Finding evidence that Porsche by Design is more than simply the best produced car show ever.
Some wonder whether Porsche by Design is a art museum exhibition or a car show. Their confusion has not been addressed in the exhibit, its accompanying materials and events, or its catalogue. While an adequate job is done to show the connections of the exhibit with other works of art, the same cannot be said of the Porsche automobile as art itself.
Why the problem is important:
The NCMA, whether in the classical tradition or in exploring the edges of art, is, above all, serious about the experience of viewing art. Before arranging an exhibition or accessing an object, its director and curators must be convinced that the subject is significant as art.
Too little of this effort is apparent with Porsche by Design. Apologists point to an earlier MOMA exhibition and seek justification by slight reference to the Bauhaus movement, industrial design, and sculpture. Yet nothing in the exhibition itself and accompanying materials and lectures do anything specific about artistic elements. The contributions to the exhibition catalogue - from auto racers, collectors, photographers and film makers, historians, columnists, journalist and two industrial designers - re-inforce the idea that we are talking car show here.
The typical "forward" to an exhibit explains what you can expect to find in it. An "afterward", calls attention in retrospect to what you find in yourself during and after experiencing the exhibit. It would include observations from each of the museum's curators about their professional and academic view of the artistic merit of the exhibit, the Director's understanding of how the exhibit fits into the purpose of the collection and the mission of the museum and presents a subject for the traditional, accepted ways of experiencing art and for expanding and developing new ones.
The educational program offers a starting place. Evolution of Form and Ahead of Its Time offer a connection with items in the Museum's own collection which could be a foundation for a critical reflection upon the Porsche to see how it achieves artistic legitimacy ... and how it falls short. The Porsche Story gives a comprehensive overview of the political, psychological, engineering, and business context of the automobile which could serve as a foundation for consideration of its more specific artistic and design context.
How about it, Mr. Wheeler?
The Porsche exhibit is, without question, an outstanding car show. In an art museum it must be more. An "afterward" can help us to understand why, answer critics, and see what the museum has accomplished with Porsche by Design, a brilliant departure from convention with a legitimate place, as art, in an art museum.
I am interested in filing a law suit against them. We are almost 6 years into having brown water running through our tubs, sinks, and washer. They have been out more times than I care to discuss and we still have the problem as of last week. Aqua says all the "levels" are fine. I told them to come drink and bathe in it then!
If shes not a real physic and is getting her info from family members, I still see the good she does. People leave her feeling a renewal of faith and happiness. Whats the harm?
Stay in the loop as you can stay connected with the tour itineraries and band information at:
Thank you for this story. This is one of the bright spots in our region and Karen Ladd is a goddess. I've taken my elderly mother for lunch a couple of times and people are just so welcoming and kind at the St. Bart's Thursday lunch. You'll see people from all backgrounds there. A true communal table!
The examples in this blog entry of the alleged plagiarism are probably worse than the examples in the original article. This seems to run deep and is - as commenters below have said - is disturbing.
I should've provided a link to the information -- from the OECD -- providing details of U.S. spending on health care, number of doctors etcetera compared to other industrialized nations. This PBS piece is a good jumping-off point:
Andy, I have heard that JFK cheated on his wife. I'm not sure that's in the same category as owning slaves and refusing to free them at the same time you're going on about liberty and the rights of all people. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe weren't the last politicians in history to put their own interests ahead of their principles, I'll give you that.
You do make an important point:
"The principles formulated by the founders were not crafted into the Declaration and the Constitution so that rich people would be left alone, they were promulgated to make sure that everyone would be unmolested by government power. The only “special interest” protected in those documents is the individual."
I, too, was taught to revere the Constitution. It's only late in life that I realize the extent to which it was designed -- and has served -- to prevent the national government from acting absent an overwhelming mandate from the public (e.g., in the Depression; after Pearl Harbor). So, yes, rich and poor are protected equally from the government acting in the public interest and taxing them to do so.
To paraphrase the Bible, by observing the fruits of something we can know the quality, and correctness, of the “soil” from which those fruits grew (Matthew 7:16-20) . In this case the “something” in question is ideas, and Bob Geary provides us with some strange fruit indeed in his opinion column “Obamacare a symptom, not a disease”. The roots of Mr. Geary’s column seem to be made up of equal parts loose association (to put it mildly), a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of the political system the founders created, and a blithe dismissal of the consequences of abandoning that system, which is what Mr. Geary seems to want.
