It's a problem, making "political or philosophical" art when the market is "about hyper-capitalism" and the art is "poker chips for billionaires."

Nate Lowman is "bummed out" that "other people’s gambling habits change the meaning of paintings." Contemplate the pain of artistic success when the high prices paid "dictate how people perceive art."

Lowman’s work takes the shape of smiley faces, magnetized bullet holes, and Arbre Magique air fresheners. The images he gathers often come from the news cycle or the crime blotter (distressed blondes in general, among them Nicole Brown, murdered former wife of O. J. Simpson; “More or Less,” a 2003 show at Apex Art, featured bearded men such as John Walker Lindh, Jim Morrison, and Che Guevara), and he re-purposes “found” language that lies awkwardly between personal and impersonal, like the bumper sticker Jesus would use the turn signal, asshole.

ADDED: The linked Vanity Fair text is written by Edward Helmore, and he seems unaware of the political (and moral) incorrectness of referring to a murdered woman as a "distressed blonde."

Quizzing the Occupy Wall Street protesters about who's really in bed with the bankers.

Evan Coyne Maloney, via Instapundit.

If anybody at that tea party yesterday was carrying a sign that had any whiff of racism or insanity...

... you can be sure some anti-tea-partyist took a photograph of it and posted it on a blog.

That's the trouble with demonstrations. You're going to be judged by the company you keep. And nothing's going to make it fair and proportionate.

I've tried to be careful with things like that when I've photographed protests in Madison, Wisconsin. I remember very well the time I made a video of an anti-war march:

Here's the peace march that took place today at about 1 p.m. on State Street in Madison, Wisconsin. This clip shows the whole length of the parade. Note the man at the front, just behind the banners, who is holding a sign that says "Vive Saddam." (It's the third sign from the right.) The entire clip -- which I shot while walking in the opposite direction -- is about 3 minutes long. It includes a large dove puppet and a large papier maché skull.

I describe the worst guy, but I also show the entire parade and mention some noninflammatory details.

***

I walked down State Street today. The Ironman Triathlon was in town. Here's a picture of the winner just before he crossed the finish line:

Photo by Meade.

The winner was Raynard Tissink. He's on Twitter:

Just won IM Wisconsin. A very tough day with stomach issues, but managed to push through and take the win.

Nice going, Raynard Tissink.

Anyway, we weren't protesting. We were stretching out hands to high-five the Ironman, then skittering over to a café to wash our hands, drink iced coffee, and blog.

We saw no protests on State Street today. The closest things I saw to a protest was an old man wearing a light green T-shirt that had on it the image of Che Guevara wearing a light green T-shirt that had on it the image of Che Guevara wearing a light green T-shirt (and implicitly Che images ad infinitum).

I wish I'd stopped him, taken his picture, and — in the style of The Sartorialist — asked him some questions about what he meant by that.

About Benicio del Toro's Che-related walk-out on the interview with that Washington Times reporter.

On Tuesday, I called foul at this Washington Times piece about how Benicio Del Toro walked out on an interview when pressed with questions about Che Guevara, the character he plays in Steven Soderbergh's new movie "Che." I wanted to respect the actor who sees his place to be acting a role, not mouthing off about history and politics.

The author of the article, Sonny Bunch, wrote to me and — when I asked — gave me permission to publish this response:

You know, I was hoping that the walkout wouldn't come across as a "gotcha"-type moment. Rather, I was hoping it could be used to demonstrate just how contentious the movie is: In the midst of an otherwise ordinary interview, the actor/producer largely responsible for its creation just up and walks out. I wanted that to set the stage for a broader discussion of the movie involving the director and the regime's dissidents.

And I say "otherwise ordinary" because it was--I thought the interview was going really well until he cut it off. It wasn't particularly heated or repetitious and never veered too far off topic; the last question he took was an innocuous one about how you portray a failed revolution on film as opposed to a successful one. (I hope that came across in the web video my editorial overlords asked me to tape...) We ended up cutting most of that context because the piece was too long, but I can assure you that it was your average interview with a movie star, with one key difference: I asked follow-ups.

The movie itself isn't nearly as interesting as the trailer makes it out to be: Guevara comes across as Jesus with an AK-47, healing the sick, teaching the illiterate to read, and mowing down enemies of the people. It's split into two parts, one about the successful Cuban revolution and the second about the failed Bolivian revolution. What's left out is the time Guevara and Castro spent ruling Cuba. It's an interesting artistic choice to make, but it's also one that leaves you open to criticisms of infidelity to history by way of omission. I was curious to know what he, as a producer, made of those criticisms. That's all...

Thanks.

By the way, I've seen this trailer for the movie several times — not voluntarily, as part of a captive theater audience — and it didn't seem to take sides about whether we ought to think well of Che. It ends with this question and answer: "How does it feel to be a symbol?" "Of what?" That sounded distanced and existentialist. It made me think the movie might be a work of art of some complexity. In that context, I imagined del Toro to be an artist who immersed himself in the role and, in doing that, lost the critical eye and political perspective the reporter wanted him to use.

I'm not blaming Bunch for asking the questions now, though.

"I'm done. I'm done, I hope you write whatever you want. I don't give a damn."

If you portray a historical figure in a movie, should you be prepared to defend him or answer historical questions about him? Benicio Del Toro, who portrays Che Guevara in Steven Soderbergh's "Che" thinks not. I'd say that's fine. What I don't like is actors mouthing off about things they don't understand very well, and it looks like Del Toro is doing the complete opposite.

Now, I can certainly understand that the Washington Times would have loved to lure him into saying something stupid about Che, but give him credit when he won't go there. He took the high ground, apparently, and wanted to present himself as an actor. Respect that. Don't bully him into walking out. And don't preen about getting that reaction from him. But you did get your Drudge link and big traffic.

I call foul!

UPDATE: The Washington Times reporter writes to me and I respond.

DouChé.

DouChé.