danajohnhill.org | Hard Times Come Again No More

Saturday morning Mrs. Hill and I awoke before dawn and sleepily drove ourselves downtown to stand in line for the fall Friends of the Alachua County Library book sale. Twice a year the FOL hold this sale in their big warehouse on Main Street to raise money for the public library and get rid of the thousands of donated books. It’s such a big deal that people come from far and wide, especially collectors and dealers who intend to resell what they buy. It has been over a year since I braved the FOL sale, since other commitments prevented me from attending. But this year the sale fell on a Saturday after payday, and so it was that we were in line by seven o’clock in the morning.

Our goal was to be in front of the guys who grab all the CDs regardless of title or artist, solely to resell elsewhere. That turned out not to be an issue this time, however, since these fellows failed to materialize at all, and, in any case, there were no legitimate classical music CDs save one EMI disc of Sir John Barbirolli conducting the Mahler Symphony No. 9. I purchased it.

I also purchased several art books, including one of the Uffizi Gallery, which Miriam and I toured in 2001 in Florence. I also got something I had been wanting for a long time, a book of Klimt. One of the music-related books I got is very interesting: a dictionary of musical themes, in which countless pieces of classical music are broken down into their various motifs, written in notation. That will be very helpful. We also got scads more of the great travel guides published by DK. They are generally over $20 new, but they are all $5 or less at the FOL sale, which still makes them among the more expensive titles there. Most hardcover books are priced below $2.50.

Miriam had her eye on several paintings in the poster and print tent, all of which, it turns out, were painted by the same fellow. Everyone that passed the tent before the sale opened remarked about them, particularly one featuring a devil and two goats, and another with a beehive. It seemed certain that these would be the first to go, especially when there was one man who was really talking them up to his friends and family. But what baby wants, baby gets, and, indeed, Miriam walked out with those four pictures, which now await suitable wall space to be hung.

The check-out line had grown astonishingly long by ten o’clock, and my arms were near broken from carrying such a heavy box of books. But we made it out of there with our booty, and I went off to work.

Filed under: Art, Gainesville, Literature and Books, Music on October 15th, 2007 | No Comments »

I am as sympathetic to the suffering of others as anyone, and I certainly don’t begrudge people their right to due process under law. That said, however, I am increasingly annoyed and displeased to read about claims on looted art by descendants of former owners.

This issue really came to my attention in a profound way several years ago when someone came forward with a claim that they were the rightful owner of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, a stunning painting by Gustav Klimt, and one of Austria’s greatest visual treasures. The claimant, Maria Altmann, was the niece of Ferdinand and Adele Bloch-Bauer, a wealthy Viennese family who owned four other Klimt masterpieces: Adele Bloch-Bauer II, Apfelbaum I, Birkenwald, and Häuser in Unterach am Attersee. Altmann sued in the United States, where her case against Austria went all the way to the Supreme Court. She won, and Austria turned over the paintings, which, naturally, she sold, splitting up a priceless collection that had been the pride of the Schloss Belvedere. Adele Bloch-Bauer I was sold for an estimated $135 million and placed in the Neue Gallerie in New York. The rest sold at auction to anonymous bidders, and, in spite of Ms. Altmann’s hilariously insincere wish that the paintings remain on public display, they are now stashed away in private hands.

So I read this morning that heirs of a prominent Dutch art dealer are now claiming ownership of 225 paintings and two tapestries by Dutch, Flemish and Italian artists now hanging in museums in the Netherlands.

I do not deny that World War II wrought countless injustices, and that Nazi scum looted many works of art which now reside in public galleries throughout the world, though mostly in Europe. But should we draw the line somewhere for those claiming ownership of irreplaceable treasures? The war ended over 60 years ago, and these works of art have been on public display for generations now. When you consider that what those making claims really want is money, I find it hard to be sympathetic. They are not seeking the restitution of some family heirloom. The governments and museums who now posses this disputed art should investigate these claims, and, if it is deemed prudent, they should pay a fair sum of money to the claimants. But masterpieces of art belong to humanity, and that works now hanging in museums for all to enjoy might end up on the wall of some crooked Russian billionaire, or crazy Japanese businessman, is a notion that should offend anyone who loves that which is beautiful.

Filed under: Art, Current Events, Rantings on September 26th, 2007 | No Comments »

On Thursday’s edition of All Things Considered, Nate DiMeo addressed an issue that has been bothering me for years, namely the dearth of fine arts programming on television. He specifically refers to A&E and Bravo, two networks that were once devoted to ballet, classical music, opera and the visual arts. I can distinctly recall watching a complete Carmen on Bravo, and DiMeo mentions a Bernstein-conducted Fidelio in prime-time on A&E.

But that was then. “A&E” used to stand for “Arts and Entertainment”, but I noticed a while ago that they have modified that to “The Art of Entertainment”. “Breakfast with the Arts” is history, and their nightly installments of Biography are a thing of the past, though, even before they disappeared altogether they had shifted exclusively to portraits of celebrities. With the rise of “reality” television, both of those networks–as well as TLC, Discovery and others–reverted to pointless, inexpensively-produced garbage.

What I find a little hard to believe about DiMeo’s report is the idea that fine arts programming was a victim of its own success. I am not saying that nobody watches the more intellectually-challenging fare, but if something is going right, it seems unlikely that a TV network would change it. Now, if the argument is that these shows were more expensive to produce, and, thus, didn’t generate as good a return on the investment, well, I’d believe that. The Metropolitan Opera is apparently having considerable success with their high-definition simulcasts in movie theaters. But I’d be interested in seeing how many are tuning in to the telecasts on PBS. For that matter, I’d love to see how many people are watching any of PBS’ wonderful edutainment. I have a feeling I’d be disappointed.

Meanwhile, cable networks continue to move toward nearly identical programming. Look through your program guide and you’ll see the same movies over and over again on several channels. Even The History Channel is showing movies that you could see any night on TNT or TBS. We used to have the luxury of two commercial-free classic movie channels, but AMC sold out. I think the trend is for television networks to abandon their original focus in favor of the cheap and common. That’s bad news for fine arts programming.

Meanwhile, it should come as no surprise that the two channels I know that do broadcast serious music and programs related to the visual arts, Ovation and Classic Arts Showcase, are nowhere to be found on the Cox Cable lineup.

Filed under: Art, Music, Television on August 17th, 2007 | No Comments »

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.

Filed under: Art, Film, Musings, Television on June 26th, 2007 | No Comments »