YES, CANVAS LOVES ME, DE BOTTON TELLS ME SO.

     Good news for wealthy, but overstressed, professionals with “Jobs to go to, bills to pay [and] homes to manage.” Inner peace is within reach. Easily, so. No religion to study or yoga mats to lug around like a Sherpa. According to Alain de Botton in his article, “Art For Life’s Sake” (WSJ 11/2-3/13) the path to serenity leads not to the mountain top, but through  a museum.

         

     Mr. de Botton begins with several assumptions: that people need help with “some of the troubles of inner life,” that visual art is “uniquely well-suited” to the task and that he has anything of value to say on the subject. The first assumption is validated by the existence of the self-help industry. The second is obvious to anyone who can find a museum with a map.The third merits examination, but only because the author is wallowing in cultural approbation. In addition to writing for The Wall Street Journal, Alain de Botton has written four bestsellers, co-founded a demi-philosophical dodge called “The School of Life” in London and, most impressively, salon moi, is a member of two Royal Societies. Assuming, of course, that they aren’t The Royal Mountebank Society and The Royal Institute of Charlatans.

The first painting that Mr. De Botton addresses is The Linen Closet by the 17^th century Dutch painter, Pieter de Hooch. It shows two servants stocking the eponymous cupboard. “But this picture moves us because the truth of its message is so radiant. If only we, like de Hooch, knew how to recognize the value of ordinary routine, many of our burdens would be lifted.” If only he, like de Hooch, knew that this depiction of ordinary routine was preceded by centuries of exclusively religious art, the value of observing domestic chores would be self-evident. The only lifting of burdens, by the way, is being done by the servants in the painting.

Ironically, it’s their daily routine.

The next work of art is the black-and-white photograph, North Atlantic Ocean, Cliffs of Moher by Hiroshi Sugimoto. Mr. De Botton calls it “abstract” and then proceeds to talk about it in terms of sea, sky and horizon. See here, Alain, it’s either abstract or figurative, recognizable or not. Throwing around terms like that undercuts your authority and undermines your “radiant message.” In this case, a Desiderata-like disquisition about going placidly amid the haste.

          

     Finally, we have Claude Monet’s Impressionist masterpiece, Bridge Over a Pond of Water Lillies. De Botton defends its popularity against charges of vulgar “prettiness.” The precious aesthetes who supposedly make these charges deem it to be an unworthy distraction from “war, disease, political error, immorality.” Our guru, on the other hand, writes, “It is this kind of despondency that art is well-suited to correct and that explains the well-founded enthusiasm for prettiness.” All this talk about prettiness obscures the fact that when this work was painted, it was considered so radical and disturbing that it wasn’t worthy of being displayed with respectable art. Yet, today, Monet is considered so mainstream that Alain De Botton feels compelled to defend him. We could use a different Horatio, however, at this particular bridge. Instead of praising society for finally embracing Impressionism, de Botton’s “radiant message” is “Flowers in spring, blue skies, children running on the beach . . . these are the visual symbols of hope. Cheerfulness is an achievement and hope is something to celebrate.” Writing like that is the hallmark of nothing except greeting cards. As H.L. Mencken wrote about Pres. Warren G. Harding’s command of the English language, “It drags itself out of a dark abysm of pish and crawls insanely up to the topmost pinnacle of posh.”

         

     I seem to be alone, though, in not regarding Alain de Botton as a “renaissance man” of our time – unless you mean Machiavelli or a Borgia pope. To me, he’s more Rev. Ike than Sister Wendy and aspires to be Dr. Phil. Yet, his elevation continues at the bottom of the page where his WSJ article appears. The biographical note states not only that “Art As Therapy,” a book-length version of the above insights (co-authored with John Armstrong) has been published, but “From March to August 2014, Messrs. de Botton and Armstrong will rehang and recaption the works in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam according to the approach outlined in the book.” I’m trying to picture that, but all I see is a museum lobby with three different admission desks: one says, “Feeling Lonely,” another says, “Feeling Religious” and  the third says, “Feeling Cheap.” The curatorial discussions, though, could be fascinating: “Where should we hang Rembrandt’s The Night Watch? In the Jewelry Collection or the Trouble Sleeping Gallery?”

Far be it from me to insist that there is only one path to enlighten-ment. Buddhism counts eight of them. As for different types of therapy, I agree with the American newspaper columnist and author of Fables In Slang, George Ade, who wrote, “A good jolly is worth whatever you pay for it.” Yet, humbugs abound. So, for the last word on Alain de Botton, I defer to Ade’s contemporary, L. Frank Baum, who, in The Wizard of Oz, wrote, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

EDWARD SNOWDEN IN CATCH-2013.

     I wonder if Edward Snowden, the man who leaked highly sensitive information about our country’s intelligence gathering activities, is aware of the parallels between him and the character with his name in Catch-22, the famous anti-war novel by Joseph Heller? (Do I have to explain what “anti-war” means? I hope not.)

     The fictional Snowden is a waist-gunner on a WWII bombing mission, whose horrible death galvanizes the main character, Yossarian, into anti-government action. The real Snowden would - except for the dying part – probably be flattered by that comparison. Unlike the airman’s fatal wound, it doesn’t go deep enough for me. That the dying gunner is so completely in shock that all he can say is, “I’m cold,” gets closer to the truth. If Edward Snowden isn’t kicking himself every day, he’s in deep denial about the damage he’s done to his own life.

