Tuesday, November 07, 2006

The Good, the Bad, or the Ugly

There's a scene in Borat, which we howled through this weekend, in which the Kazakh journalist attends a "high society" dinner and delights in the attractiveness of the women who sit on either side of him. He asks a pastor at the head of the table if the blonde next to him is his wife. No, answers the pastor, indicating to the much plainer woman at the end of the table, "That's my wife." Borat continues, "In a my country, they would go crazy...for these two [indicating the women on either side of him]...not a so much...[he indicates toward the pastor's wife]." It was one of many moments in the film where you wanted to put your hands over your eyes (and many people in the theater did, repeatedly). "No, no, no...he didn't just go there...." Yet, it wouldn't have been painful (or funny) if there hadn't been a marked difference in beauty among the women. The audience could see the difference as clearly as the character did. We grimaced because it's taboo to point it out.

An
article by Mary Devereauz on the webite for the American Society for Aesthetics discusses the underlying meaning of the discomfort we have with acknowledging "ugliness" in other people:
We shun mention of the ugly, it seems to me, for a number of reasons. First, we naturally enough do not want to think of ourselves as ugly –especially not in the present tense. The thought that others might find us ugly is unsettling and embarrassing, particularly in a culture such as ours, where, rightly or wrongly, success, esteem and love rest so heavily upon physical appearance. So, too we generally try to avoid attributing ugliness to others. Calling the ugly ‘ugly’ – recognizing someone as ugly – is thought to be undemocratic and cruel. Undemocratic because even with a pluralistic conception of beauty, some people are going to lose. It’s bad luck, but a fact. Recognizing the ugly is cruel because, whether the judgment is mistaken (as in the case of Pecola’s self-hatred in Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye) or correct (as with Frankenstein’s monster), calling someone ugly may do as much or more damage as calling them a liar or a cheat. Unlike lying or cheating, ugliness seems to have few excuses, a situation worsened, ironically, by the readily availability of the cosmetic fix and the raising of the bar of “standard” good looks. Hence many of us are rightly reluctant to apply the predicate ‘ugly’ to human beings.

The discomfort I am describing is intensified by a long intellectual tradition associating beauty with goodness and ugliness with evil. While a extensive line of physically attractive villains from Vronsky to Rhett Butler attests to the falseness of this connection, an equally entrenched narrative tradition insists upon its truth, using ugliness as a mark of bad character if not downright wickedness (e.g., the ugly stepmothers and stepsisters of Grimm’s fairytales). Alternatively, ugliness and the social ostracism it (unfairly) provokes may turn the good man bad, as the tale of Frankenstein’s creature and a range of others illustrate. The point is that one way or another, an ugly face is frequently associated with a form of moral badness.
In fine art, of course, the notion that "beauty = good" has been pronounced dead, repeatedly. In fact, it's considered déclassé to be attracted only to classically beautiful objects (but, more and more it seems, considered equally unsophisticated to not appreciate them on some [higher, of course] level). Still, only philistines don't have an appreciation for the aesthetics of decay, or see the beauty in the rustic, or the rugged, or the rusted out. In my opinion, such posturing is usually more about current fashion than anything else, but I'm curious whether, as with physical beauty, we don't associate certain "moral" values to beautiful or ugly artwork, or at least their creators.

See image here.


I'll sacrifice my own sense of aesthetics (and perhaps reputation) here to provide an example of what I'm wondering about. I think I've noted repeatedly that, despite appreciating his achievement intellectually, I'm not at all emotionally/aesthetically attracted to Jackson Pollock's work. To me, to put it bluntly, the drip paintings are ugly. Mind you, I once felt that same way about Philip Guston's cartoon-based work but now involuntarily drool like a bulldog in August when I see one, so I do look forward to the day when I have my Pollock epiphany. But where other folks will marvel in front of "
One, Number 31" [above] at MoMA, for example, I (and I've tried) can't seem to get past how the dour drabness of the palette and the seeming chaos of the composition overshadow any appreciation I might otherwise have for the energy of the gestures or scope of the vision or whatever...I stand there really wanting to just yell out at the admirers, "Come on, now! Admit it. It's ugly!"

