Wednesday, October 22, 2008

out there is cool


“AVANT-GARDES HAVE ONLY ONE TIME; and the best thing that can happen to them is to have enlivened their time without outliving it.” Guy Debord throws down this critique near the end of his last film, In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni (1978), a 100-minute Niagara of images stolen from cinema and magazines, détourned into illustrative counterpoint for an anti-masscult philippic interwoven with autobiographical self-reflection. Debord’s films have long been banished to a shadow economy of bootlegs, but now In girum resurfaces at the New York Film Festival’s “Views from the Avant-Garde” sidebar in a freshly subtitled 35-mm blowup. Encountering Debord’s words today, as they further an elaborate military analogy spoken atop footage from a cinematic depiction of the Crimean War, it is impossible not to reinterpret his language now as an autodestructive maneuver, deftly undermining his own twenty-first-century legacy as academic commodity in the nostalgia trade of May ’68 philosophical memorabilia.
Yet this week’s context also raises the question of what constitutes avant-garde film as it enters its second century. For Debord, found-footage tinkering serves to articulate a cultural negation and an anti-aesthetic: “This film disdains the image scraps of which it is composed,” he declares. Such a sentiment clashes harshly with the predominantly Anglo-American tradition of experimental film and video showcased elsewhere during “Views,” which in its current incarnation wholeheartedly savors moments of optic beauty and rejects an overt engagement with theory in favor of a more Deweyan practice of art as experience. Which is not to say that the transatlantic avant-garde has no politics, as witnessed by the curators’ retrospective tribute to the late Bruce Conner, who remixed stolen images of mainstream mindlessness into rhythmic mental benders of deep-punk subversion like A Movie (1958), Report (1967), and America Is Waiting (1982). Contra Debord, Conner had his Pop and ate it, too.
Fittingly, the program also showcases the newest feature by Bay Area underground stalwart Craig Baldwin. A man who could pass for Debord and Conner’s love child, he is known for stitching together fragments from old industrials, B movies, and other celluloid detritus into feature-length derangements of American culture that conjure up the bugaboos of the nation’s own paranoid narratives. Baldwin’s first digitally edited work, Mock Up on Mu (2008), spins a lurid sci-fi fairy tale around the true-ish story of occult dabbler and aerospace pioneer Jack Parsons, invoking a menagerie of his real-life confidantes, including self-proclaimed Antichrist Aleister Crowley, New Age progenitor Marjorie Cameron, and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.
Baldwin’s high-impact machine-gun montage couldn’t be further from the languor of his contemporary James Benning, who will screen what he claims will be his final 16-mm film, RR (2008), a collection of precisely calibrated long takes of trains passing through sublime stretches of American landscape. Both an unabashed paean to the beauties of the machine age and a stealth metaphor for the chugging, linear mechanics of cinema, RR nevertheless includes its own gestures toward cultural disquiet, including audio of readings from the Book of Revelations and a recording of Eisenhower’s denunciation of the military-industrial complex. Benning’s endorsement of unhurried acts of looking stands as an implicit critique of the attention-deficit age, and even here one might circle back to Debord: In one segment of RR, an off-camera radio plays snatches from a classic jingle for Coca-Cola, providing Benning with his own détournement moment. “That’s the way it is and the way it will stay,” a woman’s voice sings. “What the world wants today is the real thing.”
— Ed Halter

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

their satanic majesties request


Always know when to leave the party

-jeffery mcnary

This site attempts to put forth bits of art and culture and politics. It's soft and entertaining and enlightening...and hardly partisan. But now, we just gotta call on the gentleman from Arizona to spare himself, his family, and this republic any further embarasment. JUST DO IT. Say 'I'm sorry' to your class at USNA. Say "I'm sorry" to 'your friends' you ratted out. Say "I'm sorry", to the gallant Vietnamese people, and say 'I'm sorry', to the American people for attempting to feed on their ignorance with your ignorance and ambition. Sara Palin? You, sir, are the only bitch at this table. So finish your meal, wipe yo' face, and click up this tune on the way out of the door. Just like ol' times, yes?

by the curved river

jeffery mcnary

l'OH, j' ai essayé de vous
connaîtreet vendu tous
j'ai possédépour se réveiller dans votre paumepour entrer dans votre souffle
… commisj'ai laissé tomber tous
et viens courantdans la pratique
et éloge je regarde fixementet recherche de lumière de matincroiser le plancher de marbre froidà où il y a plaisiren partageant ma chanson sacrée silencieuse…
et distancenous venons aux limites avec les ancientsje… le magicien à votre autel
…contact
… saisissant l'airdans le mouvement frénétique, pendant quelque temps le magelà…
vous, sachant mon vrai nomlà
… nous brûlons, triomphons et évasons, saint-commeun saupoudrage
de neige couvre les raisonsde nos joursje suis arrivé en hiver, et notification maintenant,maintenant je vis à l'intérieur, le comiqueà l'intérieur d'où vous tendez le feuintérieur, seul en commune et bonbon…
se lever d'encens
à travers la route
… le fleuve incurvé que j'ai quitté
… ces cloches et définitions apparentéescomme vous
apparaissez et disparaissezécoutez
moicomme vous
apparaissez et disparaissezécoutez
ma viecomme vous
apparaissez
et disparaissezécoutez ma logique
… et entendez mon compline



