As readers know, I posted yesterday an email from Bill Bowen, owner of the Double Dip Deli, in which he criticized two of my posts that made mention of public art in Whitewater. Yesterday, I printed his letter in full, and today I’ll respond. I gave him the benefit of being able to tell his friends and patrons that he was the one who gave me a piece of his mind. (Including his name may slake his desire for notice, and it doesn’t bother me, so I identified him.)
Below, I reproduce Mr. Bowen’s remarks in black, and my replies in blue, for easy distinction.
BB: Dear Mr. Adams,
I fail to understand how you can be for a “Free Whitewater” and yet be so cynical and belittling.
JA: Part of standing for a Free Whitewater means exercising my free speech rights. Your belittling is my artistic criticism. It’s not a free city, state, or republic if I cannot comment merely because someone else might be offended. That’s the problem with your analysis. If you feel someone is belittled, presumably, I’m supposed to stop writing, or I’m supposed to write only what does not offend you, your customers, etc. I will write freely, and I will not stop because someone might be offended. If writers stopped writing because someone might be offended, no one would write.
That’s a challenge in our small town: group-think requires people to be positive, sweep criticism under the rug, and defend whatever project or program the city or some civic group proposes. Why? What if they’re foolish, or empty, or ineffective ideas? They can’t all be great ideas, unless everyone behind every project is a visionary. I think people are sometimes making mistakes, and I’ll write that I think they’re sometimes making mistakes.
No one can say that this website is from one of the lemmings of Whitewater — those who follow along because they think that’s what they’re supposed to do.
I’m not cynical — literally, distrustful of human sincerity — about public life; I’m skeptical — literally, not easily convinced, having doubts or reservations. (About private life and faith I have no such doubts or reservations.)
BB: For example, in the following two excerpts, I am astounded that you would disparage the efforts of a group of people who want nothing more than to be proud of and enjoy their community. They have worked very hard on these public art projects, some tirelessly, and have given a part of themselves to the community. Yet you state that they are “empty municipal gestures”
First excerpt: Our economic development is less about a free market economy than about any number of empty municipal gestures. We could hang birdhouses, or painted chairs and wooden fish, from our lampposts forever and still businesses would close and go elsewhere.
JA: But, sadly, I’m right — we do hang these projects on lampposts, and stores still close. That was the point of my Vacant Whitewater post. Perhaps your point is that more stores would close if people did not expend their time painting wooden fish and chairs and hanging them on lampposts. Even so, is this the best use of our efforts? There is something that we could do that would be more effective? If we’re down to the fish-and-chair-and birdhouse plan to save the economy, we’re cooked. That was the point of the James Lileks post to which I linked. These projects are, as he noted, often matters of municipal desperation. (More about the municipal connection in a bit.) It should not be astounding, to an astute businessman, that someone might question whether any given effort is the best use of time and resources.
I am not sure if you’re truly astounded, or if it’s just a pose. If it’s a pose, then at least I see the practicality of it: you may gain more patrons, admirers, and profits. If you are truly astounded, then you are too easily shocked or surprised.
BB: Second excerpt: Q: Why do you want to embarrass/criticize the town? A: Reform and growth begin with honesty, not whitewash and Potemkin villages. We have some great possibilities before us, but some of our fellow residents have been treated with outrageous cruelty and official indifference, lies, and excuses. All the birdhouses hanging from lampposts will not undo the damage that, for example, our police force has recently inflicted on hardworking people. I am even more surprised that as a self professed expert on our city, you apparently don’t understand the difference between a “municipal gesture” and the commitment this group of individuals has shown toward making our city just a little bit nicer place to live. Creativity and commitment is something to be regarded and respected. It can provide innovative solutions to real problems. It certainly does not deserve the irreverence you have shown it.
JA: Where to begin? First, in my post, it’s clear that I refer to the deportation of industrious Mexican workers. (I know that Coan will caw endlessly that the federal government actually deported them, or jailed them, but that’s just his futile exercise in hand-washing.) You make no mention of them at all, except when citing my remarks.
What nonsense to say that I am a “self professed expert.” That’s completely false — nowhere have I declared myself an expert. Nowhere. Your rhetoric runs ahead of your argument. It’s a wasted line, as it’s so easily refuted.
I have been very clear that I am a common man, citizen, resident, and property owner, who is skeptical of much of what goes on around here. You ask: Who am I to criticize others? I am a common man, a citizen, resident, and property owner, who is skeptical of much of what goes on around here — that’s who I am to criticize. It’s a free society where anyone has a right to criticize. My rights are not limited by what others decide is offensive. I have every right to offer my opinions, and publish them, even if it offends a few artists and their champion.
