a dvd; this format, I believe, is the most appropriate for viewing it.

A few links to the film and its director:

Photo: Why We Fight was also the title of a series of US WWII propoganda films by the director Frank Capra.

news program of PBS Now:http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/jarecki.html#
more interviews at a conference: http://www.watsoninstitute.org/news_detail.cfm?id=346
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/gs/Transcripts/Jarecki-Transcript1.htm
interview BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/eugene-jarecki.shtml

The Dilemma of Handling a Difficult Student

Recent newspaper articles have brought to light the bizarre and disruptive of behavior of the college student Cho Seung-Hui, who went on a shooting rampage on April 16. He had been behaving strangely in classrooms since 2005. This case brings to stark light one of the most difficult situations in teaching for the college instructor and administration--how to handle a disruptive adult student in a college classroom.

A problem can arise because such a student's behavior must directly threaten the instructor or students or clearly interfere with classroom instruction. Only on evidence of such behavior can such a student be removed from the class; therefore, any behavior that falls short of meeting those criteria will allow such a student to remain in the class. Unfortunately, that leaves room for behavior which can cause considerable discomfort for the students and the instructor, as the recent case of Seung-Hui reveals. In one creative writing class, for example, most of the students dropped out of the class because of his presence. In this case, the disruption is implicit: students felt so disturbed by another student that they voluntarily left. In another class, Seung-Hui refused to speak, participate, and wore sunglasses and a baseball cap. Though he was an inscrutable, dark, brooding presence, he was not a disruptive one.

Repeatedly, Seung-Hui's professors brought the matter of his behavior up to their department, college administration and security, but as long this student did not verbally or physically threaten anyone in the classroom, as long as he did not impede teaching or learning in the classroom, there were no grounds for his removal from the classroom. In one instance, Seung-Hui would meet separately and privately with a professor outside the classroom.

The most incriminating evidence against Seung-Hui was his creative writing, which featured brutality and violence. Students and professors who read it were mortified by it. But again, as long as this writing did not name or implicate anyone in the class or university for that matter, it did not constitute grounds for dismissal from class.

Within the parameters they were able to work under, the professors, administration, and security seemed to have done what they could. They felt frustrated because they sensed something terrible was transpiring and could not intervene, constrained from doing so because of regulations that protect freedom of expression and speech. There seems to be no easily formulated resolution to this dilemma--how to handle a student that deeply troubles other students and instructors, yet who never crosses the line in threatening them. We clearly don't want the classroom to become authoritarian, which would stifle intellectual growth and freedom, but at the same time, we can't allow a troubled and potentially dangerous individual to abuse the freedom offered in a university classroom.

In effect, ever careful and obliged by law to respect one individual's freedom, a student was allowed to harbor and develop his violent delusions, which gradually compelled him to act on them. At some point the humanity of the student Sueng-Hui had been lost, taken over, eclipsed by a violent and inhumane spirit of destruction. This tragic case calls for a reconsideration of when and how university administration and security can and should intervene.

For exceptional cases, guidelines and provisions need to be formulated so the educational experience isn't allowed to deteriorate, as it clearly did for both students and instructors at Virginia Polytechnic. When one student's quest for freedom of expression goes awry that student needs to leave the class. For students and instructors deserve to learn and be taught in a setting where they feel safe and respected.

Note on the image: this is an imaginary portrait by Man Ray of the Marquise de Sade, an eighteenth century French writer, who advocated the right to pursue pleasure with absolute freedom in his writing, which in his life often led to repeated arrest and imprisonment. This image came to mind because Richard Wolin used it for the cover his book, The Terms of Cultural Criticism.

The Rule of Eighteenth Century Rights

Reading more about the recent shooting tragedy, I realize that a ban on handguns is unlikely because most Americans, anywhere from a half to two thirds, cite the second amendment right to bear arms as something they cannot part with. It's intrinsic to their sense of self-identity as Americans.

Considering the second amendment in historical perspective, we see that it was written at a time America was a frontier state in which there was only minimal civil authority and protection in place. Thus, understandably, there was a clear justification for an individual to assert he had a right to protect himself. Clearly, however, society has changed since the late eighteenth century and the justification for the right to bear arms to defend oneself no longer makes sense. There are few if any areas of desolate wilderness and total lawlessness.

But that fact is overlooked by advocates of the right to bear arms. From their perspective, it simply doesn't matter that the environment and society has changed. Of course it has they would acknowledge, but that cannot and should not affect the inviolability of their right to bear arms. Any concession of this principle would undermine it, hence its inviolability.