oh, i have tried to know you
and sold all i owned
to wake in your palm
to move into your breath
…committed
i have dropped all and come running

in practice and praise i stare
and search for light of morning
crossing the cold marble floor
to where there is pleasure
in sharing my silent sacred song
…and distance

we come to terms with the ancients
me…the magician at your altar…
touching…grasping the air
in frenzied motion, awhile the magus
there …you, knowing my real name
there…we burn, triumph and flare, saint-like

a dusting of snow covers the grounds
these days
i arrived in winter, and notice now,
now i live inside, the comic
inside where you tend the fire
inside, alone in commune and sweet
…incense rising

across the road
...the curved river i've left
...these bells and definitions akin

as you appear and disappear
listen to me
as you appear and disappear
listen to my life
as you appear and disappear
listen to my logic
...and hear my compline

cartesian fear?

Alas, Poor Descartes: Meditations on a Well-Traveled Skull
By JANET MASLIN - New York Times
DESCARTES’ BONES
A Skeletal History of the Conflict Between Faith and Reason
By Russell Shorto


Russell Shorto met René Descartes at the Musée de l’Homme, the anthropology museum in Paris. Mr. Shorto gives no physical description of himself during this 2005 encounter. As for Descartes, he emerged from a white paper wrapping within a wooden box. And he had been scribbled on in both Latin and Swedish. At that moment, more than 350 years after his death, Descartes existed as a partial skull with a checkered, peripatetic history. “Voilà le philosophe” (“Here is the philosopher”), the museum’s director of conservation said to Mr. Shorto.
Many strains of thought converge around Descartes and his physical remains. Although those thoughts are scattered and by no means linear, Mr. Shorto has used them as the basis of an investigative book, one that goes off on frequent philosophical, historical and forensic tangents. That leaves “Descartes’ Bones” less substantial than “The Island at the Center of the World,” Mr. Shorto’s superlative history of 17th-century Dutch Manhattan. But both books attest to Mr. Shorto’s intellectual adventurousness and dogged curiosity.
As its title makes clear, “Descartes’ Bones” addresses a ghoulish subject. The great man’s physical remains have been dug up and reburied several times since he died in Sweden in 1650. Initially they were moved for the purpose of repatriating him to his native France, but the story becomes stranger as it escalates. During the course of their bizarre posthumous travels, Descartes’ skull and the rest of his skeleton parted ways. This alone would make the subject appealing to Mr. Shorto, who savors the way the man famed for exploring the mind-body problem wound up with his head and body in different places.
“Descartes’ Bones” has two favorite types of discourse: expanding on Descartes’s place in the history of ideas and pointing out strange coincidences that shaped his path through posterity. These interests are so different that “Descartes’ Bones” has built-in organizational problems. But Mr. Shorto leaps from one intriguing topic to another, doing it with verve if not consistency. He naturally begins with the living, breathing Descartes, whose proclamation “Cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) can be seen as the cornerstone of modern scientific thought.
Mr. Shorto goes on to demonstrate why this idea became divisive (and remains so today). He analyzes the ways in which Cartesian thinking drove a wedge between faith and reason. He also charts the life of the French national treasure who wound up at the court of Queen Christina of Sweden. Her abdication of her throne and conversion to Roman Catholicism would force Descartes’s body out of its grave and into the daylight.
A 17th-century taste for holy relics helped to ensure reverence for any part of Descartes, starting with his right index finger, which seems to have been pilfered in 1666, the first time his bones were unearthed. Yet as Mr. Shorto notes, “The man whose remains were treated in this quasisaintlike way would go down in history as the progenitor of materialism, rationalism and a whole tradition that looked on such veneration as nonsense.”
The book illustrates how Cartesian thought, as opposed to physical Cartesian relics, became enough of a repudiation of religious faith to anger the Catholic Church. It also traces the very different roles played by Descartes’s philosophical legacy in both the French and American revolutions — and then, later, in applied science.
There are detours about the Marquis de Sade, the vandalism that ravaged Paris in revolutionary times, the invention of the museum as a cultural institution, the study of phrenology and the birth of the detective story. One of the book’s more striking bits of minutiae involves how Paris accomplished the startling feat of synchronizing clocks that stood in public places.
By 1821 an artifact purporting to be Descartes’s skull had attracted enough interest to warrant analysis by the French Academy of Sciences. (The same meeting also devoted serious study to a paper titled “The Membrane of the Hymen.”) And the skull raised a plethora of questions. Was it authentic? Mr. Shorto describes the strange process of tracing its provenance through many changes of hands. The skull was apparently once auctioned off to “a tax assessor named Ahlgren, whose signature can today barely be made out behind where the left ear would be.”
Art history entered the equation when a Frans Hals portrait of Descartes — and thus that portrait’s usefulness as proof that the skull fit the man — had its authenticity challenged. The portrait of Descartes that hangs in the Louvre was thought to be Hals’s work. A much homelier image of the same man is now credited to Hals and thought to be more accurate.
Even if “Descartes’ Bones” happens to use the better-looking image on its cover, this book does no prettifying; it delves into the oddest and most unappetizing aspects of Descartes’s story along with the inspiringly lofty ones. The best physical equivalent of Mr. Shorto’s own dualism is Paul Richer’s surpassingly strange 1913 bust of Descartes, which sought to extrapolate physiognomy from the contours of the skull. It is an artwork that has a skull beneath a detachable face.
“Descartes’ Bones” provides an image of its author just as surely as it homes in on that of Descartes. Mr. Shorto is a rambling philosopher-reporter whose versatility can be more impressive than his coherence. But his insights are keen. And he is as drawn to great, overarching ideas as he is to historical factoids. Descartes’ posthumous journey happens to be rich with both.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