Mr. Geary tells us that in considering Obamacare that also observing the wealth and slave ownership of the founders are in order. How so exactly? How these two issues are connected is not really explained but just used as jumping off point for another tiresome moral denunciation of 18th century men that had to make very important decisions for a new nation, by a 21st century man who enjoys the benefits of the political system they created. Moreover, without all the Bob Gearys of the world around to remind us, ad nauseam, that the founders owned salves I suppose we wouldn’t know anything about them since that fact is clearly the most significant thing about them and is the most useful bit of information we can glean from their life and thought, but I digress.
Did you know that President Kennedy and Dr. King cheated on their wives, or that Malcolm X was once a pimp and a small time crook? But again I digress.
Mr. Geary’s misrepresentation of history begins with “ the government these men devised is replete with "checks and balances" designed to deter democracy—rule by the majority—while protecting the rich and their special interests. Slave owners were the ultimate special interest.” This is only partly right and Mr. Geary’s use of quotation marks around “checks and balances” (indicating, I assume, his cynical contempt of the concept) says volumes. The government the founders established did in fact deter democracy and this is a good thing because they recognized that the pure democracy that Mr. Geary so pines for would constitute a majoritarian mob rule where the rights and liberties of the minority would constantly be under threat by the majority.
The concepts of majority and minority don’t just refer to demographics but also to whatever group holds political and social power at a given time. An example of this type of democracy, without the checks and balances, or the rule of law, that Jefferson, Madison, and the other slave owning founders constructed, is horribly illustrated in the numerous pictures, taken in the early 20th century, of African American men hanging by their necks at the hands of an angry white mob that decided what they apparently felt was in the public’s interest and successfully “reversed the founders order.” The bloody excesses of the French and Russian Revolutions also come to mind and an examination of that history will show that those upheavals did not result in any marked improvement in the wealth and healthcare of the poor in those nations.
Given Mr. Geary’s skewed ideas of good government it comes as no surprise that the second half of his article is devoted to justifying and defending government coercion. The founders owned slaves, but thankfully they did not make laws forcing others to buy them out of a hubristic sense of promoting the “public good.” Using Mr. Geary’s reasoning, such a law would have certainly redressed the wealth imbalance between slave owners and non-slave owners (which included free blacks). Then again, it’s hard to see how such a law would have increased the wealth of poor and working class 18th century Americans, given that a slave was not really “free” labor. Slaves cost money in food, clothes, and shelter, so while such a law would have been an impressive symbol of economic egalitarianism the reality would have been that people all ready struggling would have had a further financial strain put on them while also perpetuating an immoral and economically toxic institution.
This is exactly the problem with Obamacare, or its official Orwellian double speak name “The Affordable Care Act”. There is a very rational reason why many young people do not purchase health care. They’re young. This means that they are usually pretty healthy and don’t have a lot of money and now they will have even less. It’s hard to understand how the young or poor will be help by being forced to pay for something that they otherwise would not, or could not, have purchased. Moreover, it’s unclear how Obamacare will remedy any of the current problems that Mr. Geary cites about the current state of health care in America.
Saying that “All Obamacare does is insist that insurers accept your money even if you have a pre- existing condition.” is like saying that “all” a nuclear bomb does is destroy a city’s buildings when detonated over it. We have yet to see all of the pernicious economic and social effects of this sweeping set of regulations. Furthermore, it is unclear how shifting the healthcare monopoly from one set of special interests (insurance companies) to another (the government) will result in any net improvement in the affordability or quality of healthcare. Economic activity does not operate in a frictionless vacuum and the costs imposed on insurance companies and medical providers will be paid for in the form of decreased, or lower quality, services, or no service at all as many companies and providers will decide to leave the business altogether. Like in the hypothetical slavery example above, a bad situation will be made worse.
The principles formulated by the founders were not crafted into the Declaration and the Constitution so that rich people would be left alone, they were promulgated to make sure that everyone would be unmolested by government power. The only “special interest” protected in those documents is the individual. Those good ideas have provided the fertile soil for so much positive change since then and Obamacare’s strange fruit would represent a step backward.
Thanks for the shout-out!
Durham Ukulele Orchestra
I read the article this afternoon by Margaret Soltan on career plagiarism http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=42085, and began to think if this is a more of an exception. The Indy found a few, so I did a quick search and found a letter she wrote to parents last year about dress code http://www.a2skyline.org/skyline.home/files/parent_dresscode_letter__3-23-12.pdf.
