Author Archives: Gabriel Rom

Event Recap: Graham Priest Lecture

Posted on by
Reply

Event: Larwill Lecture in Philosophy: Graham Priest
Date: February 25th 2013
Location: Higley Auditorium
Correspondent: Andrew Stewart

Professor Graham Priest of the University of Melbourne and the CUNY Graduate Center visited Kenyon this week, giving a Philosophy Department Larwill Lecture. His visit, significantly hyped in philosophy and math circles here at Kenyon, did not disappoint.

Priest is well-known (and infamous) for his work in paraconsistent logic. Such systems oppose the “explosive” theory of logic, which is associated with the so-called “classical” (early-20th century) logic currently taught in textbooks. According to the explosive theory, say that some contradiction, “A and not-A,” is true. Using the rules of classical logic, one can use this premise to prove any proposition at all, including that the world is round, the world is flat, and 3+4=128. Consequently, classical logicians feel they have good reason to avoid contradictions at all costs. Paraconsistent systems of logic oppose the explosive theory. Within such systems, it is not the case that any old contradiction can be used to prove absolutely anything. In a typical paraconsistent system, propositions have one of three truth-values: “True,” “False,” or “True and False.” Yes, you read me right: there are systems of logic that actually allow (some) contradictions.

Considering Priest advocates a departure from classical logic that is, at least at first glance, so radical, it is not surprising that Priest’s lecture topic was “Revising Logic.” He began his talk by reassuring the audience that there would be “no squiggles involved” and that no background in formal logic was necessary to understand what he had to say. This was a talk in the philosophy of logic, not logic proper. He kept his promise: there were no squiggles! Nevertheless, a bit more background in epistemology and semantics would have been helpful for understanding his finer points, as some of his concluding arguments went a bit over my head.

A common move in contemporary debates on logic is to claim that logic cannot be revised. Priest argued that revision has happened in the past and continues to be possible. He discussed the potential for revision in three different types of logic: logica docens (what is taught in logic textbooks), logica utens (what we actually use), and logica ens (logic in itself: the “truth” about logic). Priest’s first contention was that Western logic has, in fact, changed a great deal over time, particularly during chunks of activity in ancient Greece, the Middle Ages, and the early 20th century. The concept of explosion, for example, does not go all the way back the ancient Greeks: it was first articulated during the Middle Ages, neglected, and then rediscovered in the 20th century.

Priest argued that many past revisions to logics extended their application and relevance. For future revisions to be rational, logicians should remember that a given logica docens is essentially a theory to compare to other logics. Changes ought to be based on criteria such as unifying power, adequacy to data, and simplicity. As for logica utens–the use of logic–it should stay in line as much as possible with the theory provided by logica docens. Some particular situations, though, might call for use of a slightly different logic for practical reasons. As for logica ens, or the truth of logic, Priest claimed that it might be revisable, or perhaps not, depending on one’s standard for what constitutes validity.

I would imagine that lectures on logic have a tendency to become dry, but Priest’s talk was both accessible and captivating. He was enthusiastic, articulate, and relaxed. Rather than doing injustice to intricate issues by trying to provide all of the answers in a short time, he presented an appropriate amount of material, leaving many questions open. Though his talk was fairly general and did not get into the details of alternative logics, I think his topic is critical to a clearer understanding of academic discourse. Very often, we think of logic as a set of unchanging rules to which one must appeal to produce a valid argument. The notion that there can be revision and progress in logic might change the relationship of other disciplines to it. Revision also reveals that the particular discipline of logic has just as much of a demand for innovation as other fields. More broadly, revision might also challenge certain things we thought we could take for granted about the connections between language, mathematics, and the structure of the universe. Or maybe not. Or maybe both.

Event Recap: The Kenyon Torah (Lecture and Discussion)

Posted on by
1

Event: The Kenyon Torah (Lecture and Discussion)
Date: February 12th 2013
Location: Gund Gallery
Correspondent: Jessica Lieberman

On Tuesday, February 12th, Peter Haas, visiting professor of Jewish studies from Case Western Reserve University, presented his research on what he termed “The Mysterious Torah of Knox County, Ohio.”  This discussion of the Kenyon Torah falls under the umbrella of the year-long symposium run through the Kenyon Review and the Gund Gallery, which raises questions of Art and Identity in light of the challenges of post-Holocaust cultural ownership.  After being introduced by Religious Studies professor Miriam Dean-Otting, Haas outlined his approach to the Torah.  An anthropologist by training, he identified the various layers of complicated symbolism which lead to the object’s unique personality.