"drumming"


Rendezvous With Reich
By ROSLYN SULCAS BRUSSELS-New York Times

To say that the choreographer Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker has a famously nerve-racking persona does little justice to the intensity of her dark-eyed unsmiling gaze or to her withering silences as she considers a question. But during a recent interview at her company headquarters here she spoke with warmth and fluency about “Steve Reich Evening,” a program of her works that arrives at the Brooklyn Academy of Music this week.
“For 25 years I have had a regular rendezvous with Steve’s music,” Ms. De Keersmaeker said affectionately while seated in an office overlooking one of the studios in the large white building that houses her company, Rosas, and a school, Parts. “With this piece we trace that trajectory, not as a retrospective but as a bit of a tribute.”
Perhaps Ms. De Keersmaeker, 48, one of contemporary dance’s major figures, has mellowed. Or perhaps she simply has a genuine soft spot for Mr. Reich, whose music has been the complement for many of her dances and for part of a 2003 film, “Counterphrases.”
“Steve Reich Evening,” with music performed by the Ictus ensemble, presents some of those works, including Ms. De Keersmaeker’s 1982 “Piano Phase”; the first part of her 1998 “Drumming”; and two newer pieces, “Eight Lines” and “Four Organs,” both from last year. But Ms. De Keersmaeker offers her own curatorial take on Mr. Reich’s work by opening the program with straight musical performances of his “Pendulum Music” and “Marimba Phase,” and interspersing Ligeti’s “Poème Symphonique Pour Cent Métronomes” between “Piano Phase” and “Drumming.”
“The works are not chronologically disposed,” Ms. De Keersmaeker said. “Rather I wanted to go from smaller constellations to more complex, layered ensembles, the way that both of us have done over time.”
Mr. Reich, though often described as a Minimalist, has produced work that is increasingly complex and expansive. In that respect he is mirrored by Ms. De Keersmaeker, whose first dances were chamber-scale rigorous formal exercises that nonetheless evoked both drama and passion, and whose later work has achieved a much greater physical and emotional complexity.
Ms. De Keersmaeker’s career has been linked with his music almost from its beginning. She was introduced to his work by the Belgian composer Thierry de Mey when she was studying at Maurice Béjart’s Mudra school in Brussels in the late 1970s.
“We were listening to all that music — Steve Reich, Philip Glass’s ‘Einstein on the Beach,’ ” Ms. De Keersmaeker said. When she heard Mr. Reich’s “Violin Phase,” she added, “it just seemed like an invitation to dance because of the structure, the accumulation, the beautiful melodies that emerge from the superposition of layers. When I left for New York to study, I had this music in my head.”
Ms. De Keersmaeker, who was born and grew up in Flemish-speaking Mechelen, began to study dance only in her last year at high school. After two years at Mudra she spent a year studying dance at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts. It was then that she met Nurit Tilles, Edmund Niemann and Shem Guibbory, then members of Mr. Reich’s ensemble. In 1981 she created a solo to “Violin Phase,” echoing the subtly varying timings of the jagged phrase played by two violins with a repetitive movement phrase that brilliantly matched the music’s formalism and surprising drama.
Soon after, Ms. De Keersmaeker created a duet to “Piano Phase” for herself and Mr. De Mey’s sister, Michèle Anne De Mey. Returning to Belgium the following year she added two more duets, to Mr. Reich’s “Come Out” and “Clapping Music,” calling the full-evening work “Fase: Four Movements to the Music of Steve Reich.”
“Fase,” which had its premiere in Brussels in March 1982, made Ms. De Keersmaeker something of an instant European star and gave her the institutional support that led directly to the creation of Rosas the next year. But Mr. Reich was only dimly aware of her.
“Back in the early ’80s I got a letter from Belgium from some young woman with a very long name,” Mr. Reich said in a telephone interview. “She said she would like to use my music and some of my musicians. The musicians said sure, and I forgot about it. Then they came back from Belgium and said, ‘Boy, you’ve got to see this woman’s work.’ ”
His rhythmically driven music has been lifeblood to choreographers since the start of his career. Early on, he collaborated extensively with Laura Dean; later his music was used by Lucinda Childs, Lar Lubovitch, Jerome Robbins, Eliot Feld, Twyla Tharp and others.
Asked what he thought drew choreographers to his music so consistently, Mr. Reich laughed. “I think it’s pretty simple,” he said. “Ezra Pound said that when music gets too far from dance, it atrophies. When I came on the musical scene, the reigning aesthetic was dominated by Stockhausen, John Cage, Berio. There were no harmonic centers, no tunes you could possibly whistle. It was fascinating enough, but sort of in a dark corner. So when music like mine, or Glass’s or Pärt’s came, it was natural that choreographers breathed a sigh of relief.”
It was not until 1999, when a revival of “Fase” came to New York, that he saw what Ms. De Keersmaeker had made to his music. “My jaw dropped,” he said. “Of all the choreography done to my music this was by far this best thing I’d seen. The way that she used the phasing principle, which is really very difficult; the brilliant use of lighting in ‘Piano Phase,’ so that their shadows are like alter egos; the way ‘Come Out’ picked up the implicit violence in the piece — it was all analogous to the music. On an emotional and psychological level I felt I’d learned something about my own work.”
By the time Mr. Reich saw “Fase” Ms. De Keersmaeker had created another large-scale piece to his music. “Drumming” used his composition of that name, an hour-plus piece for percussion instruments that Mr. Reich has described as marking the end of the gradual phasing process that had preoccupied him since he began to compose in 1965.
“Drumming,” the 2001 “Rain” (to the 1976 “Music for 18 Musicians”) and the recent pieces for “Steve Reich Evening” show an evolution in Ms. De Keersmaeker’s relationship to Mr. Reich’s music. While he has talked about his music as liberating through its impersonality, Ms. De Keersmaeker’s work has grown ever more personal and individual.
While Mr. Reich doesn’t put it in quite these terms, he offered an interestingly objective view of her later work. “I think there is often more complexity in the dancing than there is in the music,” he said. “She has developed a layered way of working with pieces of mine that were dealing with direct structures. But why not? That’s what makes an artist interesting.”
For her part Ms. De Keersmaeker said that Mr. Reich’s music had helped her to develop as an artist by enabling her to articulate questions — and come up with possible answers — about organizing time and space in relation to music. “I’m thinking that I’m not done with his music,” she said. And then she smiled.