In this regard, they are correct, and you cannot argue with them, or rather their essentialist argument. Furthermore, without a majority of Americans opposing their claim to a right to bear arms, their position will prevail.

Looking at this issue in a larger perspective, we can see that various areas of the world hold on tenaciously to ideas and customs which puzzle outsiders. To outsiders these ideas and customs don't make sense, but to the people who hold them, they do; moreover, they define their identity. Thus, to part with such an idea and custom that defines you is something that is difficult or that cannot be conceived. In effect, you cannot ask people to change a policy or practice or custom, which they regard as intrinsic to who they are.

Only the cumulative effect of negative consequences or the slow process of gradual education or a political upheaval will result in change. In United States, I would surmise that the former two factors will eventually change the hearts and minds of people, make them consider changing their identity and their views on the issue of restricting and then banning handguns altogether. Practically speaking, for now the most that can be expected in terms of legislation about handgun possession and ownership in United States is that the pressure to impose more restrictions will increase.

Personally, I can play only a small part in this contentious issue of handgun control in America, adding my voice to the chorus of others informing readers in a manner that isn't accusatory or condescending, but thought provoking.

Columbine Again and Worse

Reading the news on Monday, April 16 caused palpable shock and horror. A young and demented man has killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. If this can happen there, it can happen anywhere, where you work, go to class, shop, meet, and you feel vulnerable and threatened. And you feel terrible for those who died and were injured. It feels as if the tragedy of Columbine is being played out again, but this time with even more victims.

This is the deadliest shooting incident in American history. There have been several such terrible incidents since the 1960s. Something needs to change, some policy measures taken, and legislation passed to prevent such incidents from recurring. A debate needs to begin concerning hand gun ownership and purchase. Michael Moore's documentary film "Bowling for Columbine" was a critique of an American obsession with guns and a usually unreasonable fear that fuels their desire for self-protection. Strangely, this insistence on insuring one's own self-protection overlooks the fact that the right to bear arms, handguns, also allows a a few angry individuals to wreak murderous havoc.

My position is that handguns should be banned, as they are in other advanced nations, like Japan and the United Kingdom. These nations don't suffer from the bane of handguns--an annual loss of thousands, tens of thousands of innocent victims, which America suffers. The only exceptions I would make for people who can own and possess handguns in the United States are for police and military personnel.

Is this a fair or just policy to ban handguns? No, by no means, for it punishes the vast majority of law abiding and peaceful registered gun owners who are not murderers, nor who will ever become murderers. But this policy will make our society safer, making it more difficult and less likely for handguns to be obtained by potential murderers, thus reducing innocent lives lost to handgun murderers. A handgun ban will make it less likely individuals such as the young man at Virginia Technical, will carry out their deadly plans. Imagine, it took him only 15 minutes to buy his first gun.

But given the great number of handguns already owned legally or illegally in United States, I am under no illusion that this policy will show significant and immediate results. Doubtless, for the right price, for example, an individual intent on murder, will likely and unfortunately still be able to manage to illegally purchase a handgun from an unscrupulous seller. Still, this will make acquiring a handgun much more difficult to obtain. It will take more than a simple and convenient visit to a gun shop.

Are there really any viable alternatives?! Advocates of the right to bear arms and the gun lobby are the chief opponents of a ban on handguns will argue there are. But it seems to me that no matter what efforts are taken to detect someone planning to carry out murder, there will be someone who eludes detection. And no matter how much security we provide, not every institution and building can be made into a secure place such as a court house or restricted airport area, where you are searched and need to pass through a metal detector before entering.

Unless this step of banning handguns in United States is taken, there will only be more such terrible incidents of senseless murder in the future. My hope is for far fewer, and dream, is for none to occur. Let's learn from and emulate nations like Japan and United Kingdom--and ban handguns in United States.

For a link on this issue, see "Gun politics in the United Kingdom":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

And I came across a comment in the New Yorker by Adam Gopnick that puts the gun issue in comparative perspective--see the Comment for the text.

Vonnegut and Bombs Away

Kurt Vonnegut, the American novelist died recently. I only read one of his books, Slaughterhouse Five, his novel, which I liked, about the fire bombing of Dresden during World War II. This issue of bombing civilian German cities has recently been considered by historians, raising questions such as--how necessary was it? was it strategically effective? was it driven by a feeling of avenging Nazi atrocities more than by strategic objectives?