So I think, despite his historical achievement, I do tend to think of Pollock as lesser than, say, Rothko or de Kooning, whose work for me is breathtakingly beautiful. More than that, even, if asked to choose one of the three to keep my most valuable secret, Pollock would definitely be the last. I don't quite trust him somehow. It's not his personal life either (Mark and Willem were self-absorbed and self-destructive, each to his own degree, as well), but something I associate with him because of how I feel about his work. Surely he could have made those works more aesthetically pleasing, if he had wanted to, if that had been important to him, if he was a better person, or something like that (it's not all that clear to me).

See image here.

On the other hand, despite reports of his being quite the little shit of a person, I associate much more trust with Carravagio. I mean, anyone who can paint that lusciously must be, deep down, a decent human being, no? Obviously not, but knowing nothing more about their personalities than what I associate with what it took to create their work (i.e., in a vaccuum), I would choose Carravagio over Pollock in picking a person to share an important secret. There's something instinctual about it.
Experiments have shown we naturally gravitate toward beauty and distrust physical ugliness in human faces, so why would it be any different with art? (Beside the fact that we're supposed to be educating ourselves, I mean).

The flip side to this, of course, is how after a few encounters with Carravagio-esque people, we can also learn to mistrust beauty (which may have more to do with the see-sawing of tastes and fashion than any sustained "growth" in that direction). I often hear artists or collectors say this or that work is too polished for them, too pretty to satisfy their discerning eye. And while I know what they mean, I do wonder whether, at some point in the future, I might feel that a Rothko or a Guston or a Pollock is too pretty? I'm not so sure. Arte Povera, for example, advocates "a complete openness towards materials and processes," but for me its more successful pieces still adhere to a handsome formalism. Like infants who will smile at a "pretty lady" but pull away from a disfigured face, I suspect there's something innate about our response to art, suggesting our more "sophisicated" tastes for work that's not traditionally beautiful is an intellectual stance, not an emotional one, which is still important, I'd argue, but perhaps not "natural" in a way that we often ignore when encountering skeptics about contemporary art.

OK, I've rambled in circles enough here...help me out.

34 Comments:

Anonymous David said...

Dick Cheney, now he's ugly. I'd trust Pollock over him any day.

11/07/2006 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous bnon said...

I think it's easy enough to accept the idea that there is no link between beauty in a person and virtue (see Butler, Rhett; Vronsky, Count). But sophisticates notwithstanding, it's hard to separate beauty from value in art.

My own personal theory is that there are two kinds of beauty. One kind of beauty is the kind of beauty that is easy to take and recognized by most--Caravaggio's boys, Rothko's colors, a sunset, etc.

The other kind of beauty is the kind that makes you gasp when you see something, because it's new and it somehow stimulates a "beauty response" in you, to coin a phrase. This can be any aesthitic, art-viewing experience you respond to by exclaiming, "that's beautiful." It can be ugly or decrepit, or depraved, or whatever, but in the context of viewing art, the way you respond is aesthetically, no matter what the surface qualities of the work. Yes, this is a little semantic jiu-jitsu, but I really think the most crazed disgusting artists are really trying to provoke a sense of beauty in their viewers...it's just that they've narrowed their viewership down to people who have developed an eye for the particular kind of beauty they are making.

11/07/2006 12:19:00 PM  
Blogger ec said...

I think has to do with knowledge of the medium. Formal elements communicate broadly as a commonly recognized language. Like writers who develop their craft, artists conversant in the language want to innovate and push further. Equally conversant viewers follow suit. The air thins because not everyone is interested in such extreme exploration of individual consciousness. Rickie Lee Jones made a cd many years ago, which she felt was "completely herself"--and lost the recognizability of her sound.
Formal language fulfills recognizable and reliable visual archetypes: geometry, pattern, chiaroscuro. Carravagio's projective gift and brilliant talent sets one visual standard for these archetypes.while
Pollock works against them.
Sometimes the appetite is for perfection, but other times, perhaps curiosity about how far a syntax can be pushed may carry the day. Also, context shapes vision: in Asia, Pollock is much more understandable.