calder et paris, oui


Art Review
Alexander Calder
Calder at Play: Finding Whimsy in Simple Wire
By HOLLAND COTTER-New York Times
Is art basically glorified child’s play, extending into adulthood, through a lifetime, picking up ideas and gaining finesse as it goes? That’s one way to think of “Alexander Calder: The Paris Years, 1926-1933” at the Whitney Museum of American Art. Few exhibitions have focused so intently on one artist’s child within. It’s a Peter Pan syndrome show.
It’s also a large show, with a chunky, charming catalog. Yet it feels intimate and light, not to say lightweight. Gallery by gallery, it’s as suspenseful and insubstantial as a magic act: what will the artist pull from his sleeve next? The story it tells is like a Kids R Us version of early 20th-century Modernism, with a grown-up surprise at the end.
Calder didn’t start out with ambitions to be an artist; if anything, he was pulled in the opposite direction. He watched his father, a professional sculptor, fret over commissions and struggle with money. So when it came time for college the young Calder chose an engineering school in New Jersey over art school.
But of course he was an artist, a natural. He may just not have known at first what that meant. Even as a child he was astonishingly inventive. The tiny figure of a rocking-horse-style bird shaped from brass sheeting is, for economy of form and conceptual daring, one of the more radical works in the show. He made it when he was 11.
He made stuff all the time. He was one of those people with nonstop eyes and hands: every scrap of stray matter was a candidate for transformation. Give him some wire, clothespins and a scrap of cloth and, presto chango, you had a bird or a cow or a circus clown: nothing, then something, which is what magic is.
There’s a hyperactive pace to his early career. While working at engineering jobs after college, he was also drawing like crazy and designing toys. In 1923 he enrolled at the Art Students League to study painting; John Sloan and George Luks were his teachers. At the same time he took on illustrating gigs for publications like The New Yorker and The National Police Gazette.
His academic drawings from the time are gauche and ordinary. The staying-still-in-a-studio they required obviously cramped his style. Much fresher is the dashed-off, manic-looking magazine work. And his Ash Can School-type paintings of New York scenes — a drunken party; a trip to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus — have a gawky spark of life. Then there are his pen-and-ink drawings of zoo animals. They’re in a different category, almost by a different artist, one more relaxed and assured. Often done as one continuous line, they are like an effortlessly sophisticated form of penmanship. So are some of the openwork sculptures of bent and twisted wire that he began to experiment with at this time.
In 1926, with all these balls in the air, he suddenly moved to Paris, because motion for him was a stimulant and because he felt that Paris was the hot place to be, which it was. With its crowded cafes, charged thinking, endless talking and jumpy personalities, the city was hyperkinetic. Calder fell in love with it. And, although he continued to return to New York for long stretches, he made Paris his home base for seven years.
His wire sculpture took off there. Several examples in the form of portrait heads are the first thing you see when you step off the elevator on the Whitney’s fourth floor. They’re an arresting sight, in a gently wow-inspiring way. Wows were what Calder was after, along with chuckles and satisfied ahs. He was a showman, a performer. “See what I can do, right before your eyes, without even trying?” his art seems to say.
For his purposes industrial steel wire was an ideal medium. It was cheap, malleable, portable and equally adaptable to precision work and doodling, which to him were almost the same thing. Wire was like three-dimensional ink; it was a means of combining drawing and sculpture in space.
In the Paris years he used it for portraiture. His first subject was a star he admired from afar, Josephine Baker. She was the toast of the town in the 1920s. One look at film clips of her dancing a semi-nude Charleston tells you why. Calder made five small Baker figures; four are in the show. With their tiny heads, spiraling breasts and long, long single-strand legs, they catch something of the image Baker wanted to project: that of an ethnographic specimen come to irrepressibly self-amused life.
