Pages

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

TxDOT's Messing With Prada Marfa

If the devil wears Prada, he must be one-legged.

Right-legged, in fact, if he wants to shop at Prada's elite shop in Marfa, Texas.

Which isn't, actually, open for business.

Confused yet?  Good, because that's kinda what the Prada family, along with pop culture artists Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, want you to be.  Elmgreen and Dragset are European purveyors of the ironic and socially-conscious, and they talked the Prada family, purveyors of extravagantly-priced leather goods, into letting them make a point about the transitory nature of conspicuous consumption.

Complicating matters further is that Prada Marfa isn't in Marfa, Texas, but the even smaller, dustier two-bit outpost of Valentine, a half-hour's drive northwest of Marfa.

If you're really into the arts scene, you may have heard of Marfa, a small town which, compared to Valentine, may nevertheless seem like a metropolis.  Built as a railroad stop on the high desert, Marfa, with less than two thousand full-time residents, rivals some of New Mexico's quaint, remote Postmodern artist colonies in terms of its non-classical cultural expressionism.  Eclectic, with a decidedly left-wing bias, Marfa has experienced a resurgence since the 1970's as an outpost of avant-garde East Coast minimalism, replete with surprisingly high real estate prices, and a snobbery liberals like to pretend only Republicans display.

But still:  shopping for Prada?  Who'd go so far out of their way to spend that kind of money at such a store, you might ask?  Do they build any sort of outlet mall that far removed from civilization?  Even at their prices, how can Prada manage the customer volume to stay profitable?

At the Prada Marfa, there is no handle on the door.  In fact, the door is part of the art.  From the street, which actually is a plain ol' country highway, with two lanes of blacktop running straight and flat, the Prada Marfa sits off to the side, by itself.  A small, square box in the middle of scrubland, with a life-sized and lifelike facade, complete with awnings and four Prada logos.  Two plate-glass windows frame the non-existent glass "door," revealing a monotone showroom with chic purses and racks of shoes on display, lit by custom lighting in the evening.  Except all of the products on display are from Prada's fall/winter 2005 collection, like a time capsule from when the store "opened" in October of that year.

And it's not as if the products are even sellable.  The purses have had their bottoms removed, and all of the shoes are rights, with none of their matching lefts languishing in some stockroom in the back.  In fact, there is no stockroom; that's why the devil who'd wear these Pradas is right-footed.

Not only is there no stockroom, but there's no back door.  There's no cash register, no sales people, and no customers, either.  But there is plenty of advertising, and almost all of it is free.  Like the free advertising the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is giving Prada Marfa this week with its decision rendering the so-called art installation as unlicensed advertising, akin to a billboard for the famous Prada brand.

And TxDOT (say: "tex-dot") is scrambling to corral unlicensed billboards across the Lone Star State.  Pesky varmints.

For its part, Prada Marfa is situated on private, unzoned land with the consent of its landowner, so what's the big deal?  The reason it's unlicensed is because it's neither an advertisement nor a commercial establishment; it is, in the words of Marfa's culturally sophisticated denizens, "art."  It's sculpture made of glass, concrete, leather, all-weather awning material, and electronic illumination that happens to include elements that look suspiciously like a floor and a roof.

"So," demands TxDOT, "what about the 'Prada' name and logo in four places on the awnings, hmm?"

Well, for one thing, the signs are parallel with the roadway, which means they're not exactly legible to passing motorists traveling at 80 mph.  Their lettering is also relatively small, at approximately one foot in height for the largest logo.  Granted, the - ahem! - "sculpture" sits pretty close to the road, but that doesn't make the word "Prada" any easier to read.  And since the products in the artwork are now eight years old - a lifetime in fashion retailing - it's not like they're advertising anything, either.

Several months ago, a similar complaint from TxDOT was raised not far away from Prada Marfa, on the same desolate stretch of roadway, only it involved a towering neon Playboy bunny.  Playboy erected its logo atop a 40-foot pole by the side of the road, next to a concrete pedestal upon which a battered 1972 Dodge Charger had been mounted.  Maybe the iconic smut purveyor was hoping to conjure images of Cadillac Ranch, yet another roadside oddity in west Texas, to dispel the far more overt advertising aspects of its sculpture.  Hey, Postmodern art can be interpreted so many different ways!  But no, TxDOT isn't buying it, and is making Playboy remove their logo, even if they're letting the vintage Charger remain.

