Once again, Mayor Adrian Fenty has managed to appear peculiar. In this case there may be more than a little element of D.C. politicking. The mayor has got to start preparing for his next race for mayor. Fortunately, an absentee mayor has never been a political handicap in Washington, D.C. A mayor here is expected to enjoy as many "perks" as possible, while in office. Life is short; get what you can.
If the mayor is such a typical D.C. mayor, why do I dare to employ the word "peculiar?"
Today's news by television developed the issue of Mayor Fenty making a move against billboard advertisers in the District of Columbia. Apparently, a neighborhood association was organized to force the removal of unwanted billboards, which had long urged the public to buy this or that. As I recall there were two - possibly three - billboards involved. As far as I could tell, they provided a visual shield against some unsightly, abandoned houses.
As I previously mentioned, electioneering has already begun. Mayor Fenty has suddenly become attentive to the desires of this association formed to remove billboards from the city. This group does not appear to be without ambitions to "bring change" to the whole city. Mayor Fenty doesn't want to be their victim; there's just too much of the world he has not yet visited. He NEEDS another term of office.
Does this make him peculiar? No, it does not.
What is peculiar about the entire matter is that the buildings of District of Columbia are often given over to "artists" to paint images on building walls. Few of these have artistic merit. There are hundreds of buildings that have been "improved" by artist, craftsmen, amateurs (adult and children), and vandals. Some D.C. buildings have several images which make the word "primitive" seem suggestive of Michelangelo. They are eye-sores! The District government is very proud of this kindergarten image-making.
On the other hand the companies that construct the ad imagery include skillful photographers, models, set designers and ad copy. At least the imagery making falls under the category of "commercial art." If it is a lesser and more meretricious form of art, it still maintains the title of "art." This word cannot be said to truthfully apply to 90% or more of the image-making seen on District buildings' sides, backs, and even fronts. They are frivolous and without merit.
Parenthetically, the huge ads of commercial artists that sometimes can be seen from the East-West Freeway on adjacent buildings might arguably be described as "traffic hazards," due to the use of strikingly good-looking women in imagery that pitches a sale to the passing traffic. This can't be said for the District's beloved "The People's Collages" festooning the walls of many hapless buildings.
What is odd is that from top to bottom in the District of Columbia, this image-making with oils, spray-paint, and the like is viewed warmly as expressing the "diversity of inspiration" among the people of this city. Virtually no one in the District can distinguish a traditionally Western standard of beauty from a traditionally Western perception of ugly and incompetent.
The latter point underlies the District's descent into the egalitarian false-view of "It's all good!" In this limited sense, the District may be a kind of negative avant-garde leader, with the rest of America falling into the "V" formation which is typical of geese. In the District even the heads of famous Art Museums applaud the "people's art."
Can one praise or respect people of low standards - or none at all? This is the ugly essence of the movers and shakers of the District, as well as the masses of incompetent "artists" dwelling therein. Since the rest of the people are very comfortable with either, there is no real diversity in the District. The District is a confederation of people of pre-primitive sensibilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment