Sunday, April 23, 2017

Words creative and populist disunion

   The disunion of words like “creative” and “populist” is a peculiar 21st century phenomenon, however insofar as joining these words to a theme, it has come to the fore in 2017.
    I know this as I peruse my stash of The New York Times 2015 “Book Review” before the 2016 election of Trump.
   Yet I am astonished at what The New York Tines April 16, 2017 “Book Review” chooses to theme now becomes fulsomely aimed toward a “political” agenda with the opposing BOOKENDS claim of examining the “harmful” aspect of arts linking “elitism” or “populism.”
   And I am further confused when one BOOKEND writer Adam Kirsch uses a first paragraph to opinionate about the age of Trump.
   Mr. Kirsch nails down the political with the words “deepening” and “abyss” in spite of the word “elitism” as signifies a snob, and “populism” to describe the common, but to employ another word: “deepening” furthermore Mr. Kirsch adds a word intensify: “abyss”  for the political aim of the derogatory: a bottomless pit?

   As well The New York Tines April 16, 2017 “Book Review”  BOOKEND opposing writer, Liesl Schillinger links the word “taste” with the disunion word “ideology,” but concludes with the notion: “artists must be granted the freedom” a political summed up “ideology” when she uses the “elitism” and “populism” in the same paragraph as “attack” and “unworthy.”
   The word “ideology” is about belief to Ms. Schillinger as is The New York Times theme: 2017 mindset politics.

I am saddened that the once fine erudite The New York Tines is willing to destroy even its lauded “Book Review” toward a determined political intent, for this assertive and destructive trash POTUS 45 theme, that has taken over the entire newspaper.

No comments:

Post a Comment