He made other figures too, of the tennis champion Helen Wills, of John D. Rockefeller playing golf. They are the work of a pop illustrator, clever but nothing special. But for people he actually knew, portrait heads were the form of choice. Of the 18 examples in the show, most depict people Calder had met in avant-garde circles in Paris, including celebrity friends like Edgard Varèse, Joan Miró and Alice Prin, the multitasking muse better known as Kiki de Montparnasse. You can see why Calder did these likenesses: they were an attention-getting novelty; they advertised his skill; they gave him a pretext to network.
They also look as if they were fun to make. One of the attractive features of Calder’s art from this period is its gee-I-could-do-that unpretentiousness. At the same time each is a fabulous little virtuosic feat, abstract but exacting. Set on bases or freely suspended, and casting subtle shadows — Jennifer Tipton, the theatrical lightning designer, was in charge of illumination — the portraits have the wit and refinement that will show up again in Calder’s first abstract sculptures.
Refinement is not a quality associated with the famously funky tabletop assemblage known as Calder’s Circus. A prime draw of the Whitney’s permanent collection, it has rarely been off view since the museum acquired it 25 years ago. But it gets a rethinking here.
Up to now it has been exhibited as a compact, one-ring affair with its many tiny handmade figures — clowns, acrobats, animal trainers and so on — doing all the varied things they do at once. The show’s curators, Joan Simon of the Whitney and Brigitte Leal of the Centre Pompidou in Paris, have separated the components into individual acts meant to be seen as taking place sequentially, a format that corresponds to the way Calder himself presented the work in live performances.
You can see him giving one in a 1955 film by Jean Painlevé, which is in the show. Calder introduces the figures silently one by one, manipulating them and activating the low-tech mechanisms (cranks, pull-strings, air hoses) that animate their activities. If, like me, you’ve always found Calder’s Circus a little too cute for comfort, the film may change your mind.
When at one point Calder slowly and carefully removes layer after layer of hand-sewn costumes from one clown figure until he arrives at what looks like a skeleton, it’s hard to known whether you’re seeing a circus or a medieval morality play. No wonder the original Paris performances pulled in the savvy audiences they did. Jean Cocteau, Marcel Duchamp and Piet Mondrian were among the many vanguard types who sat on crates and watched with rapt attention.
The Whitney show’s real shock comes a bit later, though, in the last three galleries, when Calder the polymath entertainer becomes Calder the Modern sculptor. The shift happened almost literally overnight. In October 1930 he visited Mondrian’s Paris studio; instantly he became an abstract artist. And for some people Calder starts to become interesting only at this point. No more Kikis and tennis players. Now everything is floating circles and curving lines anchored by balls in space.
But two things stayed constant: motion and play. For conservation reasons only one sculpture in the Whitney show is now motorized as intended; others can be seen in action on film. And action is the essence in a piece like “Small Sphere and Heavy Sphere” (1932-33), which consists of two suspended wooden balls and, set out on the gallery floor, a wooden box, four wine bottles, a can and a gong.
Nothing much, right? Until — as seen on film — the balls, attached to a motorized bar, start to move in a slow circle, hitting a bottle, then the can, then the gong. Music! (Varèse loved this piece.) Yet move a bottle an inch or two this way or that and the performance changes. Turn on a fan or open a window and you could create a new score. The game Calder is playing is a finely tuned, verging on magical, game of chance. And it really is a game. And it really is play.
“Alexander Calder: The Paris Years, 1926-1933” remains at the Whitney Museum of American Art, 945 Madison Avenue (at 75th Street), through Feb. 15. It will then be at the Centre Pompidou, Paris, from March 18 through July 20.

Friday, October 17, 2008

"What will happen to all that beauty?"