The real Mr. Snowden worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) a formerly secret branch of the government engaged in work more highly confidential than even the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Apparently, he didn’t like being a spy. It’s not for everyone. The irony is that, for the rest of his life, Edward Snowden will be known as a spy. Not for his government job, but because of what he did afterward. He took a large amount of the country’s most top-secret information and revealed it to, well, to the world. That’s what spies do and if Mr. Snowden ever returns to this country, the crime for which he’ll be tried.

Real spies, however, are either idealogues or in business for themselves. The former are treated like heroes by the country or power sponsoring them. The latter are heavily rewarded, usually with money. Since neither praise nor dollars seem to be going his way, it doesn’t look like Snowden was working for anyone – including himself. So who benefits? Supporters may point to the higher profile of the NSA and a potentially chilling effect on its purported invasions of privacy. Yet, in another example of Catch-22, Joseph Heller’s term for a perfectly ironic twist, Snowden may have helped his former employer.

         Espionage works in the shadows. Spies can’t brag about whom they’ve assassinated and breaking a code is useless once the enemy knows you’ve done it. (Even if keeping it a secret means letting the Nazis bomb Coventry, England.) Now that our country’s intelligence apparatus is experiencing an unwonted - and very unwanted – spotlight, why not turn it into a limelight? Let the rest of the world be warned, you can’t keep secrets from us. You want to hear Angela Merkel order two bratwursts with everything to go? We’ve got that – and she’s the Chancellor of Germany! (On an unrelated note – Chancellor? Isn’t it time for a new title? Just saying.) 

     The biggest Catch-22 for Edward Snowden, though, is that he must live in Russia. The man who thought he struck a blow for government transparency and individual rights is forced to live in a country with zero democratic tradition. A country that added “gulag” to the dictionary. A country run by who? Oh yeah, Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB, Russia’s secret police. To be fair, his future may not be that bleak. A man with his knowledge and abilities would be invaluable to Smersh or whatever the Russian spy agency is called. Chances are, though, he’d like it even less than the American version.

     I’d say that Snowden must spend the rest of his life in Russia, but it isn’t up to him. Like making love to a gorilla, you stop when the gorilla is tired, not you. Let’s suppose then that the Russians get all the information they want from him (somehow) and he is free to leave. Where does he go? A life on the lam, in permanent hiding, beckons. According to Salman Rushdie, however, that’s not as much fun as it sounds – and he should know. Let’s suppose further that after thirty years or so, the world has changed and old crimes become the new norms. It’s happened before. Why can’t an older Edward Snowden return to this country, a newly minted hero? Ask Roman Polanski. He’ll tell you. 

     My advice to Edward Snowden, therefore, is to develop a taste for irony – and vodka. Reading Catch-22 will help with the former and any Russian over the age of twelve, with the latter. If you’re gay, find an apartment with a very large closet and, finally, avoid the temptation to wear a “Free Pussy Riot” t-shirt.  See you at the Olympics.

THE SECOND COMING OF CHRISTIE DOESN'T USHER IN THE MILLENIUM.

     I don't mind giving Republicans hope. People with hope think about the future. People who don't care about the future become suicide bombers or Tea Party conservatives. So, if the re-election of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey gives Republicans hope, I'm happy for them. The problem is that it's a completely false hope.

     As Kate Zernike and Jonathan Martin write in their front-page article in today's (11/6/13) New York Times, "Mr. Christie declared that his decisive win should be a lesson for the nation's broken political system and his feuding party." Then he bragged about winning in a state with a Democratic majority and his success among minorities, women and youth. Of the last five N.J. governors to serve full terms, three were Republican. So, beating a Democrat is not a big achievement. Christie's opponent, state sen. Barbara Buono carried Newark, the state's biggest city, which is predominantly African-American. So, his success in that respect is qualified, too.

     Speaking of Ms. Buono, let's go out on a limb and suggest that minorities and women have minds of their own and don't necessarily vote for the same race and gender.  Maybe who Christie ran against had something to do with his being elected? Considering that Barbara Buono had no name recognition and did little or no advertising, I'd say she was handi-capped and her losing was not exactly surprising. It certainly wasn't Gov. Christie's first term that helped him win. The economy in New Jersey still hasn't recovered; a year after Superstorm Sandy, rebuilding on the Jersey Shore is far from complete or even mostly done and he passionately opposed same-sex marriage until he gave up. But it's never been about New Jersey, has it?

     Chris Christie has always been outspoken about his desire to be President. The article quotes him as saying, "I know if we can do this in Trenton, N.J., then maybe the folks in Washington, D.C. should tune in their TVs right now and see how it's done." His appeal - apart from being honest about his ambition - is that in a year when Tea Party Republicans shut down the government and the GOP's popularity dipped to a single digit, a moderately conservative Republican can win. Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, puts it this way, 'We'll be led back by our governors and Chris Christie is now at the forefront of that resurgence."

     The leap from being re-elected Governor of New Jersey to being given the power to start a nuclear war is a big one, however. A lot can happen in three years, too. There is, for instance, all that state governing for Christie to neglect while he campaigns for President. Like I said, I'm not against Republicans having hope. If the Tea Party has proved anything, though, it's that there's a limit to how much even Republicans can fool themselves.