BB: These projects were created not only by accomplished artists, but also by everyday individuals and some even as family projects. Who are you to belittle them? Even if this was not your original intention, the connotation is certainly there. Talk about cruelty.
JA: “Talk about cruelty.” When I read that line, I thought the entire message might be a joke, or spoof.
Review your comparison: people were removed from this community, and jailed, and deported, you think mere words of criticism of a few bird-house builders is similarly cruel? That’s a false moral equivalence and a bankrupt comparison. Do you really think that’s the same? If you do, your position is not morally serious; if you don’t think it’s the same, then your position amounts to no more than a grandstanding pose, or sloppy rhetoric.
Why should all creativity be embraced? Creativity can lead to good, mediocre, or empty ends. I can and will make the distinction. In the case of the fish/chair/birdhouse effort, I believe it’s an empty effort that leads me to think the work amounts to less than meets the eye. They’re all created — that its, acts of creativity — but why should I admire them all just because someone made them? What if I think some of them are unattractive, or without merit? By your reasoning, I would have to praise all art simply because someone created it. (By the way, I would not revere art, or other human things; I will save reverence for higher things, not the work of someone who painted a wooden chair and put it on a lamppost.)
Suppose I painted a picture, and placed it on display. Some people would praise it, some would be indifferent, and some would say it was ugly. I would hope that if I displayed something publicly, I would have the maturity to accept diverse opinions, including critical ones, without hyper-sensitively decrying negative reviews as cruelty. If the people you defend are true artists, then they should be mature enough to handle, and shrug off, the comments of someone who writes that their efforts are empty. Are all these artists of Whitewater made of sugar, that they melt after a few words, or falsely equate those few words with the hardship of deportation?
BB: The only part of the entire project that could be considered a “municipal gesture” would be 1) the fact that permission was granted to do these projects and 2) the city crews, which I have read you don’t have any respect for either, assisted in securing the works to the lamp posts. By the way, you should try some of the jobs they do on a daily basis.
JA: Two quick replies. First, if you need city permission, it’s not a truly private effort. I don’t need the city’s permission to hang a painting in my house, but if I did the same on a genuine City of Whitewater lamppost without asking permission, some Whitewater police officer not otherwise engaged in a keeping our city safe from marauding immigrants would ask me to take it down.
Second, about some of those city workers: I did not know the owner of the Double Dip Deli to be a champion of the working class. By the way, as you surely know, I was referring only to those city workers who were committed to a small town orthodoxy, not all workers. Fortunately, not everyone around here shares that orthodoxy. Those who work at public expense have it far easier that people who work difficult private jobs in factories, shipyards, etc. That includes those now deported Mexicans who were working in private industry, until recently. Those who get salaries, benefits, etc. at public expense — with the tax dollars of those who work laboriously in private industry — have more stability than those who face the vicissitudes of the private market. A lamprey might contend that it does hard work by feeding parasitically, but I would think that it’s not as hard as being the larger fish from which the lamprey drains blood.
BB: I will also tell you that these types of projects have helped me stay in business in Whitewater. Aside from the additional foot traffic downtown, which translates to additional sales, it sometimes is just to nice know that people are willing to try, which helps me hang in there and try a little harder.
JA: So which is it: is your support of a matter of defending the artistic community, or making money? If it’s money, then the motivation that you’re defending the artistic community from my supposed cruelty is less altruistic and more self-interested. If it’s money, then I will leave it up to you if it’s the best value for your money, knowing that it may not be the best expenditure of effort for the entire city — that is, it may not accomplish as much as you think.
I want to be helpful; I can suggest a way to increase cooperation between the City of Whitewater and the artists that you champion. Next year, I suggest that private citizens paint and display painted wooden shovels on the city’s lampposts. The artists can paint them, and decorate them wherever their creativity — to be revered, by your account — leads them. The city will get something out of it, too. From this effort will come a new motto for Whitewater’s city government:
Whitewater City Government — No One Shovels It Like We Do.™
BB: I doubt you will actually post this publicly, but if you do I would very much appreciate 1) you do include my name, I am proud of my viewpoints and welcome direct discourse on differing opinions and 2) post it's entirety, paraphrases can often be misleading. I expect though that the name will be withheld because "e;Our policy is…blah, blah"e; or "It is not our mission to…blah, blah, blah" etc, etc.
Speaking honestly,
Bill Bowen
The Double Dip Deli
JA: Doubt not.