| The Art of Nagging (1) |
| All this malarkey about hot air, it's all stuff and nonsense. Isn't it true that mind comes before matter, the latter being a mere tool rather than a goal? And isn't it equally obvious that the mind manages perfectly well without matter provided there's adequate food, drink and shelter on hand? The phrase "hot air" is usually a rabble-rousing pretext for the preferred measure of misreading . The words suggest that what we do not understand is identical to misuse and incapacity - and whatever our preferred direction, shouldn't we above this? |
|
If I were unfamiliar with the laws of gravitation, how could I put into
words what I suspected was going on? Perhaps I'd first think of a bouncing
ball, then of a falling egg. I would then realise that gravity equals
sentencing for certain materials whose properties imply that they cannot
survive a head-on confrontation at a mutual relative velocity of one meter
downwards, without interference by the earth's atmosphere (which would
therefore result in the demise of the one, the other, or both). It'd be up
to the others to prove me wrong. As I was tweaking the above paragraph, it started to dawn on me why I had had this thought in the first place. I had, you see, sort of decided to respond to the press reviews about "KunstRAI", although I wasn't sure whether I should and whether I would be able to clarify this phenomenon. We've all read interviews with indignant performers or creators who naturally are largely in the right but who unfortunately are incapable of making any changes to the distorted views carved in printing ink of those who are constantly eating away at their reputation. It's only the chosen few who succeed in adequately settling the score, the vast majority resigning themselves to the notion that silence is the best remedy. Silence. Silence. There's only one person in the entire country who makes them quake in their boots, and that's Freek de Jonge*, although some of them might be slightly wary of the tubby little sputterer**. And there's only one person they always treat kindly: Kees van Kooten***. The others should simply put a sock in it, which almost inevitably leads to silence. * Razor-tongued cabaret performer cum stand-up comedian who is slowly but surely turning into a veritable eminence grise. ** Youp van 't Hek, an occasionally frighteningly intense (of the cardiac arrest variety) cabaret performer cum writer. Sadly for him, not quite in the same league as Freek de Jonge. *** Started out some 30 years ago, together with his mate Wim de Bie, as a cabaret cum television performer cum writer. These days, a celebrity, writer and famous father of a talented son and equally talented daughter both of whom operate in the film and script-writing business. It is nevertheless quite remarkable to see how many critics seem obsessed with a burning desire to destroy the object, or should that be subject, of their review - almost as if to punish the culprit in question for having spent a year behind his keyboard or easel for the sole purpose of producing a monstrosity to strike the critic where it hurts most. Could it really be these inquisitors' conviction that a thorough dressing-down by a fire-breathing critic will improve a writer's writing, a painter's painting or an actor's acting? If so, I can only hope that the critic will argue that it is his or her duty to provide the public with information and that the readers pay good money so as to find out from a certified expert what their own opinion about something or other should be. Isn't this the essence of freedom of dissemination of information, that the subscribers will select the paper that reports the news in their own preferred way? So what am I going on about … Then again chances are that in terms of attitude, the critic will have developed more along the lines of a visual artist, in that he'll insist on not giving the public what he thinks it is looking for. That's a dilemma right there, for it leaves you with nothing to complain about except whether or not the reader is actually in agreement with such a modified form of news provision. In view of the fact that this situation has gone on for many a decade it could be concluded that so few people actually read the art pages that even the fiercest opposition on their part counts for virtually nothing, which in turn implies that the survival of the newspaper does not depend on the form and content of this one specific segment. But perhaps that's not the case. Let me give you an example. The editorial board for the arts of NRC-Handelsblad (see WR 18) treats a generally acclaimed still life painter such as Henk Helmantel with something bordering on repulsion (source quotation to follow) whereas advertisers are aware that their top clients read this newspaper. They don't just subscribe to it because it matches their status: they actually read the cultural section or they wouldn't spot the advertisements (let's not kid ourselves here - the layout of this, the "quality newspaper of the Netherlands", is not of such refinement as to spark a spontaneous search for status-enhancing tips). In other words, those who admire Henk Helmantel do peruse the cultural section, but are evidently not influenced by the opinions vented there by the critics. Is this an example of typically Dutch symbiosis: avidly reading readers who respond in a diametrically opposed fashion? So could it be that when "KunstRAI" is slammed by several national dailies (headed by Het Parool with "A wealth of junk gathered together at the RAI", closely followed by De Volkskrant, with NRC Handelsblad coming in a somewhat diffident third), this would serve as a nick-of-time wake-up call for the target group, having been distracted by the splendid weather and the impending economic crisis, to book their return tickets to the RAI on Europaplein, causing the visitor numbers and related spendings - bearing in mind the doldrums that we are supposedly in - to turn out quite respectable in the end? So what's my problem? |