The unprofessional dress of students has a negative impact on student behavior, safety, and academic achievement. As fashion and trends change, students become more concerned with how they look and how they are perceived than they do with their academic success and achievement. The fashion of low-rise jeans, sagging jeans, extremely tight figure hugging attire, low cut shirts, and many others contribute to behavior problems and safety issues in the school. Students have lost the idea of school being a professional place where the primary focus is education. One reason for this lackadaisical attitude is because many students dress as though they are going to the movies, out to dinner, or to the beach. This lack of seriousness then leads to a decrease in attendance, low-test scores, and overall low achievement.
Quick search on Google and I find the following:
Duvall, Faklaris, Fisher, Moody, Njagi, and Wilson Copyright 2004 (http://character-education.info/Articles/Case_for_Uniforms.htm) write
“The unprofessional dress of students has a negative impact on student behavior, safety, and academic achievement. As fashion and trends change, students become more concerned with how they look and how they are perceived than they do with their academic success and achievement. The fashion of low rise jeans, bagging jeans, large trench coats, low cut shirts, and many others contribute to behavior problems and safety issues in the classrooms and in the hallways of schools today. Students have also lost the professionalism involved with education; students do not feel that school is a place of work but rather a place to hang out with friends and socialize. Their unprofessional behavior is reflected in the manner in which they present themselves.”
“One reason for this lackadaisical attitude is because many students dress as though they are going to the movies, out to dinner, or to the beach. This lack of seriousness then leads to a decrease in attendance, low-test scores, and overall low achievement.”
What part of her signed letter, on her letterhead was hers? The other part was policy.
Principal Jackson should resign.
I moved to Chapel Hill because I am so proud of its school system. I was not disappointed, the service and professionalism was impeccable both by the teachers and administrators. My kid completed elementary and middle school is now a first year student at Chapel Hill High. I was very disappointed of a request I did early in the semester, there was no action and not even an email response. Later I found out they were waiting for the principal's decision. I am starting this to know if other Chapel Hill High parents who experienced what I experienced. From a very CONCERNED
Everyone should come to this show!!! All these artists are awesome and I'm so glad to see them playing together!
WOOO! I am SO excited for this!
This is going to be a great show. Chapel Hill, get ready to ROCK!
Good review of the show, but I couldn't disagree more with the comment about Marr's versions of The Smiths' songs: " It’s like hearing a beloved story told by a foreign narrator." The songs Marr chose to do from The Smiths' catalog are great songs, period. Marr's versions of them are outstanding in their own right, albeit with slightly different shadings. They are no more lacking than Morrissey's live versions without Marr's distinctive instrumental style.
No comment from the Board yet apparently. Just brush off fluff from district. They need to address this seriously. Show me a school district that had a principal plagiarize and not do anything about it. if she stays, what is the message to our students?
Teachers wouldn't "dash off" to the Indy if they could speak to school Admin about issues without fear of retaliation. The fact that an online forum is the only chance teachers get to voice these issues is very telling of the climate of the school. Jackson says she encourages open discussion and wants to hear teachers' thoughts, but as soon as a teacher brings up a concern, the teacher is abruptly silenced. Do you really think a teacher could discuss this issue with school Admin? Sure they could, to then get fired or transferred.
The music was very interesting with a Curo? Harp and a guitar. It was exactly what I expected Irregardless to have and added to the ambiance, delicious food and gracious service.
Deborah, I have go agree with your statement on those posted from last year. there were several other shows and designs that had some really good elements in them. But then again, these are nominated and not necessarily from critics.
"It's not as if teachers want her to lose her job." Really? They're only operating as the Citation Police, and once Ms. Jackson cites her sources, everyone will move on?
1) What IS the goal of these aggrieved teachers, by dashing off to the INDY? Surely it has nothing to do with the students? HOW ARE CHHS STUDENTS BETTER OFF NOW?
2) If the reporter chose to reference the issue with the re-assigned teachers last year (because they were "reportedly clashing" with administration), shouldn't it at least be noted how many principals have come and gone in a relatively short time?
3) "Teachers" is a word used repeatedly in the article. Did the reporter interview eight, five--TWO? Readers deserve to know how plural the plural really is.
4) The INDY runs an article that is partially framed around anonymous comments on an unnamed newspaper in Michigan? Is this considered an acceptable standard of journalism now? (This is a serious question.)
I'm not an apologist for Ms. Jackson, but this "expose" reeks of one more act of familiar pot-stirring by a small group of teachers there. Language like "water-boarded" and "sadism" in the comments, as well as the trashing of other administrators at CHHS who have no ties to this "scandal"-- How does this use of hyperbole and sanctimony do ANYTHING to help this long-beleaguered high school move forward?
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation