Circus is the wrong word
Listening to segments of the political circus: filibusters, debt ceilings, RomneyCare, etc.

Suddenly realized: Circus is exactly the wrong word.

A circus is proper entertainment. Its job is to provide some level of enjoyment for some types of people, so they will feel good about the enterprise and will buy tickets again the next time it comes to town. Same applies to any form of real art. A proper musician wants the audience to love his sounds so they will come to the next concert and pay more money. A proper painter wants the viewers to love her work so they will buy more paintings.

In the last century a total split developed between real art and formal art.

Real musical art is still very much alive: you can buy it through iTunes or record stores. Real painting is still alive: you can buy beautiful original pieces through Ebay or Etsy or local galleries.

Before 1910, formal music and painting were also meant to be enjoyed and paid for, or in some cases designed to give a deep religious experience. Since 1910, formal music (i.e. Schonberg, Stockhausen, Cage) and formal visual art (Pollock, Eldred, Mapplethorpe) are specifically designed to induce pain and chaos and death in ordinary people, so the sadistic insiders can watch the hoi polloi suffering and screaming and dying. Only the academic insiders are entitled to judge the "artists", and only the government is fucking stupid enough to pay these "artists".

Sometime in recent decades Congress transformed itself from popular entertainment to formal installation. Its actors are no longer seeking applause and money from the audience; they are explicitly trying to induce pain and chaos and death in voters, leaving insiders as the only remaining audience. Only the financiers and DC pundits are entitled to judge the "actors", and only the government is fucking stupid enough to pay these "actors".



Is this the audience a circus wants? No, this is the audience a Modern Artist wants.

Labels: Danbo, Loughnerian Logic

  ¶ 5:20 PM