Art Critique Shows Misconception

To the Editors:

While I agree with Mr. Harris that "Trespageant" did indeed offer the viewer a unique and stimulating visual experience, I cannot allow his comments on "traditional art," conceptual art, and "professional artists" to pass. I believe that in his attempt to create some interesting questions about art, he has made some very troublesome statements concerning art today.

First, I believe that he has taken an extremely limited perspective, to critique a work based on the question of whether another artist, "under similar pretenses, could replicate the work on his own." This is not relevant. I would argue that the show has merit merely for the fact that the artists materialized their vision. The critic, Mr. Harris, seems to be struggling with the idea of "found art." Because something was not created from "nothing" does not cause it to lose its validity. All art comes from something: In "Trespageant" it is more obvious where exactly it came from. That doesn't make it, by any means, less interesting (or less worthy for lack of "technical ability!") On the contrary!

As far as "professional artists" are concerned, I want to add that reviews such as this one only feed the notion that art and artists must be labeled and classified as "traditional" or "non-traditional," and "professional" and "outsider." I disagree completely with the idea which is stated near the end of the review which proposes that after college, "the fervor for revolutionary creation often dissipates when earning money and surviving are the main goals." This is such a limited way of looking at art and artists, and life after college. I believe in an alternative which would allow artists to create meaningful and exciting work that creates change. Idealistic as it sounds, this way of thinking would force us to consider what part art plays in our society, and mold it according to our standards and our needs. I speak not as an artist but as a member of the interested public.

Admittedly, the article did highlight some of the show's strengths and weaknesses. However, this letter is more of a response to some of the ideas Mr. Harris generated from the critique, rather than a direct argument to the review. I am frustrated by the academic approach taken in the article, as I have already said. It only encourages the kind of thinking that strangles art. The art critic has a great responsibility, as does the artist, to step outside of the boundaries that so many are now comfortable with. I too am guilty of staying within that comfort zone sometimes. I hope that this letter will spark discussions which will inevitably lead to a greater understanding of art.

--Marianna La Rosa, College sophomore

CDS Decision Valid

To the Editors:

A lot of fuss has been made regarding CDS's decision to fire Dontez Jackson. The most common argument in support of Jackson that I've encountered is this: even granting his culpability in the dorm trespassing issue, this incident should have nothing to do with his employment; otherwise put, CDS shouldn't concern itself with an "unrelated" matter.

But is it really an unrelated matter? I think that CDS has a valid point of view in this case: criminal history is exactly the kind of thing employers often ask and worry about. For the same reason that employers can and do ask about criminal history when screening candidates, they continue to pay attention to their employees' criminal history after hiring them.

In this sense, Jackson's trespassing is entirely relevant to his employment: CDS has a vested interest in making sure its employees meet certain standards of legal conduct. In this case, since it was clear that Jackson had indeed violated dorm rules, it is entirely understandable that Jackson's employer would act on this information. While one could certainly make a case for leniency in this issue, the logic of CDS's actions is sound.

--Stephen Gross, College senior

'01 Class Presidency Is Cracked

To the Editors:

I would like to take a moment to speak to my fellow members of the class of 2001. As many of you already know, I recently declared my candidacy for president of our class. That simple declaration instantaneously established me as a pillar of this community, one who's sagacious wisdom, all of you mere peons admire and respect. As such, I am going to use my considerable influence to tell you to vote for Daniel Schwartz for president of the class of 2001. Here's what we know about Schwartz from his candidate statement: he does not smoke crack, he does not have unpaid parking tickets, and most importantly, he is not a robot sent by the government to enslave us all. Maame Stevens boasts a truly impressive resume, but her statement fails to address any of the issues above. Would she be willing to take a drug test to prove to her constituents that there is no crack in her system? Would she be willing to undergo a DNA test to prove that she is not a robot? I think not, because it is my theory that Maame Stephens is in fact, a crack smoking robot, sent by the government to enslave us all, and make us watch Felicity reruns on a 50 inch screen. Likewise, Yvonne Piper makes a strong case. However, she does not address why she transferred to Oberlin in 1998. Could it be that she was forced to transfer when her previous college discovered that she too, was in actuality a crack smoking robot with a rental locker at the YMCA full of unpaid parking tickets?