3577767934

The crux of his concerns had to with the Torah’s mysterious history.  The scroll was purchased and donated to Kenyon under the assumption that it had survived the Holocaust.  Although the Torah did in fact come from eastern-Europe and hence could possibly have survived the Holocaust, the specific narrative that had been connected with the scroll was invented by the scribe who restored it, Rabbi Menachem Youlus. However, apart from the legal and political complexities of this scandal, more interesting moral and symbolic ambiguities linger over the scroll.   This misuse of the memory and trauma of the Holocaust raises serious questions as to how to treat both the scribe and the Torah.  That is, in the Judaic tradition, the Torah scribe (the sofer) is granted great respect for his dedication to G-d and his teachings (the text of the Torah).  The job is not a glamorous one, but rather a  precise and arduous labor (it can take years to finish a Torah) that is undertaken for reasons of religious zeal and interest in the continuity of tradition.  Therefore Youlus’ misrepresentation of the holy book has inspired a kind of cognitive dissonance (in Haas’ terms) in the Jewish community at large.

However, perhaps more pertinent to the Kenyon community is the question of the Torah itself and how, if at all, its meaning and sacrality have been altered by these events.  Haas approached the question of the Torah’s nuanced meaning through a sort of stratigraphical mapping its symbolism.  He began by explaining the symbolism which surrounds all Torot.  The Torah is both central and essential to the Jewish tradition.  The object is the most sacred in the religion and the contents of the scroll constitute the core narratives and values of Judaism.   The next layer that Haas urged the audience to consider was the symbolism created by the Torah’s purchase.  Despite the developments which would come out later, the Torah was purchased and received under the understanding that it had survived the Holocaust.  That gesture in itself speaks volumes to the commitment of its donors to Judaic history and practice.   Thus, Haas argued that rather than viewing the Torah as tainted by the profanity of human-wrong doing, we should appreciate it as having a complicated engagement with a human history that is flawed.  From this perspective, Haas argued that we should approach the events surrounding the Torah as a teaching moment, a notion which couldn’t seem more appropriate to me, given that the word Torah itself is commonly translated as “teaching,” and that the text puts forth a definition of Judaism that holds the struggle for identity through narrativizing at its very core.

Event Recap: The Prep School Negro Screening…When Otherness Follows.

Posted on by
Reply

Event: The Prep School Negro: a film by André Robert Lee
Date: February 11th 2013
Location: Gund Gallery
Correspondent: Andrew Firestone

In September of 1952, Bill Lowry left Chicago and headed east to Gambier, Ohio to begin his first year at Kenyon College. By the end of his first week, he had walked onto the football team, and by the end of his four years, Lowry would go on to letter in football, baseball and basketball. Throughout his time at Kenyon while excelling academically, athletically and socially, one aspect of Bill Lowry’s identity outwardly defined him: he was one of eight African-American students that graduated in the 1950s.

One weekend in late April of last year, Lowry returned to Kenyon for one of his last visits to the hill as a member of the Board of Trustees. I was lucky enough to meet him at a Diversity Advisory Council meeting. As a group, we read through a number of anonymous student narratives and discussed their unfiltered experiences.

One narrative recreated a scene in which two white students entered Peirce when one of them blurted out, “why do all of the black kids sit together, that shit really pisses me off…” After we all finished reading the narrative Bill Lowry started chuckling, his lips curling into a smile, “back when I was a student nobody talked about a black table – there were only three of us!”

Monday evening filmmaker and producer Andre Robert Lee visited Kenyon for a screening and discussion of his documentary, provocatively titled, The Prep School Negro. In the film, Lee addresses the experience of entering a private high school as a student of color, and related themes of the intersections of race, class and private education. In the discussion following the screening, Lee admitted that remembering his journey through Germantown Friends School in Philadelphia allowed him to deeply reflect on the multiple layers of his identity.

As a white student at Kenyon I cannot personally speak to the experience of being a student of color. Rather, I spoke with some students who attended the screening of The Prep School Negro and asked them if the subject of the film applied to their experiences at Kenyon. One student explained that, “as a student of color I find myself often having to answer questions about my identity. Much like my time at prep school, my experience at Kenyon has made me the other. Although I love the people here and appreciate my time here, the reality of my otherness, my identity as one of a few female students of color on campus, follows me everywhere I go.”