Elmgreen and Dragset built Prada Marfa out of conventional construction materials, but aside from some petty vandalism over the years, they've pretty much left it to decompose on its own.  Their theme, remember, involves a mixture of status, conspicuousness, superfluousness, and decay, but since they chose the arid climes of Marfa for their project, like the planes our aviation industry stores in the desert, Prada Marfa will take a while to disintegrate.  If TxDOT wanted to complain about it being an unsafe structure, like any number of far older buildings which have been left to disintegrate along plenty of Texas highways with their vintage Texaco and Champion signs still affixed to them - which might make a more compelling argument against Prada Marfa on their part - then they're going to have to wait.  By no practical interpretation can Prada Marfa be considered advertisement, so their current objection towards it is a bit silly.

Of course, since it wasn't cheap to build Prada Marfa, perhaps the same art connoisseurs who paid for the original sculpture should fork over some extra bucks to secure whatever permits TxDOT wants it to have just to get the bureaucracy off of its back.

But then again, maybe TxDOT is unwittingly playing into Elmgreen and Dragset's hands.  By badgering the project with governmental rules and regulations, TxDOT could be adding yet another angle to the artwork - that of the struggles private enterprise encounters as it deals with tax-collecting, fee-taking, and red-tape-creating authorities.

Leave it to Texas, and the bare-bones, supposedly business-oriented state government over which Governor Rick Perry so proudly rules, to be making such a case against privately-funded art.

Ironically, a number of years ago, TxDOT created the marketing slogan, "Don't Mess With Texas," for its anti-littering campaign.  Recently, as the slogan has become more widely known, the state has been quietly ramping up its efforts at protecting it as a licensed brand, wresting monetary legal settlements from the mostly innocent parties who try to use it without authorization.  TxDOT likes to claim that the phrase is popularly known as an anti-littering message, and should stay that way, but whether the general population knows that is debatable.

Prada Marfa may not have sought to mess with Texas and its deceptively aggressive TxDOT, and after eight years, it's a little ignominious for it to take a neon bunny for officials to discover the clever bit of sculptural social commentary out in the middle of nowhere.

So, maybe an "Open from 9am until 9pm" sign should get included on the window.

That way, Governor Perry could use Prada Marfa as a prop for his "open for business" bragging rights.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Crutch or Truth? Seeing God Despite Doubt

How do we know?

How do we know the God of the Bible is the one, eternal God of the universe?

How do we know that Jesus is His Son, and that our belief in that relationship saves us from eternal damnation in Hell?

How do we know there's a literal Heaven and a literal Hell, anyway?

What makes Christianity as true and compelling as its adherents claim it to be?  Can't Christianity simply be seen as a comprehensive collection of folklore, fables, superstitions, and moral traditions contrived to explain the reality of life as we encounter it?  What makes Christianity fact, instead of mythology?

These are questions people have been asking since the time of Christ.  In fact, people have been disputing the existence of God since at least before the time of Noah.  And, um, that great flood, that many people think is simply a far-fetched allegory about true goodness being rare in the world.

I mean, really!  How did so few men build so great a seafaring craft that it could sustain the menagerie of God's animal kingdom for those mystical 40 days?  Noah's Ark may be a cute theme for a child's bedroom, but I'm too intelligent a person to peg my identity on a religion that expects me to take it as historical fact.

It's that kind of pride and self-confidence amongst unbelievers that stokes their incredulity.  And even among professing Christians.  Indeed, not everybody who claims to be a Christian believes they need to take the Bible literally.  Isn't interpreting the Bible's stories and narratives as metaphors, allegories, and literary poetry a far more rational approach to Christianity?  A belief system which, after all, is but one of many ways of pursuing universal truth?

How can some Christians defend "every jot and tittle" of the Bible as infallible?  Inerrant?  Considering all of the translations, transcriptions, and primitive documentation techniques throughout the history of interpersonal communication, how do we know this stuff hasn't acquired a fanciful level of embellishment?  Line up ten adults, whisper a sentence to the first one, and by the time that sentence gets repeated through all ten people, it rarely resembles the original.