James Baldwin & Barack Obama
By Colm Tóibín
The New York Review of Books

It seemed important, as both men set about making their marks on the world, for them to establish before anything else that their stories began when their fathers died and that they set out alone without a father's shadow or a father's permission. James Baldwin's Notes of a Native Son, published in 1951, begins: "On the 29th of July, in 1943, my father died." Baldwin was almost nineteen at the time. Barack Obama's Dreams from My Father, published in 1995, begins also with the death of his father: "A few months after my twenty-first birthday, a stranger called to give me the news."
Both men quickly then established their own actual distance from their fathers, which made their grief sharper and more lonely, but also made clear to the reader that they had a right to speak with authority, to offer this version of themselves partly because they themselves, through force of will and a steely sense of character, had invented the voice they were now using, had not been trained by any other man to be the figure they had become.[1] "I had not known my father very well," Baldwin wrote.
We got on badly, partly because we shared, in our different fashions, the vice of stubborn pride. When he was dead I realized that I had hardly ever spoken to him. When he had been dead a long time I began to wish I had.
Of his father, Barack Obama wrote:
At the time of his death, my father remained a myth to me, both more and less than a man. He had left Hawaii back in 1963, when I was only two years old, so that as a child I knew him only through the stories that my mother and grandparents told.
Both men then, using photographs and memories, commented on their fathers' blackness. In both cases it seemed important to state or suggest that the father was more black than the son. Baldwin wrote that there was something buried in his father which had lent him
his tremendous power and, even, a rather crushing charm. It had something to do with his blackness, I think—he was very black—with his blackness and his beauty.
When Obama was a child, he wrote, "my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk."
In both cases too, the writers sought to make clear that their fathers' pasts were not their own pasts, but the past as a different country, a country they did not share. "He was of the first generation of free men," Baldwin wrote.
He, along with thousands of other Negroes, came North after 1919 and I was part of that generation which had never seen the landscape of what Negroes sometimes call the Old Country.
Obama's father was from a place even more distant: "He was an African, I would learn, a Kenyan of the Luo tribe, born on the shores of Lake Victoria in a place called Alego."
Although Obama mentions in passing in Dreams from My Father that he had read Baldwin when he was a young community activist in Chicago, there is no hint in the book that he modeled his own story in any way on Baldwin's work. In both of their versions of who they became in America and how, there are considerable similarities and shared key moments not because Obama was using Baldwin as a template or an example, but because the same hurdles and similar circumstances and the same moments of truth actually occurred almost naturally for both of them.
Baldwin and Obama, although in different ways, experienced the church and intense religious feeling as key elements in their lives. They both traveled and discovered while abroad, almost as a shock, an essential American identity for themselves while in the company of non-Americans who were black. They both came to see, in a time of bitter political division, some shared values with the other side. They both used eloquence with an exquisite, religious fervor.
As Northerners, they both were shocked by the South. They both had to face up to the anger, the rage, which lay within them, and everyone like them, as a way of taking the poison out of themselves. It is almost as though, in their search for power—Baldwin becoming the finest American prose stylist of his generation, Obama the first black nominee for president of the United States—they would both have to gain wisdom, both bitter and sweet, at the same fount, since no other fount was available. Their story is in some ways the same story because it could hardly have been otherwise.
In Notes of a Native Son, James Baldwin wrote about rage:
There is not a Negro alive who does not have this rage in his blood—one has the choice, merely, of living with it consciously or surrendering to it. As for me, this fever has recurred in me, and does, and will until the day I die.
In his speech on race in March 2008, Barack Obama, in tones more measured, more patient, but no less urgent, dealt with the same issues as they were experienced more than fifty years after Baldwin's essay appeared:
That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations—those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
In his first novel, Go Tell It on the Mountain, published in 1953, Baldwin wrote with remarkable intensity about the power of prayer and preaching for an otherwise powerless community, the sense of time spent in church as a time filled with soaring possibilities in contrast to the bitter world outside. It was as though that very bitterness offered the congregation a unique insight into the suffering of Christ and made the congregation for that time of prayer and preaching a chosen people whose spiritual exaltation, in all its fiery rhetoric and colorful abandon, could never be experienced by white people.
Baldwin matched his novel with an essay, "Down at the Cross," published in 1962, where he wrote about his own conversion as an adolescent filled with doubts and fears and ambitions and a sharp sense of exclusion:
One moment I was on my feet, singing and clapping and, at the same time, working out in my head the plot of a play I was working on then; the next moment, with no transition, no sensation of falling, I was on my back, with the lights beating down into my face and all the vertical saints above me.
Baldwin made it clear that the black experience in America could not be described using merely political terms; it could not be dealt with as a set of demands that could simply be satisfied by legislation. Because black suffering had been transformed so secretly and so completely by black religious leaders into spiritual suffering, what happened in black churches would have to be fully understood, dramatized, and explained before any solution would be possible. His first novel and his essay "Down at the Cross" sought to let white America into the secret that was Sunday for the black community:
The church was very exciting. It took a long time for me to disengage myself from this excitement, and on the blindest, most visceral level, I really never have, and never will. There is no music like that music, no drama like the drama of the saints rejoicing, the sinners moaning, the tambourines racing, and all those voices coming together and crying holy unto the Lord. There is still, for me, no pathos quite like the pathos of those multicolored, worn, somehow triumphant and transfigured faces, speaking from the depths of a visible, tangible, continuing despair of the goodness of the Lord.... Nothing that has happened to me since equals the power and the glory that I sometimes felt when, in the middle of a sermon, I knew that I was somehow, by some miracle, really carrying, as they say, "the Word"—when the church and I were one.