I will never know what that feels like. I can read The Souls of Black Folk an infinite number of times but I will never be able to fully appreciate W.E.B. Du Bois’s reflection on the reality of the double-consciousness projected onto people of color. But that does not mean that the subject of The Prep School Negro and the legacy of Bill Lowry’s Kenyon career are irrelevant to me or to other white students.

Andre Robert Lee’s film suggests that one definition of agency is the ability to name one’s self. As long as some students do not feel that they are seen as individuals, it is our responsibility to continue to reflect on the nuanced layers of all of our identities. It has been almost sixty years since Bill Lowry graduated from Kenyon. Since then, the first class of women matriculated in 1969, and the student body has continued to evolve. It has been these additions to the Kenyon community that have strengthened its bonds and revised its mission. Therefore, as we move forward, it is our obligation to carry on this legacy.

Event Recap: Hao Tang Lecture on Wittgenstein

Posted on by
Reply

This post is part of a new series by the Kenyon Observer which aims to cover the intellectual life on Kenyon’s campus. In the near future we will feature audio and video of lectures and events alongside commentary from our departmental correspondents. 

Event: Hao Tang Lecture
Department: Philosophy
Date: February 4th 2013
Location: Hayes 109
Correspondent: Javier Leung

Wittgenstein and the Dualism of the Inner and the Outer

Professor Hao Tang of Wuhan University came to Kenyon this week to present a lecture on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein titled “Wittgenstein and the Dualism of the Inner and the Outer”.  One of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century, Wittgenstein is primarily known for his philosophy of language, on which his views on logic, culture and psychology are based – Tang’s lecture, as the title suggests, addressed an important concern in psychology and the mind that Wittgenstein raises.

Wittgenstein’s philosophy is grounded in the premise that all thought is based on language; what can be said is the same as what can be thought, thus in order to understand one’s thoughts one must acquire an understanding of the nature of language. Language equips one with a mind. From this assumption, a distinction between what is considered “my thoughts” and “your thoughts” naturally follows; there are thoughts that seem to be private, and as Tang explains, we all make this distinction in everyday life. But this distinction undergoes a deformation – as seen in the history of philosophy, it has transformed into a problematic dualism.

This “dualism” is between the “inner” and “outer” views of the mind. Proponents of the inner – Descartes being a classical representative – assume a “private language”, so-called in Wittgenstein’s framework. Inner thoughts remain intelligible even if outer ones are not, and this leads to a kind of solipsism where we can never have access to other people’s thoughts. However, rejecting private language appears to result only in philosophical behaviorism, which considers only our outer behavior and dismisses inner thoughts as convenient fictions. The result is a dualistic view of the mind as being either inner or outer, two domains which are only independently intelligible.

Tang explained, in line with Wittgenstein, that these views do injustice to common sense; for example, when we see someone else in pain, we know they’re in pain – a claim which this dualism denies. Drawing from Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, Tang set out in his lecture to resolve this dualism by rejecting the intellectualist assumption of language (see Wittgenstein’s theory of language-games). Primitive expressions like “ouch!”, “yuck!” and “wow!”, examples of what Tang termed the “expressives function of language”, give us the key to resolving the dualism between the inner and the outer because in each case there is an immediate unity between the two.

This argument, Tang acknowledged, runs into difficulties within Wittgenstein’s framework of language; he thus explained that we must begin with an objection to Wittgenstein. While Wittgenstein seems to suggest that sensory consciousness is shaped by our language, Tang pointed out that there are non-linguistic, primitive expressions of sensation. These expressions, he explained, show a unity between the inner and the outer, such as crying when one is in pain – crying and pain, in the sensory consciousness of a child, are a whole. Tang therefore suggested that all we need is a reminder of some kind of unity between the inner and outer in order to resolve this dualism; recalling non-linguistic unities work just as well as expressives unities. Rather than merely rejecting the intellectualism of language like Wittgenstein, therefore, Tang presented a rejection of intellectualism in sensory consciousness.

Tang proposed a resolution to dualism based on his interpretation of Wittgenstein’s descriptions on learning sensation-languages. To learn a language is to acquire an intellect, and this begins with sensation-language. This is achieved through what Tang calls “incision”; children learn linguistic expressions that expand their primitive non-linguistic expressions, such as saying “ouch!” instead of merely crying, and later, “it hurts!” In this view, there is a simultaneous growth of both the inner and outer originating in our primitive expressions, resolving the problematic dualism. Our original primitive expressions, Tang explained, are submerged in a sea of language which has become increasingly and predominantly intellectual – we only need to be reminded of them to get ourselves out of the chimera of problematic dualism. Tang concluded the lecture by referring us to Wittgenstein’s quote of Goethe: language is a refinement – “in the beginning was the deed”.