I, Jeff Harvey am not a crack smoking robot, and I pay all of my parking tickets in a timely manner. However, I am exceedingly lazy and don't like most of you of all that much anyway, so do you really want me as your representative? Between you and me, I already have a deal in place with Nike to convert Hales Gym into a sweat shop. So as I see it, that leaves you with one choice. Vote Schwartz. I know I will. Thank you.

--Jeff Harvey, College junior

Environmentalism is Bad Medicine for Humans

To the Editors:

This Earth Day, environmentalists should celebrate the latest consequence of their ideas - skyrocketing gasoline prices.

This year's OPEC cutbacks in the production and distribution of oil have led to higher prices for consumers in the United States - our nation depends on OPEC nations for a large percentage of the oil used in this country. However, it is not necessary for the United States to be so dependent. There is a vast amount of untapped oil in the Alaskan wilderness that could be used to meet America's energy needs. Unfortunately, environmentalists have succeeded in keeping most of Alaska's oil inaccessible, claiming that human needs for energy should not take precedence over preserving the pristine form of the Alaskan wilderness. In every conflict between the needs of people and the preservation of nature, environmentalists call for the sacrifice of human interests. Whether it is the well-being of loggers against the spotted owl or the benefits derived from animal testing versus the harm to the tested animals, nature is always prioritized over human existence and progress. The underlying premise behind environmentalism is that nature has intrinsic value apart from its value to human existence. David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, stated publicly that, "Wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake, and for the sake of the diversity of the life forms it shelters. We shouldn't have to justify the existence of a wilderness area by saying, 'Well, it protects the watershed, and it's a nice place to backpack and hunt, and it's pretty.'"

Environmentalists view the Alaskan wilderness, the wetlands and the rainforests as inherently valuable and worthy of preservation in their current, untouched form. No reason is given for this value, and we are expected to accept without question that the spotted owl is valuable and should be protected, despite any negative effects on humans that might result. Humans, after all, are not considered a part of nature that is important to preserve.

Sustaining human existence is a process of reshaping the environment to meet our own needs. The more productive we become, the more we change our surroundings. Whether building a dam in a river to generate hydroelectric power, drilling for oil to produce gasoline or cutting down trees to make room for housing, every action that benefits humans necessarily modifies our environment. Since environmentalism holds that the environment should be preserved, it is automatically opposed to human existence.

Either humans have a right to exist or we don't; there can be no middle ground stating that we may exist, so long as we don't kill too many animals or cut down too many trees. If nature is intrinsically valuable and does not include humans, every meal is immoral, every house built is an evil committed against nature. Human existence is an act that should bring with it a never-ending sense of guilt.

City University of New York Professor of Philosophy Paul Taylor advocates environmentalism consistently. "[T]he end of the human epoch on earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty, 'good riddance,'" he writes.

Environmentalists win over many people not by condemning man, but by advocating things that benefit his existence, like cleaner air or water. No one wants to breathe polluted air or drink water infested with bacteria, so these goals are very appealing. Those who have bought into the environmentalist movement's claim that unregulated capitalism leads to pollution embrace environmentalists as the only solution to pollution, although they may not agree that nature should be preserved at man's expense.

If environmentalists really cared about improving human existence, they would advocate capitalism - the system that allows individuals to use nature to continually improve their own lives, leading to incredible improvements in the quality and length of human life. In the last 100 years, the life expectancy has risen nearly 30 years for the average adult. Instead of supporting capitalism, environmentalists are in favor of arbitrarily designating vast, potentially valuable tracts of land as public, untouchable property, and call for limitless government power to regulate businesses.

Under a pure capitalist system, as described in philosopher Ayn Rand's works, everything is privately owned. As a consequence, nature is preserved only to the extent that it benefits man. Companies cannot dump waste into rivers at whim, because those rivers are the property of someone else. The same applies to any other form of pollution that is harmful to man - nobody wants to pollute their own property, and no one is allowed to pollute anyone else's, so waste management is handled in a very clean fashion. At the same time, no one has the right to prevent someone from drilling on his own property, or from otherwise using his land for his personal benefit.

It is time for Americans to reject environmentalism and to celebrate the value of trees and oil fields - not for their own sake, but for the benefits they bring us.

--Alex Epstein, Duke University sophomore