The Artful Dodger

A Brick, Unknown Artist.

The subtleties of an artist’s creative work, to say nothing of the subjective nature of the viewer’s opinion, mean we are often on very soft ground indeed when we take it upon ourselves to criticise such work.
Who am I to say that a painting (for example) is good or bad, particularly if I have no knowledge of the artist’s intent? I am on far more solid—though liquid— ground when I assess a good scotch: I know what I like, and don’t like, and I can in confidence settle on that, knowing that you may have an entirely different opinion of the same scotch.
Allow me please the presumption to suggest I may also know what is a well-written book (Gore Vidal’s Julian) and what is not (E.D. James’ Fifty Shades of Grey).
But throw me in front of a painting, and I have no opinion of what is good and is not. Unless of course we are taking of a Graham Sydney, the quality of which is beyond dispute. But among the raft of contemporary artists—many of whom are dealing in obscurities—I completely flounder.
I have a young artist friend, Brett A’Court. I like his work. His Flesh and Spirit Exhibition is now showing at the TSB Wallace Centre in Hillsborough, although I am afraid I am unable to attend. And I have a friend in France who does some interesting work, though I am drawn to believe her most creative work yet is her family.
With these exceptions, I tend to journey, naked and vulnerable, through the world of art. I have no pretensions to say anything pretentious (Art often speaks for itself) and if that makes me appear ignorant, so be it—I am. Anyway, I  have a sneaky suspicion that one or two so-called “artists” are conning us—scamming us. Throwing a bit of paint about. However, that was said of Jackson Pollock, and no-one doubts his talent, for art and for life. Warhol on the other hand…
But I imagine that most artists today are sincere, and honest. One in particular.
I found him in Hamilton. He is currently exhibiting there. His name is Guy “Moskon” Horton and his Sans Serif exhibition is at the Wonderhorse Tavern in Hamilton—yes, there!  You might take to his stuff. I don’t. Wrong generation. Mr “Mockson” Horton specialises in a comic style. Indeed he admits to being, mostly, a jobbing illustrator—and that is fine.
However, if I am not taken by his art, I do like his honesty and his humour. In promoting his show on Facebook, Mr Horton invites us to “Gaze at the shapes, lines, piles and renderings of colourful goop created by 'Moskon' whilst sipping on artisan beverages and absorbing audible pleasure from Actual Nutritionist Mike Blanchett.”
No real pressure applied there. Just a good time.
But what really stuck me as a virgin traveller through Mr Horton’s world was the self-effacing spirit in which he treated his own work and his helpfulness in suggesting for me the somewhat cynical and comparative view I should have of it. Indeed Actual Nutritionist Mike Blanchett and Bricks may be the primary attractions of Mr Horton’s exhibition if the following admission by him is anything to go by:
“Come drink a cocktail, beer, wine or all three and gaze at some beautiful brick walls covered in pictures.”
Now, that is honesty in Art.

We, the people...who are left

“My fellow Americans” is a phrase often heralding a presidential pontification.
It implies a fraternal association between a President and the people—an ordered society based on fraternity, equality and…a pipe-dream. The mass killings tragically blighting America these days have put paid to any sense of fraternity—even friendliness—replacing it with paranoia that the fellow American next to you, could be the American who kills you.
Yet, despite the number of killings—most of them with guns, and in numbers unprecedented since the American Civil War, gun proponents, most notably the National Rifle Association (NRA), still insist they have the inalienable, unassailable right to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in the American Constitution.
But is it enshrined? And, if it is, need it remain so? The NRA will answer Yes and Yes. Proponents of stronger gun laws will answer Yes (and No) and No.
This is why the proponents are right and the NRA and Donald Trump are wrong.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (ratified in 1791) does, by interpretation, say Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. But, does it actually say that?
No.
It says:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Where in that does it say all Americans have the right? These days “Well regulated Militia” would suggest only those under Federal or State control such as the police, defence forces and perhaps the National Guard—not Mark Chapman, not the killers of Columbine, of San Bernardino and not even the NRA have the Right to bear and keep arms.
    Furthermore the introduction of that amendment, drafted by Thomas Madison, seems to be  based on the English Bill of Rights (1689). Sir William Blackstone described this (English) right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defence of the state.
    None off which even remotely rationalises the motives for these mass shootings. The Second Amendment was also introduced at a time when the United States state was under external threat from Great Britain, and its civilians in remote areas vulnerable to Indian attack. Neither of which today exist.
    So, yes, the right does appear in the American Constitution. But, no, implicitly it does not apply to all Americans and in any case was predicated at a time and circumstance that no longer exist and on a precedent that is no longer relevant.
    So, if there is ambiguity, would it not be safer to get rid of it altogether or at least replace it with something that defines “the Right” more clearly? No, says the NFA, it is enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, it is, we know that (yawn), but the Constitution can be changed.
    Can it?
    Yes.
    In one of his erudite essays, American writer Gore Vidal regarded the US Constitution not as “the stone tablets of Moses” but as “a living document in need of regular visitation and revision.”
    “I have seen how much trouble it (The Constitution) causes,” he says.
    In that, Mr Vidal echoes the thoughts of one of the authors of the original constitution, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that each generation should take a hard look at the document and make changes.
    Since the US Constitution was ratified in 1789 it has been amended 27 times and it won’t have escaped your notice that the right to keep and bear arms was the second of those amendments. So, if it took an amendment bring it in, logically the same opportunity/process can be employed to take it out. All it takes is a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the US Senate, or a constitutional convention by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
    But that is not going to happen. The American gun lobby is too strong to allow it to happen.
    Americans will be left to their own devices—usually an AK47, or similar—to kill each other at will.  It is a malaise that has always blighted the self-perceived “greatest country in the world” and one the United States, as great and powerful as it is, seems unable or unwilling to shake off. In fact, if the farcical thoughts of Republican candidate Donald Trump are anything to go by, they may even elect to promulgate it.
    America the beautiful.
    America the dammed.