Out of oppression then came a freedom that only the church could offer and that gave the church a special, defining power for black communities, which was both beyond politics and deeply political, a power the Catholic Church in Poland and Ireland would also have. "Perhaps we were, all of us," Baldwin wrote,
bound together by the nature of our oppression, the specific and peculiar complex of risks we had to run; if so, within these limits we sometimes achieved with each other a freedom that was close to love.
In Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama described finding religion in Chicago, hearing about the history of the black church in America, the
history of slave religion,...Africans who, newly landed on hostile shores, had sat circled around a fire mixing newfound myths with ancient rhythms, their songs becoming a vessel for those most radical of ideas—survival, and freedom, and hope.
He described attending a sermon given by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago:
People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters. As I watched and listened from my seat, I began to hear all the notes from the past three years swirl about me.... The desire to let go, the desire to escape, the desire to give oneself up to a God that could somehow put a floor on despair.
The sermons heard in those churches preached not only about eternal life and the ethereal life of the soul, but about the sufferings of the soul on this earth, in this America, and the emotions to which this suffering gave rise, including despair and anger. In March 2008 Obama would try to explain that anger as one of the many essential parts of the religious services that black people had been attending all of their lives, the services that Baldwin had dramatized and described, and that the white majority had been excluded from. "The fact," Obama said,
that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
Obama's church was like the one that Baldwin described in Go Tell It on the Mountain, a place where "all the men seemed mighty," that "rocked with the Power of God," that offered the community a sort of nobility and unity and sense of transcendence not available elsewhere. "That has been my experience at Trinity," Obama said in March 2008.
Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety—the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
Baldwin was a child preacher, and that tone never left his system, just as it is part of the rhetoric he came to use later on. Since both men made clear that the church was not a place where arguments were held, but rather where souls were lifted up by grace as much as by language, where voices rose not in reason but in pure denial of reason for the sake of a great salvation, then to isolate some of Reverend Wright's views as expressed in his sermons and ask Obama to distance himself from them was to miss the point.
Had their ambitions been less focused and their personalities less complex, Baldwin and Obama could easily have become pastors, preachers, leaders of black churches. But for both of them there was a shadow, a sense of an elsewhere that would form them and make them, eventually, more interested in leading America itself, or as much of it as would follow, than merely leading their own race in America. Both of them would discover their essential Americanness outside America, Baldwin in France, the home of some of his literary ancestors, Obama in Kenya, the home of his father.
There is a peculiar intensity in the quality of their engagement with these foreign countries. Indeed, there are very few American writers born in the twentieth century whose level of involvement with another country equals Baldwin's with France; and it is impossible to think of another American politician who has been involved in the life of another country as Obama has been with Kenya.
Baldwin and Obama did not merely observe these countries, finding out much about foreign morals, manners, and social problems. What is crucial in both cases is that what they most fruitfully observed in the end was themselves. What they found within themselves changed them profoundly and made them different from everyone else around them; what they found gave these two fatherless men, already possessed of an eloquence which came from a source hidden from most Americans, a new power and a freedom and a sense of a destiny to fulfill.
Baldwin moved to Paris in November 1948 when he was twenty-four. "I left America," he wrote in 1959, because I doubted my ability to survive the fury of the color problem here.... I wanted to prevent myself from becoming merely a Negro; or, even, merely a Negro writer.
In these years it occurred to him that while he was a stranger in Europe, he was not, as he had supposed, such a stranger in his own country. In one essay, describing life in a Swiss village, he wrote:
No road whatever will lead Americans back to the simplicity of this European village where white men still have the luxury of looking on me as a stranger. I am not, really, a stranger any longer for any American alive. One of the things that distinguishes Americans from other people is that no other people has ever been so deeply involved in the lives of black men, and vice versa.
In his introduction to Nobody Knows My Name, published in 1961, Baldwin wrote of his stay in France: "The question of who I was had at last become a personal question." In one of the essays in that book he described attending the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists in Paris in 1956 and finding an enormous gap between himself and the writers who had come from Africa:
For what, at bottom, distinguished the Americans from the Negroes who surrounded us, men from Nigeria, Senegal, Barbados, Martinique...was the banal and abruptly quite overwhelming fact that we had been born in a society, which, in a way quite inconceivable for Africans, and no longer real for Europeans, was open, and, in a sense which has nothing to do with justice or injustice, was free. It was a society, in short, in which nothing was fixed and we had therefore been born to a greater number of possibilities, wretched as these possibilities seemed at the instant of our birth. Moreover, the land of our forefathers' exile had been made, by that travail, our home.
Baldwin summed up the result of his experience in France: "I found myself, willy-nilly, alchemized into an American the moment I touched French soil."
The realization that he was an American, albeit one who came into being through alchemy, had a profound impact on Baldwin not only as a political thinker and essayist, but as an artist. It allowed him to write two masterpieces—Giovanni's Room and Another Country—in which the souls of white people are examined with sympathy and tenderness; it allowed him to formulate a credo, as an artist who wrote also about black people, that their fate should not be predetermined by their color but by the intimate spaces hidden in their souls. Our failure to love with due care became his subject; his genius was to spread that failure wide, make it an existential problem, almost a religious one, rather than one which could be solved, for example, by liberal legislation. It also allowed him to realize that the history of black America belonged to whites as much as to blacks and that the black-white experience [in America] may prove of indispensable value to us in the world we face today. This world is white no longer, and it will never be white again.