Although many questions yet remain, such as how the first incision of linguistic expression can occur, Tang’s lecture was nonetheless fascinating and very stimulating. Having only studied very little of Wittgenstein’s philosophy, I found it hard to understand all of what was being discussed in the lecture, but Tang’s approach and exciting topic certainly re-kindled my interest in Wittgenstein – and his hope that the philosophical diseases of our age may be cured once and for all.

Event Recap: J Robert Lennon Reading

Posted on by
Reply

This post is the first in a new series by the Kenyon Observer which aims to cover the intellectual life on Kenyon’s campus. In the near future we will feature audio and video of lectures and events alongside commentary from our departmental correspondents. 

Event: J Robert Lennon Reading
Department: English / Creative Writing
Date: February 4th 2013
Location: Cheever Room of Finn House
Correspondent: Jessica Lieberman

J Robert Lennon. From: http://otherpeoplepod.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/LennonLit.jpg

As the snow fell quietly outside this Monday afternoon (2/4), J Robert Lennon gave a reading of his recent fiction to an audience of staff and students in the Cheever Room of Finn House.  After a double introduction by Kenyon Review Editor, David Lynn, and Fellow, Elizabeth Rogers, Lennon read from a recently written, unpublished short story as well as an excerpt from his newest  (and seventh) novel, Familiar. In addition to being a prolific and much-anthologized writer of fiction, Lennon is also a blogger, a widely published reviewer, and a writing professor in the Cornell MFA program, where he met Rogers.

His short story, “Doors,” explored a couple’s relationship through the lens of their attitudes towards the doors in their home.  The meditations are incited by a robin’s nest that has suddenly appeared over the front door.   The story flowed smoothly between narration of the two characters’ gendered conceptions of the domestic space, into self-psychologyizing investigations of their relationships to threshholds.  While the husband’s analysis followed a more Freudian line of reasoning of blaming his mother’s habits for his own flaws, the wife understood her relationship to doors on a more symbolic level, acknowledging their meaning in almost literary terms.  Finally, the piece came to a close with a narrative shift to the mother bird’s perspective as it lamented the lifeless egg that would never hatch outside the couples’ door.  This last gesture bent the narrative arch back to the first image, enacting the symbolism of the mourned egg.

Next, Lennon read an excerpt from Familiar.  The protagonist of the story, Elisa Brown, has recently discovered herself in an alternate reality, wherein her son had never passed away (as he did in her original reality).  This alternate life includes a new husband, job, appearance, and routine.  Crucially, however, Elisa does not know the narrative of this new life and must use the clues she finds around her in order to perform her expected roles (professional, marital, etc.).  The portion that Lennon read in Cheever painted a detailed portrait of her first morning in this world.  The thoughtful, magical-realist writing explored the phenomenon of the psychological breakdown from the ever fascinating and paradoxical lens of a rational narrator (“Thus, I am insane.”)  The excerpt also built upon the themes of difficult marriages and psychology established earlier by his reading of “Doors.”

During the Question and Answer session, KR Fellow Natalie Shapero asked Lennon about the inspiration for the plot of Familiar.  Lennon explained that the central aspect of the plot had been inspired by his reaction to September 11th, a feeling that the world had somehow been completely alerted.  Although he wrote a draft exploring the idea in 2001, it was his revisiting of the text eight years later that lead to the revisions, which comprised the published novel.  As a more mature person and writer, Lennon’s vision changed somewhat.  The text expanded to include a discussion of the challenges of parenting, such as the impossibility of knowing in which ways you have caused your children’s successes and failures, he explained, with a critical self-awareness reminiscent of his characters’.

The Briefing: Inside Obama’s Presidency, Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia and Professions Ranked by Employment

Posted on by
1

PBS Frontline and Longreads: Inside Obama’s Presidency

“FRONTLINE and Longreads have partnered up to cull the best long-form reporting and reading on President Obama’s first term, organized below by category for your reading pleasure.

The New York Times: Morsi’s Slurs Against Jews Stir Concern 

“We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews,” Mr. Morsi declared. Egyptian children “must feed on hatred; hatred must continue,” he said. “The hatred must go on for God and as a form of worshiping him.”