Don't Christians expect their adherents to take so much on sheer faith?

And then they tell us that the peace they receive from their Sovereign Deity makes all of the uncertainty, lack of quantifiable proofs, and unreasonableness worth it.  They can't really describe that peace, except to say that it "passes understanding."  Awfully convenient, isn't it?  Saying that the rewards they get for believing what they can't verify can't be verified, either.

We've seen the sort of "peace" members of certain cults exhibit:  the blind trust in their leader, even in the face of obvious fallacies.  What separates Christianity from any other cult, except the fact that Christianity is so popular and conventional?

Indeed, the culture of Christianity evangelicals have historically enjoyed in North America has created a deceptively shallow environment in which we've been able to perpetuate our faith.  Even within communities of faith, a lot of people really don't know why they believe what they believe - if they even know what they believe!  Now, we're seeing how shallow that environment has been, as moral standards that were once unchallenged in our society are becoming imperiled by greater and greater numbers of people asking all of these same questions in ever-louder voices.

How can one group of people expect protections and exceptions simply by saying their holy book is better than another religion's holy book?  What makes the way I want to live my life more offensive than the way you want to live yours?  You say yours is the religion of freedom; well, I want my freedom!

Evangelicals have been taught that we should respond to these questions, criticisms, and complaints from society in the same fashion that Jesus responded to Satan when he tempted Him.  In other words, we should use Scripture as our defense.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  But it's not necessarily the only approach.

Consider the fact that the Devil believes God exists.  He used to be an angel himself.  Jesus could quote Scripture and drive Satan away because they were both communicating with a shared knowledge of the Author of their reality.  Mortals, however, who don't believe God exists, aren't necessarily going to give any credence to His Word.  Why should they, if they don't trust the Author of the Bible?

Perhaps, when our audience can appreciate its legitimacy, believers in Christ can rely on the Bible to provide answers for the hope that is inside of us, and we can offer narratives from our personal testimony when our audience doesn't consider the Bible legitimate.  Think of it as a matter of perspective.  The Bible teaches that only the Holy Spirit can illuminate God's Word, but we can't always recognize those people in whom the Holy Spirit is at work.  Besides, Christians should be able to put into our own words the reasons for why we believe what we believe, right?

For example, we evangelicals believe that all of Creation tells the glory of God.  In fact, if we don't give God glory, Creation will literally cry out instead.  So, although it sounds eerily like New Age pantheism, I have to admit that I cannot look at trees, or contemplate mathematics, or watch the tide, or look at a newborn animal without believing that some sort of "greater power" orchestrated all of it.  Wouldn't this "greater power" have to be all-knowing and all-powerful?  I mean:  Look around you!  Don't just take all of what you see for granted.  If the God of the Bible didn't create all of this, then another supreme being had to.  Had to!

It takes more faith to believe evolutionary theory than the Bible's literal account of Creation.

How about the Bible as literature?  Doesn't it strike you as amazing that, aside from some minor technical aberrations, there is not one significant discrepancy within the content of a book compiled of different manuscripts by different authors, writing in different languages, over a span of centuries?  Our world has known some pretty impressive writers, but no other holy book has stood the test of time and academic scrutiny like the Bible.  Isn't it too consistent not to trust?

Then there's the Christian Deity Himself:  God.  God isn't just one person, but He's three people!  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  Bizarre, right?  Why complicate your religion with a concept humanity will never understand?  Christians call our tripartite Deity the "Trinity," but that word isn't even in the Bible!  Why intentionally make a faith concept that has to utterly depend on faith in the unseen and unexplainable?  The only explanation has to be that this is simply the way it is.  Things can exist whether we believe they exist or not.  God's three selves - as the Chinese government officially describes Christianity - is/are one/three of those Things.

Of course, the hardened skeptic will still be protesting the idea that only God's Holy Spirit can reveal His truth to humanity.  What a cop-out!  So, Christians can simply dismiss somebody's unbelief as a lack of something none of us can see or quantify?  Shouldn't we be working a little harder at trying to make this make sense?