Thus when William Styron published The Confessions of Nat Turner in 1967 and was attacked by African-American critics for stealing the voice of a slave for his fiction, he was defended by Baldwin: "He has begun the common history—ours." Later, Baldwin told The Paris Review:
I admired him for confronting it, and the result.... He writes out of reasons similar to mine—about something that hurt him and frightened him.[2]
Although there are moments in Baldwin's speeches and writings that are more bitter and more sectarian than the main body of his writing, his work seems astonishingly wise and forgiving, constantly ready to include the other side, insisting that the complex fate of being an American involved America in its both rich and hidden diversity and its both gnarled and noble history. It appears that such wisdom and sense of forgiveness came from how he lived, from his walking the streets of European cities knowing that he was not at home and slowly realizing where home was. Home, oddly enough, was the United States.
On his first trip to Kenya, before he went to Harvard Law School, Barack Obama, who was twenty-seven, sensed his father's ghostly presence in the streets of Nairobi:
I see him in the schoolboys who run past us, their lean, black legs moving like piston rods between blue shorts and oversized shoes. I hear him in the laughter of the pair of university students who sip sweet creamed tea and eat samosas in a dimly lit teahouse. I smell him in the cigarette smoke of the businessman who covers one ear and shouts into a pay phone; in the sweat of a day laborer who loads gravel into a wheelbarrow, his face and bare chest covered with dust. The Old Man's here, I think, although he doesn't say anything to me. He's here, asking me to understand.
In these chapters of his autobiography, as Obama attempted to make sense of his Kenyan heritage, there is a sharp feeling that this was an interlude in the life of an earnest American, at times a form of tourism, at other times a serious effort to resolve the most complex matters of identity and selfhood. There is a moment when he sat by the graves of his ancestors and wept:
When my tears were finally spent, I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close.... I saw that my life in America—the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago—all of it was connected with this small plot of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain I felt was my father's pain. My questions were my brothers' questions. Their struggle, my birthright.
This passage displays the great difference between Baldwin's sensibility and that of Obama. Whereas Baldwin sought to make distinctions, Obama always wants to make connections; his urge is to close circles even when they don't need to be closed or the closure is too neat to be fully trusted. Whereas Baldwin longed to disturb the peace, create untidy truths, Obama was slowly becoming a politician.
Despite his best effort to reconcile his own life at home with that of his Kenyan father, the chapters about Kenya in Dreams from My Father show Obama puzzled and ill at ease. Later, in his book The Audacity of Hope, he moved closer to the truth when he described his wife's admission on a flight back from Kenya to Chicago that she was looking forward to getting home. "I never realized just how American I was," she said. She hadn't realized just how free she was—or how much she cherished that freedom.
Just as Obama, in his increasing urge to inspire, a necessary aspect of his calling perhaps, often seeks a rhetoric free of bitterness and high on healing, Baldwin, in his urge to speak difficult truths, to tell white people what they least wished to hear, sometimes moved toward a tone which was almost shrill. In his great good humor, however, he would perhaps enjoy more than anyone else reading this passage from an essay written by him in 1965:
I remember when the ex-Attorney General, Mr. Robert Kennedy, said it was conceivable that in 40 years in America we might have a Negro President. That sounded like a very emancipated statement to white people. They were not in Harlem when this statement was first heard. They did not hear the laughter and bitterness and scorn with which this statement was greeted.... We were here for 400 years and now he tells us that maybe in 40 years, if you are good, we may let you become President.
Obama, running for President forty-three years later, just three years too late to fulfill what Robert Kennedy saw as conceivable, as Baldwin saw as far too late, ends Dreams from My Father with the phrase, "I felt like the luckiest man alive." Later, when he won his first election to the US Senate, he wrote:
Still, there was no point in denying my almost spooky good fortune. I was an outlier, a freak; to political insiders, my victory proved nothing.
Similarly, Baldwin in 1985 wrote about his own unique position and attitude in the formative years in Greenwich Village: "there were very few black people in the Village in those years, and of that handful, I was decidedly the most improbable." More than twenty years earlier he had written:
To become a Negro man, let alone a Negro artist, one had to make oneself up as one went along.... My revenge, I decided very early, would be to achieve a power which outlasts kingdoms.
Both men set about establishing their authority by exploring themselves and how they came to make it up as they went along, as much as by exploring the world around them. In Obama's own mixed background and complex heritage he saw America; out of his own success, he saw hope and a new set of values. Out of his own childhood Baldwin produced a number of enduring literary masterpieces and out of his efforts to make sense of his own complex, playful personality and his own unique place in history he produced some of the best essays written in the twentieth century. Reading these essays and Obama's speeches, especially the ones that are high on inspiration and short on policy, one is struck by the connection between them, two men remaking the world against all the odds in their own likeness, not afraid to ask, when faced with the future of America as represented by its children, using Baldwin's wonderful phrase, questions that are alien to most politicians: "What will happen to all that beauty?"

[1]John McCain's Faith of My Fathers (Random House, 1999), on the other hand, sets out on page one to establish levels of continuity between generations of men in his family: "My grandfather loved his children. And my father admired his grandfather above all others."
[2]Styron's wonderfully wise and affectionate obituary of Baldwin is included in a recently published collection of Styron's personal essays: Havanas in Camelot (Random House, 2008). He wrote:
James Baldwin was the grandson of a slave. I was the grandson of a slave owner.... We both were writing about the tangled relations of blacks and whites in America, and because he was wise Jimmy understood the necessity of dealing with the preposterous paradoxes that had dwelled at the heart of the racial tragedy.... I think our common preoccupation helped make us good friends.