Personally, I actually met a victim of these bombings, someone who wasn't a German civilian, but a Ukrainian refugee, who at the time was a young child who was simply with his family fleeing their country in fear of a Soviet re-occupation of it. This man lived near my grandfather's house in Wisconsin, and sometimes I would see him from afar limping around in the summer. Usually, when he saw us from a distance, he would just wave in greeting and walk on. This man walked with a decided limp, with one shoulder several inches lower than the other, and a limp, not fully functioning arm. Since this man could get no immediate medical attention when he was injured, he became permanently disabled and scarred for life.

To bring this topic of bomb dropping to the present time, at times I try to avoid thinking of the bombs that this country has dropped, and the civilians it has recently killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. As if it were any solace, we are informed that with better technology, dropping bombs has become a more precise science, so less civilians are killed. But that is still no solace to the people killed and injured, to their still living families and neighbors.

It seems so senseless and brutal to maim and destroy human life, and this is what Vonnegut's great novel is about. I doubt if anyone who read Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse Five, would not pause and consider at what human cost dare he or she pursue strategic goals by bombing. I wonder if any post World War II American presidents or their Defense Secretaries have read this novel. I doubt it.

For an obituary see the comment below.

Gallery Visits

This weekend, I visited two art gallery opening night exhibits. First, on Friday night, I went to the opening night reception at the new art gallery of Greg Steffens' named Haus at 5405 N Clark Street. There was a reception for Emily Murphy, who works in clay, and I've provided a link to her work. If I had deep pockets I would certainly consider buying some of her work. This gallery-store is open every day of the week, so you can stop in and check it out. Here is a link to some of the ceramic art displayed.

http://www.hauschicago.com/gallery/ceramics/ceramics.html

On Saturday night, I went to the large Peter Jones gallery, which is located in a former warehouse near Ravenswood Avenue, just north of Irving Park Road. There was a group show there, as well as a dance performance. Though the website of the gallery includes some artwork, it doesn't have most of the work that I saw there, nor some of the work that I liked, so it's difficult to comment on art without a reproduction of it placed here.

http://www.peterjonesgallery.com/

Smoking Ban in Illinois 2008: Whose Rights Are Lost?

I was happy to read that a nonsmoking bill has been passed in the Illinois state senate, and if would pass the house and get the governor's approval, it would ban smoking indoors in all virtually all public places and businesses in Illinois on January 1, 2008.

As a concession to smokers, I should say that a universal nonsmoking ban is too draconian. Why not set aside some smoking bars and nightclubs, though doubtless the exact number and "fair" percent of them would be cause for controversy. Otherwise, it seems like the tables are turned completely against smokers, and I can understand why they would be upset.

Personally, smoking bothers me when I occasionally go out to concerts, bars, or nightclubs, because first, I am forced to wash my clothes and hair after being exposed to it; and, second, sometimes, it prevents me from going out to such places or going out altogether, for most other casual social gathering places, like cafes, close at 9 or 10 PM.

A sizable minority, up to a third of people, it seems, are unhappy with the possibility of statewide smoking ban because they feel their right to smoke is being unfairly curtailed. They admit that though their activity may be harmful to themselves and others, others can simply choose not to expose themselves to their smoke, just as they can choose to not expose themselves to any other activity they dislike.

This argument, however, operates on a mistaken assumption in defining free choice because there are so few, only a handful of nonsmoking bars, nightclubs and concert venues. Thus, there really isn’t much freedom to choose a different casual gathering place that stays open late at night.

For now even if a businesses owner of a bar, nightclub, and concert venues with a bar would like to make it a non-smoking place, he or she is compelled to allow smoking as long as their competitors do so, otherwise he or she may go out of business or lose a lot of business. Thus, one could say that even owners of night spots don't really have the freedom to make their establishment smoke free given the fiercely competitive environment!

A problem I see with the argument that you can avoid any activity you dislike is that smoking is different from say, playing music loudly or people drinking alcohol to excess, both of which occur at bars and nightclubs. However, if you dislike loud music, you can wear earplugs, and if you are uncomfortable with loud and silly drunk people, you can move away from them. But you cannot move away from the smoke inside a room.

Finally, let me conclude by considering the health issue of second hand smoke. The scientific evidence is incontrovertible that prolonged exposure is harmful to your health, causing disease and death in some cases. Thus, the health of people who work in smoky workplace is put at risk. Is this a choice too, putting your health at risk on the job? Though it can be argued, and I concede, correctly that you can choose to work elsewhere, I would respond that it may be difficult for people who work late in the evenings and usually on weekends to find comparable evening and late hours that would fit their schedule, especially since most already work at a regular job during the week. But more importantly, no one at any work place should be subjected to any well known and documented health hazard.

Note on image: This is the international symbol for a non smoking area. See the comment for the AP news release.