Which, actually, brings us to the most bizarre part of Christianity:  you and I do nothing to get it.  We do nothing to earn it.  We can't work for it, study for it, take a test for it, pay for it, slave away for it, kill ourselves for it, meet quotas for it, or even believe in it hard enough, with our eyes squinched really, really tight!  Faith in Christ is a free gift from God.  Christ is the One Who paid for it through His death, burial, and resurrection.  All we do is believe, in faith, trusting what God says in His Word is true.

Now, some of us Christians part ways over the process by which this belief is applied to us.  Some Christians, such as many Baptists, say that we "choose" to believe.  Other Christians, such as Presbyterians, believe God chooses us.  The difference is that, for example, Baptists say we have to make a decision to believe in God, whereas Presbyterians say God has already decided, in His infinite sovereignty, those people throughout history who will believe in Him.

Is that getting too theological for you?  Yeah, it gets that way to me too, sometimes.  Not only that, but every single question I've written in this essay I've also asked myself, and not just years ago, when I became a Christian.  Faith would be so much simpler and easier if I had concrete proofs upon which I could base my trust.  Yet God's power and status in our world is so incomprehensible, He wants us to give up the things we can see, touch, and even feel, not relying on them for our faith, but on His Word instead.

God wants us so dependent upon Him that we're willing to live in faith even if you mock me for doing so.  Even if I can't prove what I believe to your satisfaction - or even, sometimes, when I'm languishing in my own doubt.  Why?  Because by trusting in Him, I demonstrate belief in His ability to care for me, which illustrates His supreme authority over every area of life, which confers glory to Him.

During those times when I struggle with unanswered questions and fears about whether this whole Christianity thing is one big mistake on my part, God promises not to reject me.  Having doubts amid faith is not a sin.  I can't be excommunicated for asking questions.  God is not challenged by my shaky grasp of His reality.  His authority is not based on numbers, or memberships, or some other measurement of a customer base.  His sovereignty doesn't depend on how many countries claim to be a "Christian" nation.  God is so supreme, He never instructs us to ridicule or kill people for refusing to believe in Him.  What other belief system is so secure?

Meanwhile, many of us Christians have bought into a market-centered approach to God.  We view our Christianized culture as an affirmation of God's truth, and view the evaporation of that culture with fear.  Perhaps having had that cushion of cultural Christianity did us more harm than good, if we're incapable of expressing to new generations the reasons for why we can't just go with the flow.  Why we're so committed to what you think are stodgy and increasingly unpopular ideas.  And why some of us will probably waiver little from what we claim to be truth, even if our Christianized culture fades completely from our continent.

Some might see that resoluteness as a strength, but unbelievers don't.  They see us as hypocritically hanging on to goofy legends and hollow promises like fussy kindergartners waiting for recess on the first day of school.

Are we weak-hearted and feeble-minded?  Do we need some sort of crutch to fortify our emotional stability?  Is all of this belief in God, Jesus, and the Bible simply another coping mechanism?  A coping mechanism that is infringing on your preferred coping mechanisms?

To the extent that God provides us with certain spiritual "comforts," then perhaps at least some of our faith could be classified as a coping mechanism.  Christians can't deny that they need God's help to sustain their faith, and even I, as I've already admitted, have doubts from time to time about God's claims regarding Himself.  But that's all part of giving up ourselves for God.  It's a concept that people who will never be saved likely will never understand.  And yes, if that sounds like a cop-out, then we'll have to agree that you are entitled to your version of reality.  God hasn't yet dragged anybody - Baptist, Presbyterian, atheist, or otherwise - kicking and screaming into His Kingdom.

God wants our devotion, but He doesn't need it.

Can you say that about your god, even if your god is yourself?


Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Flight 93's Honor Roll

They took a vote!

We know what they voted on, and the result.  And it doesn't sound as though there were any dissenters.  Nobody asked for a recount, or pouted over their loss.

According to multiple reports relayed by loved ones of passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, the vote was to charge the cockpit and thwart the attack.

September 11, 2001, began as a normal travel day for these passengers.  We'd likely have never heard about any of these folks had their flight made its way uneventfully from Newark to San Francisco.  And even today, we may not remember their names, since there were so many names on 9/11.  But we know what they did.

