danajohnhill.org

By coincidence, I have lately been immersed in all things Van Gogh. It began with Miriam’s mom listening to Don McLean’s “Vincent”, which is about the saddest non-Irish song I know. Then, last week on PBS, I saw British author Simon Schama’s Power of Art. Schama is a bit over-the-top in terms of descriptive language, but Van Gogh’s art is transcendent, and his biography touching. Yesterday I watched a 1956 film starring Kirk Douglas entitled Lust for Life, which, rather melodramatically, depicts the artist from his early days as a missionary, to his tragic demise in Auvers-sur-Oise.

A week or two ago on television I watched a tribute of sorts to Al Pacino from the AFI. One of the speakers was Andy Garcia, and he made what I consider a bizarre, and, really, ludicrous statement. In so many words he said that Pacino was “the Van Gogh of actors”.

I acknowledge that Mr. Pacino is a talented actor. And, I have nothing personal against Mr. Garcia either. I love hyperbole as much as anybody. I’m the greatest exaggerator in the history of the universe. But to compare a world-famous, A-list, super-celebrity like Al Pacino to Van Gogh is to make a remarkably ignorant metaphor.

Van Gogh’s life was a parade of heartbreaking rejection and misfortune wrought by mental illness, and his gift was nearly missed. Under other circumstances, he might have remained a teacher or preacher. Had his love been requited, he may never have become such a vagabond. Has his brother not been so devoted, Vincent might have wasted away in complete obscurity.

A sad fact of life is that, sometimes, true genius is the crushing burden of terribly troubled people. However it is manifest, it can be both their ruin and redemption. In his lifetime, Van Gogh never enjoyed accolades. He would never know that over a hundred years after his suicide, throngs of people like me would line up every day outside museums around the world to see his paintings, and recognize them as unrivaled masterpieces.

Again, nothing personal against Mr. Pacino, but if in the year 2107 rappers still have Scarface posters on the wall behind their crunk cups, I’ll eat my hat.

An apt quote from this New York Times article detailing today’s Republican defeat of legislation in the Senate aimed at easing employee unionization:

“Republicans are already using the issue to help win corporate donations for the 2008 election, and Democrats are highlighting their support of the bill to obtain union donations.”

So, there it is. Republicans are the party of corporations, Democrats the party of laborers.

I realize that unions aren’t perfect, but the net effect of unionization has, without a doubt, been positive. I am entirely sure that in the absence of unions, corporate America would eviscerate the rights and benefits of employees. Corporations’ glib response would be, “If you don’t like your job, quit”. Lest anyone think their career is safe, remember that the president’s immigration initiative isn’t coming from the kindness of his heart. Rather, it is the bidding of corporations and agribusinesses who want a virtually unlimited supply of benefit-free, minimum-wage labor.