The New York Times: A Trail of Bullet Casings Leads From Africa’s Wars Back to Iran

“Within two years other researchers were finding identical cartridges circulating through the ethnic violence in Darfur. Similar ammunition then turned up in 2009 in a stadium in Conakry, Guinea, where soldiers had fired on antigovernment protesters, killing more than 150.”

The Atlantic: The Real Cuban Missile Crisis

“Kennedy and his civilian advisers understood that the missiles in Cuba did not alter the strategic nuclear balance.”

al-Arabiya: Breakthrough in Saudi Arabia: women allowed in parliament.

“The decision is good but women issues are still hanging,” said Wajeha al-Hawidar, a prominent Saudi female activist. ‘For normal women, there are so many laws and measures that must be suspended or amended for woman to be dealt with as grown-ups and adults, without a mandate from guardians.”

Wall Street Journal: Unemployment Rates by Profession

“The U.S. unemployment rate is 7.8%, but that varies widely by profession.” [It's a good day to be a bio-medical engineer, and a bad one for forest conservation workers. See how you stack up.]

Kenyon Responds to The Election

Posted on by
4

The Observer asked students, professor and administrators to talk about their reaction to last night’s election and the future of the United States.

Kyle Henderson – Associate Vice President for College Relations

“I find it inspiring that so many students – as many as 800 by some counts – registered to vote here in Knox County.  For most of you this is likely your first Presidential election, and you could not have picked a better place to be an important part of our democracy.  I hope you’ll share your experience with others and help make this a Kenyon tradition that lasts.”

Katharine Weber – Richard L. Thomas Visiting Professor of Creative Writing

“I am hugely elated to look ahead to teaching next semester in the great state of Ohio, which has played such a significant role in returning Barack Obama to the White House for a second term. (Even though at this moment the Romney campaign refuses to concede Ohio.)”

Michael Hayes 14′

“The President of the United States of America called for the equality of the gay citizens of this country in his acceptance speech last night, observed with elation across the globe. Our nation’s first openly gay Senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), was elected, and several more of these United States have voted in favor of marriage equality. The efforts of the LGBT community, of which I am so proudly a part, to affirm to the children of this country that “it gets better” have been appropriately desperate and genuinely concerted. This election has shown these discouraged and frightened young Americans, those who many of us are or were, that this affirmation was not made in vain, that we have the support of our head of state and our nation and that it is always getting better. Never have I felt so proud to be a citizen of this remarkable country.”

Devon Beeny 15′

“I was a little surprised at how quickly the race ended. I found it a little anti-climactic. It was really close and then it wasn’t at all. I am glad President Obama pulled out an electoral win and just hope that he can win the popular vote. I think we will have a lot of gridlock if the President doesn’t have a popular vote majority.”

Max Rappaport 14′

“While I’m definitely not opposed to four more years, I’m not an emphatic supporter of Obama and can’t display the zeal for him that many of his supporters seem to display unconditionally. Regardless, I’m looking forward to what the next term will hold.”

Benjamin Ros 14′

“OW-BAMA!”

Andrew Gabel 15′

“”In an election that should have been about America’s economic
stagnation, it’s $16 trillion dollar debt, trillion dollar yearly
deficits and a grossly unfair tax and regulatory structure, we were
instead treated to months of ad hominem attacks and “binders full of
women”.  Has there ever been a presidential campaign in the history of
United States so entirely unworthy of it’s significance?  Over the
next four years, America faces serious and difficult choices that will
determine its trajectory in the 21st century.  One hopes that when the
day comes to make these choices, it will do so with more seriousness
than it displayed in the 2012 presidential campaign.”

Melanie Shelton 13′

“I AM SO FUCKING HAPPY! Not only did Obama win, but same-sex couples can now legally marry in Maine. I’m feeling relieved, and more hopeful about our country than I have in a while. And I’m so proud of my home state.”

Andrew Firestone 14′

“Who knows what’s in store. President Obama’s victory in 2008 was followed by a recession that constrained his agenda and complicated his desire to effect real change. Today immigration deserves comprehensive reform, the unemployment rate hovers just under 8%, health care continues to pit states against the federal government, and congress will likely remain incredibly divided.

The threat of terrorism looms, Greece remains in peril, Iran continues to enrich uranium and Prime Minister Netenyahu has asserted that he does not need support from the United States to attack Iran’s underground nuclear bunker. Syria is slipping deeper into a conflict that is no longer a civil war and militants from surrounding countries are flocking to the region to join the fight. The list goes on and on. Simply put, though, I was quite scared by the prospect of Mitt Romney facing all of those things in the Oval Office. I believe in the President’s conviction – I have faith in his vision – and I look forward to witnessing the full realization of his liberal politics in the national and international arenas.”

