Politics and Beauty in America: The Liberal Aesthetics of P.T. Barnum, John Muir, and Harley Earl

255 Pages·2016·2.06 MB·English

by  Timothy J. Lukes (auth.)

Politics
Beauty
and in
America
THE LIBERAL AESTHETICS OF P. T. BARNUM,
JOHN MUIR, AND HARLEY EARL
TIMOTHY J. LUKES
Politics and Beauty in America

Timothy   J.   Lukes
Politics and Beauty
in America
The Liberal Aesthetics of P.T. Barnum,
John Muir, and Harley Earl
Timothy   J.   Lukes
Santa Clara University
Santa Clara, California, USA
ISBN 978-1-137-02088-8 ISBN 978-1-137-02090-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-02090-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016942399
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2 016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Nature America Inc. New York
For Elizabeth Ann, existential research partner, and the reason
I am certain that a life without beauty is not worth living.

P
REFACE
HITCHING WAGONS TO STARS
My university was recently blessed with a new Learning Commons that
shelters the now astounding variety of intellectual resources available to
our scholarly community. This stunning edifi ce surpasses functional suf-
fi ciency with a design that has attracted and retained even the most recal-
citrant young scholars. The alcove extends an invitation to visitors in the
form of a fanciful bronze rendition of an open book executed by a young
alumna. The venue has quickly become the linchpin of the campus.
More recently, however, just adjacent to the building and quite inten-
tionally attached to the entry ritual, a new work of art has appeared, one
that depicts three individuals in biblical attire. An adoring man, genufl ect-
ing toward a seated woman, is eagerly awaiting the imminent transfer of
a youth to his outstretched hands. Perhaps momentarily, one is inclined
to interpret the statue as an “unusually informal” rendition of the Holy
Family, as its institutional promotion suggests. Yet upon closer inspection,
the impression turns decidedly Rockwellian. The youngster is cute, bereft
of any fi gment of dignity to such an extent that the trio’s demeanors sug-
gest nothing more profound than a celebration of junior’s fi rst upscale
hairstyle.
This sentimentality and vacuousness is complemented by a formidable
square base, albeit one that is barely suffi cient to accommodate the ver-
biage inscribed upon it. The piece’s title, boldly traversing the pedestal’s
front between and above logos and dedications, is “In Celebration of
Family.” The remaining three sides offer quotations from Martin Luther
vii
viii PREFACE
King Jr., George Bernard Shaw, Pope John Paul II, Alex Haley, George
Santayana, and Winston Churchill, all of which reinforce the sculpture’s
already unmistakable message: holiness is bestowed upon those who make
sure to call home every weekend.
I do not intend to undertake a garden-variety tirade against kitsch.
Instead, I think this work’s proximity to the new library implicates it
in a more serious American cultural inclination. The statue predisposes
students to temper their impending engagement with fl ights of fancy,
reminding them that their presence on campus is grounded in responsibil-
ity and sacrifi ce. The potentially disinterested beauty of the library and its
contents is dangerous and disturbing, in need of at least some practical
restraint.1
Students tend to like this new sculpture, as Americans in general
seem quite receptive to considering art for its instrumental message. An
American clientele expects as much from the Twin Towers memorial as it
does from the American Marines fi ghting in the Middle East. The Lower
Manhattan Development Corporation received over 4000 unsolicited
designs for Ground Zero, most of which were unoffi cially classifi ed in the
“screaming eagle” category (Nobel 2005, p. 77), including a proposal
to have the towers represent a hand with middle digit extended. Master
planner Daniel Libeskind considered an array of numerological interests,
often involving permutations of nine and eleven. One World Trade Center
(Freedom Tower) measures 1776 feet. Indeed, American audiences are
relentless in their instrumental expectations of artistic installations. To
fend off the threat of marginalization (and endear itself with the labor
theory of value), the National Endowment of the Arts has adopted the
slogan “Art Works.”
Considering my observations as no more than corroboration for
American philistinism is problematic. In my recent seminar on aesthetics
and politics, I challenged an art history major’s cynicism by asking if her
favorite music could transport her to an alternative universe. She responded
that it could, but then explained that art history does not normally consider
music to be art. Although she could not deny the possibility of transcen-
dence in beauty, she would not allow herself to embrace the experience
analytically. Beauty, as discussed in the American academy, is often consid-
ered no more than a contrivance of powerful individuals and groups who
manipulate meanings in the service of exploitation.
The result has been a steady nourishment of the margins, especially of
those critics who, emboldened by the explanatory needs of postmodern
PREFACE ix
and public art, have elevated their often ponderous pronouncements to
a status higher than the works they dissect. Hip journals in the tradition
of O ctober and R epresentations revel in the critical ascension, and crit-
ics eagerly embrace their anointment. Brian Wallis instigates the hubris:
“From this point of view, the issue is less how art criticism can best serve
art than how art can serve as fruitful realm for critical and theoretical
activity. This gives to art criticism a responsibility and a political potential
it is often denied” (Wallis 1984, p. xvi). How exhilarating it must be to
consider one’s analysis of Bernini or Stravinsky more important than the
creations being analyzed.
That the artistic project is considered mostly in terms of its susceptibil-
ity to productive commentary betrays a troubling nonchalance regard-
ing the preservation of aesthetic integrity and identity. Even artists are
expected to pronounce on their own signifi cance. Whereas such commen-
tary may previously have been delegated to the likes of Vasari or Ruskin,
here we dismiss the inarticulate practitioner.
So how can it be that for the last few decades a “beauty renaissance”
has been said to be in full swing? The obligatory reference is to Peter
Schjeldahl’s proclamation that “beauty is back” (1996), and we are
encouraged to recognize that “beauty matters” (Brand 1999, 2000,
2012). Although scholars seem to be getting away with “for whatever rea-
son” (Donoghue 2003, p. 8) as a suffi cient causal explanation for beauty’s
resurgence, it is suggested that the balkanization of formerly suffocating
identity movements lifts one’s obligation to “pay attention” to them,
thereby leaving room for a return to more elevated rewards like beauty
(Donoghue 2003, p. 8). Moreover, recent scientifi c evidence suggests that
beauty independently inhabits the physical world (Peitgen and Richter
2012), and that the human brain itself is predisposed to beautiful things
(Ishizu and Zeki 2011).
However, a disparity between the aspirations and realities of the beauty
advocates is disclosed upon a cross-examination: if we are experiencing
a “return of the beautiful” (Nehamas 2000) in America, from where is
it returning? Does it return from the eighteenth century, a time when
American artists did not sign their works out of fear that their more utili-
tarian livelihoods would suffer if they did so? 2 Or does it return from
the nineteenth century, when only a handful of art museums existed and
Americans fl ocked instead to the commercialized and death-defying aph-
rodisiac of Niagara Falls to experience beauty?3 Of course we can cele-
brate the brilliant literary contributions of such prodigies as Ralph Waldo