worthless art?

Background: According to Richard Dorment in The New York Review, Andy Warhol had a picture of himself taken in a photo booth in 1965. He had the image transferred to acetate plates so that he could turn it into a silkscreen print. However, at the suggestion of a friend, he decided “to send the acetates to a commercial printer for silkscreening.” As a result, he never touched the prints, although in 1969 he signed one and dedicated it to his dealer Bruno Bischopfberger. Later, it became Warhol’s standard practice to have his works manufactured commercially and then sign them. In 1970, the same self-portrait was reproduced on the cover of Warhol’s catalogue raisonné (a book purporting to show all of an artist’s authentic work). Presented with this volume, a delighted Warhol signed his name across the cover.

Nowadays, there is an “Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc.” that determines whether individual objects are genuine “Warhols.” The Board has denied that the self-portrait of 1965 is genuine. “It is the opinion of the authentication board that said work is NOT the work of Andy Warhol, but that said work was signed, dedicated, and dated by him.” When the Board has physical control of a disputed work that it rejects, Dorment writes, the work “is mutilated by stamping it in ink on the reverse with the word “DENIED”—thereby rendering the picture unsaleable even if the board later changes its mind.”

Dorment launches a fierce attack on the Board. But how can its actions make objects “worthless”? If you think a Warhol is a striking image that would enliven your wall, you can buy one and prize it even if the back has been stamped “DENIED.” In fact, you can make your own version of this perfectly reproducible object and it will be as striking as the one Warhol had manufactured in 1965.

If you think a Warhol has value because the physical object is directly connected to the late artist of that name, the connection that you prize is real (or not) regardless of what the Authentication Board says.

If you bought a Warhol at auction, you may fear that the “DENIED” stamp will cause its resale value to plummet. But the resale value is just a function of what other people think about the object. Why should you substitute their opinion for yours?

For myself, I would much rather have a Warhol with a DENIED stamp applied by a Pynchonesque “Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc.” To me, the stamp would not be a “mutiliation” of the original object, but a consummation of the original concept. In fact, if a DENIED Warhol were available for cheap, I might buy it on the bet that those stamps will become priceless.

The conceptual art of Duchamp and Warhol made theoretical points that really couldn’t have been argued in prose. These two forced us to acknowledge that a work of art is a physical object, basically like a toaster; and the magical aura that we associate with it because it was hand-made by a genius is a bit of a joke. They played with use-value, market-value, authenticity, creativity, originality, fame, and mechanical reproduction. I think their points, having been made, can now be pretty much left behind. Beautifully crafted individual objects remain worth making and appreciating. But if you’re going to collect Warhols, I don’t think you can be too upset if some officials dispute their authenticity. This whole business requires a sense of humor.

conservatism in the Obama administration

I’m interested in the following rule published recently by the Federal Corporation for National and Community Service:

    (f) Civic engagement programs. A State, Indian Tribe, Territory or qualified organization may use funds to support service-learning civic engagement programs that promote a better understanding of:

    (1) The principles of the Constitution, the heroes of United States history (including military history), and the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance;

    (2) How the Nation’s government functions; and

    (3) The importance of service in the Nation’s character.

The Corporation has been bitterly criticized for allegedly brainwashing young people to be supporters of President Obama’s radical socialist agenda. But this rule couldn’t be much more conservative. It would be a balanced policy, in my view, if it supported education on “heroes” and “military history” and on social movements and concepts of justice; or if it stressed the “importance of service” and the importance of social reforms and governmental programs. But it is almost entirely in the rightward side.

I’m glad to see that Corporation funds will be used for civic education. I think that the projects supported under this provision may be valuable. I’m only supportive, however, because I am personally open to relatively conservative approaches to civics. From a political perspective, I think it’s noteworthy that the Obama Administration would publish such a conservative rule. The people who should be mad about the president’s service agenda are not conservatives, but liberals.

assessing higher education

I used to think that a “good” college or university was one where the students had excellent skills and the professors published lots of fine scholarship. But colleges and universities can select students and faculty who are already great before they show up. An institution that has very strong market position basically uses its admissions office to guarantee a talented student body and its hiring committees to produce an illustrious faculty. It doesn’t have to educate well.

One might hope that the way to attain a strong market position is to provide an excellent education. But I think that’s only one factor among many. Imagine two schools:

1. Low Budget State starts with no reputation. It has a fairly drab campus; entering students have low average SATs. The dedicated faculty and staff have really thought about curriculum and pedagogy and deliver a great education, appropriate for their students. Prospective applicants may realize that the teaching is good, although this is a little hard to tell because test scores and job prospects are not too impressive. What’s more, prospective students know that they won’t get much reputational advantage from attending this school, nor will the amenities be very comfortable, nor will the other students be especially stimulating, nor will they enter powerful alumni networks. So the best qualified students may turn their attention to …

2. Legacy University, which was was founded in 1750. Its campus is on the Register of National Historic Treasures and three of its alumni have become presidents of the United States. People have heard of it as far away as China. It only accepts one in 20 of its applicants and is able to screen for very high SATs. The faculty and staff are quite uninterested in undergraduate education. However, there are tremendous amenities, including the palazzo in Venice and the observatory at the South Pole. Discussions among students are very stimulating and educational, because the university is so selective. Graduates run the country, thanks to the advantages of a diploma.