11/07/2006 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger paulraphael said...

I think about this a lot and am always forced to back up and ask "what is beauty" ... at least for the purposes of the discussion.

It's often used as a synonym for prettiness, but that strikes me as a mistake. Going back to to Keats' "beauty is truth, truth beauty ... " and other truisms, there seems to be a longstanding esthetic school that believes beauty is more than skin deep. Not so prettiness, which is always about surfaces.

So I wonder about the esthetics you describe of decay, the rugged, the rusted out. It's possible for these to be presented with a formalism (and perhaps a relationship between form and content) that suggests beauty, while still being decidedly unpretty.

The trouble with "ugly" is that it serves as the opposite of both beautiful and pretty--which do not mean the same thing. What should we call something that's beautiful but that definitely isn't pretty?

It would be a good word for Pollock's work (which I happen to like very much. But I don't want to kiss it).

11/07/2006 01:00:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Ed,

I wonder if sometimes our personal mood helps set the stage for how we might respond a painting with empathy. I tend to go along with the Discovery article which suggests that our sense of ‘beauty’ might be in part genetic. Recently the NY Times had an article suggesting that ‘moral behavior’ might also be in part genetically encoded. I recently attempted to approach the subject of how the aesthetic experience occurs on my blog

11/07/2006 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger Chris Rywalt said...

Funny that you should post this today, Ed, given that I'm working on a review of Sara Eichner in which I briefly touch on this idea that's been rattling around in my head for a while. The idea is this: Art, true art, is about the creation of beautiful objects. The art of the 20th century, however, was all about redefining art to be the creation of desirable objects. When Duchamp offered up a urinal as art, he was switching the word "beautiful" for "desirable," showing that desirability can be instilled by sheer force of will.

I aim -- as I formulate this better -- to redefine art, at least for myself, as the creation of beautiful objects.

That said, I've written before about the pure aesthetic response. You don't have that reaction to Pollock -- you write here about "trying" to get over Pollock's drab palette and chaotic composition in "One, Number 1." And yet I and my wife stand transfixed before it. Your response is intellectual -- "Hm, the palette is drab" -- because it doesn't grab you by the balls. It grabs me by mine.

After that comes the intellectual response, where I consider how the painting was made and the palette and the composition. But first, there's the physical aesthetic response, unmediated by rational thought.

Not all art has that. Most doesn't for most people. And you might think this is a response to canonization -- after all, Pollock's painting is in MoMA, which colors perceptions. But I had a similar experience at Stux Gallery seeing one of Nicola Verlato's paintings last week. I nearly popped a woody, I swear.

And Rothko and de Kooning have never done a single thing for me. I don't like either of them one bit.

Going back to beautiful people and ugly people, though -- and maybe this applies to art, too. In my experience, people I immediately react to as ugly turn out to be unpleasant. People I have no immediate reaction to, or who I first perceive as pretty, can go either way. And if I start to like them, they start to get prettier. And if I find out I don't like them, they get uglier. Most of the time, when I see a person and think they're extraordinarily beautiful, when I get to know them they turn out to be beautiful on the inside, too.

Whether this means I'm shallow; or says something about how ugly people are treated so badly they become unpleasant people; or means I'm perceptive (ha!); or is meaningless anecdote, I don't know.

11/07/2006 01:39:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Speaking of Borat, I have a hunch that the unexpected runaway phenomena of this movie marks a pivotal turning point in the psyche of the American culture. It marks the beginning of the end of the 911 mourning period, some return to normalcy and the ability to laugh at ourselves again in the face of the politics of fear.

11/07/2006 01:51:00 PM  
Blogger Chris Rywalt said...

That's funny, George. I was pretty sure the success of Borat was one of the later signs of the Apocalypse. I fully expect the Republicans to win most of the elections today and continue their reign of terror, and I've been looking for the Anti-Christ to appear on a reality TV show any day. Maybe for February sweeps.

11/07/2006 01:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

I think all art strives for beauty, and when we perceive it as ugly it is probably simply declaring "see, this is a new form of beauty", or "the beauty of this piece stands outside the realm of aesthetics".