Andrew Stewart 15′

“The American people themselves can accomplish a lot between now and the next election. We shouldn’t just sit back and silently pray that our politicians will find time to do whatever they claim to be good at. They should be held accountable every day, not just on Election Day.”

Qossay Alsattari 15′

“It is very promising to see Americans peruse change. President Obama is attempting to lead Americans towards progress.”

Sam Whipple 16′

“As a freshman who’s finally able to vote, and lucky enough to be working in a state that matters so much, I’m deeply emotional about tonights results; for myself, for this campus, and for the country. I spent most of today, like I did for the rest of the past two months, with many of the best and brightest of the Kenyon Democrats. We canvassed today in Columbus, which ended up blue for the president, and to see Ohio emerge as the state that pushed the President past 270 was so intensely gratifying for all of us. We chose to stick with CNN, and even as each of us was texted about the results being confirmed in Ohio, we stayed cautiously optimistic until the very last votes. The president’s reelection tonight I know means a validation of all of our hard work, and of the efforts that the First Lady urged us to on Saturday – we fought for Ohio and its nice to know how much it mattered. The president told us at the DNC that we were the change we wanted, and I’m pretty sure every member of the kenyon dems feels that way tonight. Truly extraordinary.”

James Dennin 13′

“Knew it. Elizabeth Warren 2016.”

Tyler Dierke 13′

“My first thoughts after hearing about Obama’s re-election is the off-air comments to Medvedev about having “flexibility” after election. While in context the comment referred to missile defense, I think that Obama will apply this “flexibility” to many other aspects of his position. And if that means to expand further on what he did (or didn’t do) during his first term, it may be a pretty alarming future for our generation. Thankfully, I already have a job lined up, so good luck to everyone else.”

The Kenyon Observer’s Election Coverage

Posted on by
Reply

Here we go folks. America’s long national nightmare is (almost) over. Just kidding, who doesn’t like the spectacle of election day?

Head over to The Kenyon Thrill for some great up-to-date election coverage. Stay tuned to The Observer blog for some of the best interactive election features around the web, as well as student and staff reaction to tonight as election results begin to unfold.

The AV: The Politics of Hysteria

Posted on by
2

The AV is TKO’s occasional foray into politics via multimedia.

When we watch the debates is there a certain personal truth about the candidates that is relayed to us? Do their mannerisms, rhythm of speech, and of course, the content of their speech itself, bring us closer to understanding the candidates as human beings? Or is the spectacle of the debate so shrouded in faux-objectivity that we can’t go a second without keeping our hands on our wallets, feeling like the objects of skillful manipulation?

To put it another way, is the viewer’s desire for an emotional connection with a politician naive? When we hear phrases like ‘binder full of women’ or a witty retort, we grab onto these small instances as glimpses behind the veneer of production. What a robot that Mitt is! I could definitely see myself getting a beer with Barack, what a funny guy. What does Romney really mean when he says that ‘he loves teachers?’  It is this compulsion for intimacy that was behind New York based artist, Liz Magic Laser‘s project ‘I Feel Your Pain.‘

In the modern era, politicians want to reach out to the viewer, clasp their shoulder, and whisper in their ear, I am the guy for you. Laser takes this gooey core of American politics and pushes it into absurdity. By transferring the emotional energies of the politician to that of the actor, Laser collapses their distinction. The art of politics is reduced to emotional pornography.

A photo from J. R. Eyerman’s iconic 1952 series. Are we living in a society of the spectacle?

Laser’s piece is provoking, but does it treat intimacy with too much condescension? Isn’t our desire for a connection with those who will govern our country natural? Shouldn’t we want to be connected? The inclination to understand our politicians is a healthy civic duty and showmanship is nothing new to the political stage. But the desire to see our politicians bare it all is arguably a new phenomenon. Such a desire is partially predicated on willful ignorance since the ‘common man’ is a rhetorical construction that awkwardly groups together individuals that might have nothing in common with one another but the numbers on their paycheck. But there is also a component of deep cynicism. We want to poke our politicians in the flesh. Are you real? Do you feel what I feel? As Laser says, “what is your real agenda, Mr. President?” We have so little trust in the political process that we grope for any hint of authenticity. A snicker or a wink is a treat, an emotional breakdown is catnip. Reverence is for suckers. To crave authenticity is tantamount to rolling our politicians in the mud. Dirty them up, we say, make them seem just like us.