The Emperors pretty pink suit.

German writer and Statesman Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe proposed that for critiquing art, (specifically plays, but it is a universal application) we aks ourselves three questions.

1) What is the artist trying to say?
2) How well did the artist say it?
3) Was it worth saying?

The beautiful thing about art, in any medium or form, is it's subjective nature.  No painting, no piece of music, no movie, no play, no...well...anything will affect two people exactly the same way.  Another beautiful thing about art,, in any medium or form, is that it will inspire in all of us, an opinion and the need to share it.  So what Goethe has provided for us, is not at all some way to difinitively answer if that piece of art is good, or not.  Because of the subjective nature of art, that question can never really be answered.  What it provides instead, is the framework on which to build the discussion.  Instead of just saying, I loved it, or I hated it, these questions give us something to build on why we loved or hated it.  They also allow us, if we actually ask ourselves these questions, to think for ourselves.  Not simply react to an initial opinion, but actually analyze why we have that opinion.  I like that.  I'm a big fan of thinking.

Now I will never be as smart, or have the realm of influence of Mr. Goethe, but I am a little bit self absorbed, and try to boil things down to a position of...me.  So, because I know these questions, and because I'm a big fan of thinking, almost any time I see, hear, or observe some new work, in whatever medium, I will ask myself these questions.  However, I also noticed, that these questions, as you will see, are as much about the artist, as they are about the work itself.  They can be applied to the work, but it always draws back to the creator of the work.  So for me, I created three more questions that leave the creator of the work out of it almost entirely.

1) Is it relevant?  I made this the number one question, because to me it is the most important.  If it doesn't mean anything, then what's the point?

2) Is it provocative?  Is it causing me to feel something? Is it giving me something to think about?  Is something happening in front of me that is moving me to think or feel?

3) Is it entertaining?  Now this may seem like a throwaway question, but it really isn't.  I have seen so many plays, movies, whatever, that may have left the first two completely to the wind, but boy did I have a good time, and I felt that that time was well spent. Some piece of work may be completely pointless, and ultimately leave me with nothing to think about beyond where to go for dinner afterwards, but boy did I have a good time.  Now if that's the case, whatever this piece may be, will certainly not stand the test of time, but in this moment, it's exactly perfect.  Think....pop music.

So now I'll tie this all together with one example.  I can absolutely see, understand, and even defend the existence of the musical Oklahoma, based on Goethe's three questions.  It holds up one hundred percent.  I know it's place and value both when it was written, and now.  However, on a much more personal level, it gets a big fat zero, on my personal questions.  To me, and I speak for me alone, it is not relevant, provocative, nor entertaining.  Sitting through any production of Oklahoma, for me, is absolute death.

I will use not just Goethe's questions, but my own, whenever I have a discussion about art.  I find myself having this discussion primarily regarding plays, or film, but these are the questions that build my personal foundation for any discussion.

Now this next part is going to seemingly come from left field, but bear with me, I promise by the end of it all, it does come together.

If you know me at all, if you've read my facebook posts, or blogs, if we've had the conversation, you know how I feel about body shaming.  Shaming of any type really.  I think all shaming, whatever form it takes, is one of the lowest things one person can do to another.  Especially when applied to another persons body.  To use the very physical form of a person, as a weapon against them is among the most dispicable things a person can do.  Seriously, to do this, reveals so much more about the character of the person shaming, than it does the person being shamed.  I will fight this with everything I have, whenever and wherever I see it.  There is zero place for this, in my little bubble of reality, and although my sphere of influence is as small as a person can have, within that sphere, there will never, ever be question where I stand on this topic.

There is also, especially in American social culture, this bizarre idea, that the naked human form is something to be ashamed of.  I'm not gonna waste words about how this has happened. The intrinsic link between nudity, and sex. I won't get into discussion of morality, or propriety, or decency.  None of these things really mean anything to me personally, or have much relevance to the discussion at hand.  I will simply note, that it's there.  This strange link between shame, and nudity. The further application to use nudity as a method of shaming. Although I hate it, I understand where it comes from based on our nations Judeo/Christian foundation. I also don't have it.  I never have.  I've never been ashamed of my own body, regardless what form it may take from time to time.  I've never been inclined to even think of a way to shame, when I see another naked body.  Nudity, and shame are not linked in my brain.  They just aren't.  So anytime, another celebrity gets caught in some degree of undress, and the whole world freaks out...I get it on an intellectual level.  I'm not stupid.  I understand the freak out. I just don't get it on a personal level.  Every. Damn. Time, the only thing I can think is...so what.  Janet Jacksons nipple popped out in a halftime show, and we are still feeling FCC repercussions, and in my head all I can think is ain't any of y'all seen a nipple before. Literally...calm your tits.  This is NOT the big deal you're making of it.