I personally prefer a Pollock over a Guston but I cannot deny Guston's own quest for beauty like I would not deny it to the local thrash-punk comic artist depicting splendid landscapes of green vomit.

I don't understand why people think a Louis Vutton bag looks good, but I can understand what it does to an Hermes bag and what an Hermes bag does to a Vuitton bag and what a standard bag bought in a thrift shop can do to both of them.

Outside of the shallow balance of beauty I am much more interested by character. In fact I tend to not think in terms of ugly and beauty but in terms of character. Everything is beautiful for the way things relate to each other, and what people think is ugly and beautiful are merely effects of temporality. To me Angelina Jolie is just a parcel of time and energy. Soon enough that energy will move elsewhere, so I can't attribute value to beauty in the temporal sense, that is just ridicule.

And besides, all our intestines smell,

Cheers,

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com


PS: That Pollock is hallucinogenic, but you got to stand there at 2 feets from it. In postcard it's less interesting. It's not about image but viscerality (it's a paint bukkake), though even as image it is quite baroque. From afar, it looks like the surface of a tree trunk. Tree trunks are beautiful.

11/07/2006 03:07:00 PM  
Anonymous J.T. Kirkland said...

Hmmm... I can't say that I've seen a single DeKooning that I've found to be beautiful. "Lavendar Mist" at the National Gallery of Art, on the other hand, I can stand in front of forever. Rothko is beautiful, but Pollock is powerful and beautiful. My order of preference:

1. Pollock
2. Rothko
and a distant 3. DeKooning

11/07/2006 09:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

nevertheless they are 3 different painters who were looking for very different things. It is a pity they were brough up together under the abstraction tag.

Tell me which you like most and I'll tell you what sort of art you like, sort of dilemna.

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com

11/07/2006 10:59:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

chris,

Borat rules!

11/08/2006 02:35:00 AM  
Blogger RobertoC said...

You can go back in time to Renaissance for an unexpectd (to me) example of "beautiful but
not pretty". I saw recently in Florence
Donatello's Maddalena penitente:

http://www.francescomorante.it/pag_2/204cf.htm

To me, orders of magnitude more moving than
Pollok's

11/08/2006 04:44:00 AM  
Blogger painterdog said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/08/2006 07:04:00 AM  
Blogger painterdog said...

Chris your wrong the Dems have the house and most of the Senate. Its over for Bush and company, they have been served a notice that enough is enough. In my state(Massachusetts) we elected the first black Governor and the second one in the history of the country.

I'm not a big fan of my state, it's kind of corrupt(aren't they all), but today I feel good, we the people voted for a man who handled himself with dignity and respected the opposisition and did not use any attack adds, he won by over 55% of the vote for acting like an adult and coming across as pretty straight forward.

It remains to be scene if the Democrates can start to turn the country around.


As for the beauty thread, well it's so subjective is it not?

I really love Carravagio, and I can also love the lushness of DeKooning's paintings.

I can stand for hours in front of a Rembrandt or Vermeer.

I can listen to Coltrane deconstruct a broadway tune and make it explode with creative energy, and I can listen to Bach or and obscure French composer Sainte Colombe and be brought to tears.

What is beauty, in the art world it can be a taboo subject to some. That painter that you saw, Nicola Verlato, now I think he has a lot of technique, but those things are kind of like movie posters to me, I like some of them but they don't make me go wow this is great painting. There very good and he can draw perspective real well, but...

I look at Freud and I think wow this guy can paint.

11/08/2006 07:05:00 AM  
Blogger Chris Rywalt said...

Painterdog sez:
That painter that you saw, Nicola Verlato, now I think he has a lot of technique, but those things are kind of like movie posters to me, I like some of them but they don't make me go wow this is great painting. There very good and he can draw perspective real well, but...

I humbly submit that you need to see Nicola's work in person. I mean, you need to see all paintings in person. We know that.

I'm not saying you'd change your mind. But hold off on judgement. Come down for a visit, we'll go together.

On the political side: I'm glad I was wrong about the Republicans. And regarding your state: Remember the unofficial motto of New Hampshire: "Live free or live in Massachusetts."