This imaginary example hints at some real problems. The system provides few incentives for actually teaching students. Young people from advantaged background have a huge leg up in the admissions process and thereby reap most of the advantages. Public subsidies (grants and tax deductions for alumni donations) help to underwrite this stratified system. The whole thing might be justifiable if it were the best way to generate high-quality research and culture. But I am not sure this works, because it is easier for Legacy University to hire established scholars than to develop their scholarly skills. As for Low Budget State–its faculty have little time for publishing and are locked out of prestigious scholarly networks.

It’s modestly helpful to have alternative rankings that don’t use reputation or entering students’ SAT scores, as US News and World Report does, but instead try to measure “value added.” Washington Monthly is the leader here. But such alternative rankings won’t help if there are rational reasons for students and faculty to opt for reputation over impact.

Another approach is to evaluate the impact of teaching and scholarship and let incentives (such as tenure, salary, and government grants) go to those who add the most value. This strategy makes professors nervous because they imagine someone giving a simplistic, multiple-choice assessment of subtle material. For instance, if the purpose of reading the Phaedrus is to spark in the student’s soul a yearning for wisdom, can you imagine a pre/post survey that measures what’s important? (“Mark the answer that comes closest to your opinion. 1. My soul completely shuns wisdom. 2. My soul is indifferent to wisdom. 3. My soul is strangely drawn to wisdom ….”) There are also valid concerns about restrictions on intellectual freedom–not to mention illegitimate concerns about having to work harder.

I think it’s incumbent on us to figure out better ways to assess impact. That won’t solve the problem, but it will at least help prospective students and faculty who want to go where the education is best.

much better than a town meeting

If you or a group that you’re part of wants to discuss health care policy without descending into the kind of shouting matches that dominated August, the Kettering Foundation and the National Issues Forums have just the tools you need. Click through to a work book, other background materials, and a guide to holding a neutral, productive dialog in your community.

against caricaturing your opponents

If you spend a lot of time, as I do, on sites like Steve Benen’s Washington Monthly and The American Prospect, you can get at least a daily dose of outrageous remarks by Republican politicians and conservative celebrities. These comments often combine fallacy, bias, malice, and myth. (As an example from the last few days, The National Review says this week that Barack Obama “likes tyrants and dislikes America [and] is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can.”)

Meanwhile, if you spend time reading the open comments on newspapers and other news sources, you can find plenty of similarly outrageous statements all on your own. In addition to the flaws cited above, these amateur contributions tend to be poorly spelled and ungrammatical.

Spend your time this way, and you can convince yourself–or reinforce your presumption–that you are dealing with an opposition that’s stupid and mean. Compromise then seems foolish. Unfortunately, large numbers of Americans vote for the same candidates as the shock jocks and right-wing politicians whose frightening quotes fill liberal blogs. So it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you are dealing with a fairly benighted population. Either there is something fundamentally wrong with them, or else the media system is somehow capable of misleading the public and distorting their views.

But selective quotation is a very poor “research method.” As long as the pool of material available for quotation is large, you can get any result you want. I think it would be possible, for example, to fill a daily blog with nothing but thoughtful and conciliatory comments by elected Republicans. Likewise, conservative bloggers are able to find outrageous statements by liberals to fill their pages.

Whatever the truth may be about “conservatism,” selective quotation is no way to find it. Not only is this method intellectually lax, it yields bad strategy. It leads us to misunderstand the real reasons that substantial numbers of Americans disagree with us and thus prevents us from persuading them. For instance, relatively conservative Americans may fear the Democrats’ health plan because they are skeptical that the government can keep its promises to cut costs, not because they believe that President Obama is a socialist Muslim born in Kenya who hates America.

Although I’m sure some Republicans in Congress disagree, many leading ones seem to share Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s view that President Obama is headed for “a massive electoral defeat.” I think they have been reading too much of their own side’s polemics (including selective quotations from liberals that seem far from mainstream views). As a result, they are not revising their own policies in ways that might help them to regain a majority. The long-term polling trend suggests that they really only have about 20-25% of the population on their side and should be seriously rethinking their positions:

But there is equal danger for Democrats. The President has but a bare majority–less on difficult issues such as health care and climate change–and faces valid doubts and criticisms. The worst way to get majority support for a Democratic legislative agenda would be to convince ourselves that we are only dealing with Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and the National Review.