Green caucuses need more coverage

Dear Editor:

I was blown away by the narrow political coverage in Michael Barnes’ article “State Rep. Entenza demystifies caucuses” last week. I must ask how, on a campus where electoral attitudes run from Republican to anarchist, the editors of The Mac Weekly can feel comfortable devoting 45 column inches to an article—purportedly about caucuses in general—that discusses only the Democratic Party? As a member of the Macalester Greens (continually active for almost two years now), I am less than “served” by the 1.5 mentions of my party’s caucuses and concerns: one is a sentence shared with the Republicans offering caucus locations and another claiming the “Green Party was unavailable” to make a comment. Who did you people call?

On the whole, I’m not terribly surprised by this development. After all, The Mac Weekly’s coverage of local and state politics has been terrible (esp. last fall). The essays on the presidential campaigns are nice, but offering disproportionate space to that race perpetuates the high-profile, media circus, horserace mentality dished up by the corporate mega-outlets. This pattern of poor political reporting makes me ask just how the Weekly is accountable to the student body that funds it to the tune of thousands of dollars. Are there any standards of public interest? Or will this letter be met with the old chorus of “volunteer!/we can’t do it right/if you’re not here!?”

For those who couldn’t tell by Barnes’ and Entenza’s account of the caucuses, the Green Party has some important shit to figure out through our caucus process. Do we run a presidential candidate? If so, who? If not, what’s our strategy? Do you want something in the party platform? Bring it as a resolution. Most importantly, though, the caucus is a place to meet with other—maybe less hardcore—Greens in the neighborhood and spur new organizing activities and actions.

Jesse Mortensen ’05
 

The Mac Weekly’s art critique is uninformed

Dear Editor:

Regarding Sarah Brumble’s article “Pretension vs. Beauty: Thoughts inspired by a student print,” [February 20] we would like to contend the following:

We have mistaken the privilege of art journalism to be awarded to people who have been educated in art and its criticisms.

You are incorrectly using your selected definition of pretension. Extravagantly showy and ostentatious work is pretentious when the merit it demands is unjustified. You have not presented any example of a work that does not deserve merit.

Beauty is subjective. To Monet’s contemporaries, his work was hideous, a destruction of beauty. To many viewers today, his work is considered the epitome of beauty.

You have said that intention and motivation constitute pretension. By doing this you have single-handedly dismissed any revision or editing in any creative enterprise. If one were to continue your argument, the author who intends a mood or criticism in her work is pretentious and has no capacity for beauty. The filmmaker who wants you to leave the theater affected and conscious of who you are as a person fails.

Eliana Stein’s piece is a successful example of blind contour (although an unlikely candidate for a “Print of the Week” feature). Blind contour drawings are an exercise in learning how to see. Intentional in its medium and subject matter, this work functions both as a complete drawing and as a practice in visual exploration.

It is a false assumption that all visual arts are products of impassioned inspiration born without premeditation. As with any other creative process, considerable thought, planning and decision-making occurs. The artist decides to use a pencil, decides to draw the boy next to her, erases the smudges on the page, worries that it does not look like him, etc.

We found your analysis justifying the success of Stein’s piece to be uninformed. It is nice that there is no emotional involvement here, but as three art majors we take offense to being judged as pretentious for making intentional work. There is plenty of pretentious art out there, but it takes more informed criticism to identify it.

Lauren Flanagan ’04

Tiffany Kramer ’04

Colleen Stockmann ’05

Art Alliance Chairs