11/08/2006 09:19:00 AM  
Blogger painterdog said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/08/2006 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

New Hampshire has its problems, like out of control real estate taxes like New York.

Yeah, the problem for me about Verlato's work is it seems corny to me.

It looks technically amazing, but corny.

11/08/2006 02:07:00 PM  
Blogger Chris Rywalt said...

Painterdog sez:
Yeah, the problem for me about Verlato's work is it seems corny to me.

Hm. You may be right. One of his paintings does have Yoda in it.

Still, there's something about the composition that transcends the subject. For me.

Come on, take a quick drive down. Boston's not that far.

11/08/2006 04:53:00 PM  
Blogger prettylady said...

Boys, I have no idea what any of you are talking about. ;-)

But recently I did happen on in to the Whitney and take in that dreadful little show on the influence of Picasso, most distressing. Having had many Bad Experiences with Pollock knockers-off at SFAI ("I will Make The Drip Mine," they said, in all seriousness), I have never been much of a fan.

But next to the sea of flaccid Picasso minions, I was able to see the Pollock in a new light. It was not precisely a visual affair. It was more that the Pollock was generating a cohesive and powerful set of standing waves, a bit depressive and uncontrolled, but they existed. The pretenders around it were not doing so. They were cerebral only; signifiers of paintings, not actual living beings.

So, darlings, I have made my peace with Pollock.

11/08/2006 09:44:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

My dear prettlady:

1: we are talking about politics, if you have not noticed there has been a fair amount of voting going on this week.
Me thinks me lady that it is time to get off the cabana chair and pay attention to what is happening just outside your window.

2:Beauty, in relation to visual art and theories on the so mentioned "art" that have been bantered about for the last 2 centuries.

11/09/2006 09:26:00 AM  
Blogger prettylady said...

My dear painterdog:

i·ro·ny (ī'rə-nē, ī'ər-) pronunciation
n., pl. -nies.

1.
a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit.

11/09/2006 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/10/2006 03:16:00 AM  
Blogger painterdog said...

funny you don't look ironic.

I see you think your being smart.

Your rhetorical effect is, how should I say this, to full of airs.

What's with all the "my darlings" anyway?

11/10/2006 03:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Not sure I understand the original attack on Prettylady (she did use an emoticon), but I thought she gave a great example of how being in the right situation one could come to grip with Pollock's
art and finally understand what it is about.

It vibrates, darlings.

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com

11/10/2006 03:45:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

painterdog,

I think you misread Pretty Lady...having met her, I can attest that she's being ironic.

11/10/2006 08:14:00 AM  
Blogger painterdog said...

Its hard to sense the ironic on line, don't you think?

I got it the second time with the definition, but she is being a smart ass, which is ok.

We all have our moments. It's just there has been a lotgoing on this week and it seemed to me that she was yet another person who was not paying any attention, I stand corrected.

I can't tell how many people I know who are just so self involved that they don't even know or care about this weeks results.

It's amazing.

11/10/2006 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger painterdog said...

I was not talking about Pollock's work, the thread was on the lines of beauty and somehow the political events of the week as well. Which is understandable if you have been paying attention for at least one of the last 6 years.

11/10/2006 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Correction:

this thread was about beauty, not politics. Politics was the subject of other threads.

I do not have to care about this week's results as I do not live in USA. I do not give any importance to Bush and if people were doing the same maybe they wouldn't travel to Iraq in the first place. To me Bush has won unless he gets impeached, so whoever comes next.... I can tell you that is things go on in your country as they are now, with the country getting poorer and everybody entitled and owning their personal guns, I expect (as Edward sort pointed) future civil wars not too far from the hell that has been happening in Ireland.

So making things a big hatefulmonger fest between pro-bush and anti-bush is to me clearly not an option.

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com

11/10/2006 06:36:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

Ok Cedric,
dump on my country. Hey where do you live, in France, Germany, Canada? you know Europe has its problems as well. We may not have a perfect system, but this is a young country by Europian standards.

Has a lot of things to work out.

And yes being anti Bush is not only healthy its damn necessary in my view.

