Monday, October 5, 2009


(Bernard-Henri Lévy in the Times looking like a kook)

I’ve always had something against the Times’ chief art critic Michael Kimmelman because he never likes anything at all, and he’s always sure he’s right about that. Problem is, his arguments are usually pretty convincing. I mean, if you were to disagree with his opinion piece in yesterday’s paper about the Roman Polanski case, you’d basically be depraved beyond hope.

In the article, he presents a despicable picture of a tight knit club of French intellectuals and artists who consider morals “yada yada” and who get away with murder – literally – because their important contribution to culture calls for it. At the end of page two, you say to yourself “thank god I’M not like that.”

OK fine. But why do I always feel that he’s not in it for us but against us? Do we have a cultural dis-advocate at the helm of one of the world’s most powerful media outlets? Might a two-page article on what role this French cultural elite does play be more – I don’t know – inspiring?

No comments: