Evening Out

McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas. I paid eleven dollars for a ham sandwich and a bottle of water at Starbucks. After my sandwich, I put a dollar in a slot machine and won nine more. I’m going to say that’s breaking even because I actually won eleven dollars, but in the end I pushed my luck. Ten felt satisfactory. Something was truly accomplished in winning ten dollars (even though it was nine). A round number. It’s symmetrical. It looks good on paper. And that’s despite the fact Starbucks charged me a gratuitous amount for a ham sandwich.

Despite the fact? I often do.

A week ago I saw the “Action/Abstraction” show at the St. Louis Art Museum. The exhibit focuses on Pollack, de Kooning, etc. Adam Roberts talked me into going, and into standing in line. Our friend Kate and Adam’s sister came along, which made it better for me because then I had a reason to be charming. Adam’s seen my charm—it’s not so charming after 12 years.

Inside the exhibit, paint filled canvases denying the viewer’s entrance. My entrance. These were not landscapes, or at least, not picturesque landscapes. There was no nostalgia here. Something as alienating as abstract art is inherently anti-democratic. It’s tyrannical. Yet abstract provokes. It’s compelling. Landscape painting, in general, is sublime but without sublimity. Landscapes, even large “scary” mountainscapes remain within a frame work. They are too still to really move, or to move reality. However, a large scale canvas, all black with no frame, rebels against boundaries. The abstraction makes the brain jealous and angry, whereas the landscape “soothes.” The inclusiveness of landscape art and its boring qualities point to the same nature of democracy; whereas the abstraction’s exclusivity implies the interestingness of tyranny.

But you already know that, devoted internet user. Loyal limit transgressor. The “web-browser” is part of a generation growing up without boundaries, and a government, an old government, that insists on establishing them (you don’t have to look so far as the Middle East when people want to build a wall between the US and Mexico). These two things run contrary to each other, but we could not have one without the other—no? Isn’t the internet going to bring democracy to oppressive states? And aren’t oppressive states going to influence the “free world” the more the two interact. Why build a wall between Mexico and America—for the most part, the two nations possess very similar values. Despite what I think of China personally, the US and China have historically opposed each other religiously, economically and politically. Yet, this is the nation we’ve sold ourselves to. I would say God Bless America, but I don’t think the Chinese would approve (of the traditional Judeo-Christian God or of my irony).

It will even out though (let’s be optimistic—it’s the New Year). We might lose a dollar here and there, but who’s counting? We might give out several billion dollars to “stimulate” the economy, but we can always round up the results. It does not matter that government handouts and capitalism sound discordant because the more “liberal” we become the more we become “communists.” And the terms don’t matter because the actions don’t. If de Kooning makes a whirling black mess on a canvass and I don’t get it the consequence is zero because the landscape artist will just give it to me. He gives it away like a cheap consolation prize. For free. But both pieces are art, right? Am I less sophisticated if I hang a John Martin painting on my wall instead of a Pollack? Let’s be honest, if you from the bourgeoisie and you have any paintings on your wall, you’re doing better than your peers (so long as you did not purchase it at a mall). And this paragraph in general, is not cohesive, and I never really develop an idea. I think the point is, I don’t have to because on the obverse side of my life, someone is counteracting my actions, finishing my statements, losing while I’m winning, and eating while I’m going hungry. Eventually we’ll switch.

So I’m going to spend everything. Whatever anyone can give me. Today I bought plants, nails, a skillet, some doll rods, hangers (plastic not wire), and a spicy polish with everything. I might have to pay it back in one fashion or another, but somebody’s sucking on the ones sucking on me. As I’m giving out, someone’s taking-in. Who’s in the middle might be constant, but then what is? In the end, it might be me wiping the excess from the corners of my mouth. Instead of buying dinner with a Mastercard, perhaps one night I’ll be eating Mastercard. I know these metaphors are silly and confuse the matter at hand, but isn’t that the point of tyranny? Isn’t that the point of this?

I mean, after all, this is a democracy.



At least I wrote it out. I could have painted a big black mess.