There had been several nod towards the political season in the thread.

Anyway I'm not going to argue with you.
I have my point of view and its obviously not in line with your own.

This is fine with me.

But to ignore politics is done in ones own peril.

My mothers family did just that before WW2 and 80% of died in camps.

You can't live in a bubble, you can try but its not going protect you from events.

11/11/2006 02:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Painterdog:
>>>>Anyway I'm not going to argue with >>>you.
>>>I have my point of view and its >>>obviously not in line with your >>own.
>>>This is fine with me.


Allright then, let's fight: Bing!
Boom! Pow! See where that sort of argument leads?

Half of your country is pro-democrat and the other pro-republican and you always end up in stubborn arguments.

Where's AGREEMENT???


Start from the bottom up.

Destroy both parties and repair the broken vase.

Hitler is a case of someone who got hold of the army (filled with young ignorants) and imposed its politics through the army. Indeed in the USA today you still get tons of young ignorants that enroll and move into Iraq. Start by informing them about the possibility of making their own minds. You won't end up with maniac mindcontrol as Hitlerism, Stallinism or Serbia.
I don't think that reducing the whole thing to pro or anti Bush is helping those young confused soldiers.


I think the whole principle of army, the way we are building them ("on guard !! Stand up !!!" Some big violent turd giving order by screaming and making everyone on their knees) is helping. I think a lot of wars start by the way we build and instruct our armies. Many genocides start by the army taking control because the army is NOTHING but ABOUT CONTROL.

Cheers,

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com

11/11/2006 01:24:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

Sorry my friend, I do mean to offend.
I hate Bush and his pary for what he/they represent.

I'm not a memeber of any party.
But history tells me that if you act like the Greeks the Spartins are just over the hill waiting for their moment.

You need armies and people who are willing to die. I know this sucks, but its the reality of human nature and politics.

We are a violent tribe on one level and on another we are peaceful and make great music and art,have culture, ect, ect.

The people who join up for the most part do so out of economics, in Germany they have national service, as in Sweden, and a few other Europian countries.

You have to read history, why wars start is not as simple as I have this big f'n army here and I need to use it.

This is something that Rumsfeld failed to do, read some history, maybe he and Bush should have started with the Fall of The Roman Empire.

11/11/2006 02:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

>>>why wars start is not as simple >>>as I have this big f'n army >>>>here and I need to use it.

Most genocides (Rwanda, Serbia, Germany, etc) are cases when the army got loose and took control, and the people doing the killings were young soldiers with no sense of moral but a will to hate and control. So the bigger your army the most dangerous it can turn against yourself: security creates the threat.


>>>You need armies and people who >>>are willing to die.

Eventually you will see how all the armements you are creating will turn against yourself and you will see it happening at the corners of your street.


>>read some history




The history I come from, people were interested by ideas of alliances and cosmopolitism, and they perceived any resolve to war as a failure.



Cheers,

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com

11/12/2006 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger painterdog said...

I'm Sorry using Rwanda, Serbia as examples for not having a well trained military seems counter productive.

In the case of Serbia and Bosnia, Kosovo it took the threat and action of force(and the use of military action) to get the situation under control.

Rwanda, was a genocide carried out by one tribe against another, I don't think you can blame this on the fact they had an army, it's to simple, most people were butcherd with macheties, not guns, and by Hutu militias.

If the world(UN had properly responded with a military force thie could have been prevented.
evil

I agree with on princaple but I think the world is to complicated for us to just say give peace a chance, I'm not advocating war mongering, I think we should only use the military for defense and humanitary missions, like the tsunami in the Indian ocean.

Bin Ladden wants to hurt you just because your a westerner, and trying to talk to him and his lot seems kind of pointless as they seem to have proved that they don't want to.

Yes resolve to war is a sign of failure, as it was the failure of Neville Chamberlain and other European leaders to deal with Hitler swiftly and with extreme prejudice that we ened up with a world war.

I think we are talking about the same thing through differant lenses, that is our perceptions of history, personal, and world view, are based on our education, nationality, family background, etc.


cheers

11/12/2006 01:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home