We know they knew their flight had become a weapon.  We know they knew it was a suicide mission.  We know they knew about planes being flown into New York's Twin Towers.  They knew.  They were talking from the back of their plane with relatives, co-workers, and even telephone operators.  One flight attendant began boiling water in case she found an opportunity to douse a hijacker with it.  Some reported seeing another flight attendant, dead on the plane.  Some were crying and screaming in brutal fright, anguished at the reality they all faced.

They weren't landing and simply walking off the plane when their flight was over.  In fact, they probably weren't even landing.  They were going to crash.

Flight data recorders documented the passenger's siege of the terrorist-occupied cockpit.  It took all of six surreal and selfless minutes, beginning at 9:57, and ending at 10:03, when Flight 93 pulverized itself into a field in rural Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

At 563 miles per hour.

Early reports of this heroic effort included the rousing call, "Let's Roll," presumed to have been uttered by one of the leaders of the plan to rush the cockpit.  And maybe, in an attempt to bolster the spirits of passengers facing their eternal fate in terms of minutes, instead of years, somebody did issue those words as a charge to action.  Later, however, we'd learn officially from recordings made by air traffic controllers of the words "roll it," uttered at 10:00:02, in reference to a flight attendants' food cart being used as a battering ram to knock open the cockpit door.  Air traffic controllers could hear that food cart being bashed against the door, and exclamations of exasperation from the terrorists, who were seeing their plans unravel with every desperate, tinny clash of aluminum cart against aluminum door.

"Those bothersome, determined, gutsy Americans.  Can't they see none of us are going to make it out of this alive?"

A lot of us remember where we were when the Twin Towers were attacked, and when they fell.  We remember seeing the photos of black smoke billowing from the side of the Pentagon.  But because the fields around Shanksville are, relatively speaking, in the middle of nowhere, there was no TV station nearby, or a news crew, or tourists with cameras.  And it's precisely because Shanksville is out in the middle of nowhere that the passengers and crew of Flight 93 provided what just might have been the ideal coda to that morning's attacks against the United States.  If anything about 9/11 could be remotely considered ideal.

True, the deaths of Flight 93's passengers and crew were valiant, and they were confoundingly agonizing.  Yet in terms of the terrorists' plans for destruction in Washington, DC, Flight 93 fizzled embarrassingly.  Imagine, for a moment, the hideous compounds across the Arab world, in which cells of brazen, bloodthirsty jihadists were waiting for news of the glorious triumph of their evil brethren.

"What?  Those infidels tried to storm the cockpit?  They took a VOTE?  Honor to them meant SAVING lives, not killing people?"

You can almost see our Founding Fathers glowing with pride.

The phrase "roll it" may not have as much swagger and bravado as "let's roll," but it does denote action.  It denotes having a plan.  Having the resources to follow through on the plan.  And having the people to deploy the resources.

Fortunately, on Flight 93, the right people were able to roll with it.

Passengers and Crew of Flight 93

Crew
Captain Jason M. Dahl
First Officer LeRoy Homer
Lorraine G. Bay
Sandy Waugh Bradshaw
Wanda Anita Green
CeeCee Ross Lyles
Deborah Jacobs Welsh

Passengers
Christian Adams
Todd M. Beamer
Alan Anthony Beaven
Mark Bingham
Deora Frances Bodley
Marion R. Britton
Thomas E. Burnett, Jr.
William Joseph Cashman
Georgine Rose Corrigan
Patricia Cushing
Joseph DeLuca
Patrick Joseph Driscoll
Edward Porter Felt
Jane C. Folger
Colleen L. Fraser
Andrew (Sonny) Garcia
Jeremy Logan Glick
Kristin Osterholm White Gould
Lauren Catuzzi Grandcolas
Donald Freeman Greene
Linda Gronlund
Richard J. Guadagno
Toshiya Kuge
Hilda Marcin
Waleska Martinez
Nicole Carol Miller
Louis J. Nacke II
Donald Arthur Peterson
Jean Hoadley Peterson
Mark David Rothenberg
Christine Ann Snyder
John Talignani
Honor Elizabeth Wainio