Alan Moss wrote:

>Michael Butera wrote:
>
>>After reading Alan Moss' enlightening post about the rather complicated
>>(at least to me) British titles of nobility, I see why they are proclaimed
>>unconstitutional in Article I, Section 9, cl.  8 of the US Constitution.
>
>Menuhin, so much more than a highly gifted musician, in addition to the
>highest honours heaped upon him by Britain, was made by France a Grand
>Officier de la Legion d'Honneur ...
>
>Yet in the land of his birth, his formative years and his first public
>appearances, a system that gives such a man a seat in the legislative
>assembly is proclaimed unconstitutional - and we can see why? Beats me!

Because they are all reserved for people who make lots of money.
Personally I would not like to see assemblies composed of people who have
had honours heaped upon them.  Not because their aren't deserving people
who are passed over.  But because there are far more numerous people who
are undeserving who have had honours heaped on top of them, including the
recent recipient of a dishonorary PhD from Yale.

Verdi was made a Senator in the new Italy he agitated for, but did nothing
as a strictly political figure.  Politics consists of two things - spin
and compromise.  Most artists are not good at either, and if they are,
use those skills more to personal profit.  What makes artists last is
an unwillingness to compromise beyond what is essential.  What makes
politicians last is keeping their powder dry until it is essential.

We could, in the US, do more to recognise great artists, but then, it would
handed over to a committee of tenured professors and bureaucrats, and they
would pick, not the best, but the most expedient candidates.  Which is how
arts grants work now - a few exceptional, but most expedient.

The real honour for an artist is not found in cheap metals struck with
heavy machines and attached to ribbon, but in their work.  Society, when
it hands out such trinkets really does not honour the artist, but honours
instead - itself - for having recognised the artist at all.  When it fails
to do so, it dishonours, not the artist, but the society itself.  All those
black guys who were shut out of the pulitzer - Mingus, Ellington,
Armstrong, Davis - are not dishonoured by having been ignored, but instead
bring down dishonour on a "prize" for Americans that would not recognise
Americans.

Sartre returned his Nobel, and its substantial prize. It is a model
that many more creative artists should have the courage to emmulate.

Stirling Newberry
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mp3.com/ssn