Sooo....after ALL that preamble...here we go.

This past week, in various parts of the country, in public parks, statues of a very naked Donald Trump mysteriously, and seemingly randomly appeared.  We, as a nation, collectively gasped. Then we laughed. Then we took pictures, and passed around the stories.  Then we made jokes. We made commentary.  We tweeted.  We posted.

Then the blogs came out.  Then the articles. Then all the little things telling us that this had crossed a line.  We shouldn't be laughing.  We shouldn't be commenting. No matter how horrible a person is, (and he is), we should never resort to body shaming.

Wait what?

And everybody jumped on that bandwagon.  The wagon that I'm usually the first to jump on.  Hell, the wagon I'm usually driving.

And here's where I tie it all together.

Because I do not inherently associate shame to nudity, this idea hadn't even crossed my mind.  The artist(s) whoever they may be, had titled these little statues, The Emporor Has No Clothes.  Or something to that effect, and in my head, that's all it ever was.  So let's look at it that way for a moment.

1) What is the artist trying to say?  Well, since the statues were titled, it seems pretty obvious.  These statues were a direct reference to the story I'm sure we're all familiar with, and I won't retell here.  In the metaphorical sense, it couldn't be more appropriate. Donald Trump may literally be, the stupidest person to ever run for President.  He clearly has no idea of what the constitution actually contains.  He hasn't the vaguest idea, the purpose of congress.  He is seemingly completely unaware of how checks and balances actually work.  He has complete disdain for actual law, and guaranteed constituional right.  He seems to have the idea that were he to be elected, he would then be granted some magic god stick that he simply has to wave around, to make things happen.  He is a small man, who says small things, loudly.  Most of those leaders who still give him endorsement, much like the folks in the story, do nothing more than enable him to continue thinking this, although they themselves know that nothing he is saying, can actually ever happen.  The story of The Emporors New Clothes, is very literally happening on the grandest stage, right before our eyes.  The artist, in creating these statues, with this title, couldn't have been any more clear, in what they are trying to say.

2) How well did he say it? This one could probably be debated with various points of view.  Since I live in a city where there was no statue, I never actually saw one.  I saw a few photographs of them. I can't speak to the quality itself.  From what I could gather, they seemed fair representation.  It was quite obvious who the statues were meant to represent.  The question applies more I think, to the metaphor.  The metaphor which was apparently lost, to the more immediate concerns of nudity and shame.  So really one has to wonder at this point, is it the fault of the artist, of the audience misses the point?  Or was there a way the artist could have made the point better, so that the audience doesn't miss it?  Or...was there really some body shaming going on?  Maybe.  I can't speak to that, because I am not the artist.  I know that for me as personal audience that was never the point.  I never felt that.  I think that if Mr, Trump had the body of an Olympic adonis, then the conversation of body shaming would never have come up at all.  Since instead, he has a body type that we as Americans have collectively agreed is physically less aesthetically pleasing...then obviously the shame would happen.  It could also be that the statues were less than kind regarding the genital region of the body, but again, to me this spoke much less of shame, and more to the fact that Mr. Trump himself brought the topic to the discussion during the debates.  So on a personl level, I think the artist said it very well, but on a grander stage, perhaps he failed.

3) Was it worth saying? Without question. Not only is it worth saying, it must be said over and over and over again.  I think right now that there may be no more important statement to make, than the absolute incompetence of the man, to the job for which he is so vigorously campaigning.  Not only must we address this issue, we must also address the fact that he has the support of men, who know absolutely that he is wholly unqualified.

So for me. Yes. This holds up absolutely when applying Goethe's theorem.

Now to my own.

1) Is it relevant? It couldn't be moreso.

2) Is it provocative? Obviously.  Not only personally, but on the grand stage.  We have talked about it.  We have been moved to speak and think about it. We have most certainly been provoked.

3) Is it entertaining?  Oh I laughed.  I laughed and laughed.  I was, without question, entertained.

So yeah. On all counts.  All six of my personal question, this statue holds up.  This statue should exist. This should be something we talk about, both as the work itself, and the metaphor it represents. I also, freely allow that others may wholeheartedly disagree.  That is the beauty of art.  That is the wonder of our stories.  They are all subjective.  We will all be moved differently. We should also all, as much as possible, contribute the the conversation.  Or even better, we should contribute to what's being discussed.

Make More Art.  Tell More Stories. Don't just have the discussion.

Be the discussion.