A Modest Suggestion In Regards To Official Portraits

[Silence Dogood]

To The Group:
In reading about the 2008 howdeedoo about Government Printing Office
"profits," [1] your humble correspondent was struck by the fact that
GPO apparently overcharged State by $50m and had to hire an armored
car and drive a refund check down to Condi. GPO would dispute this
characterization of course.[2] But, that is not the subject upon
which I write today.

What has caught my eye is the official portrait commissioned at the
cost of $10,000 by the Honorable Public Printer Number 25.[3]
Evidently the official portrait racket is not a new one, and indeed
$10,000 seems fairly modest, at least by the standards of other
portraits, or, for example, the entertainment budgets of various Wall
Street firms. Indeed, $10,000 would barely cover the cost of a flight
on a private jet from Detroit!

But, in these times of economic crisis, I would perhaps venture a
modest suggestion, which is that government no more be allowed to
commission official portraits. Instead, officials should be asked to
hang around in some pre-designated location for a day or two and
provide an Official Portrait Opportunity, by which artists and others,
through some open process, are allowed to create portraits.

Later, if the National Portrait Gallery or the agency in question
should feel a need to purchase a print of such a portrait, they are
welcome to do so in negotiation with of the artist of their choice.
But, irrespective of any changing hands of money, any qualified artist
and perhaps some art students will have been given the opportunity to
create a work of art featuring a famous bureaucrat or other notable
and to sell or give it away at their choice.

And, if nobody comes to the Official Portrait Opportunity? Perhaps
then, there should not be one.

Humbly yours,

Silence Dogood

1. FreeGovInfo post on Washington Times Scrutinizes GPO
http://freegovinfo.info/node/1759
2. GPO press release disputing this characterization as poppycock.
http://www.gpo.gov/news/2008/08news11.pdf
3. Wikipedia article featuring #25 and his portrait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Tapella
4. Official portraits draw skeptical gaze.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/AR2008102003627.html

[Thomas Lord]

That's cute but official portraits of chief executives and masters of
estates are not primarily vanity items or needless honors. Their
production evinces a continuity of the household and their presence in a
place of honor helps to authenticate the portrayed person. The moment
of their capturing is part of a larger ritual of solemnization of the
transfer of power.

As a simple case, consider an 8 year old who visits Washington D.C. to
see the sites. What evidence does that person have that Obama is
*really* the president, as opposed to that being merely something people
say on TV. The presence of the portrait in a carefully (and palpably)
controlled environment affords that person tangible evidence of a sort
that even meeting Mr. Obama in the Oval Office could not.

$10,000 seems a modest enough price considering the logistics of
producing the portrait, the non-rival and useful form this first-ever
digital portrait takes, and the skill level needed to efficiently
produce what is, after all, a highly competent shot.

-t

[Silence Dogood]

But Sir!

Why must we spend $10,000 hard-earned dollars on one artist, when we
could bring in 1,000 schoolchildren and give them $10 each! Or better
yet, let the free market reign. If the purported subject of said
portrait is worth something, then the artist can sell their work. If
there is no value, then why spend taxpayer dollars on this particular
official?

With my kindest best regards,

Silence

[Thomas Lord]

On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 15:14 -0800, Silence Dogood wrote:
> But Sir!
>
> Why must we spend $10,000 hard-earned dollars on one artist, when we
> could bring in 1,000 schoolchildren and give them $10 each!

That would likely cost the taxpayers much more (via "transaction costs")
and it would exploit children's labor. Anyway, who has time for that
kind of crap?

> Or better
> yet, let the free market reign. If the purported subject of said
> portrait is worth something, then the artist can sell their work.

The $10K you quoted (I take you at your word) sounds like a pretty
modest price, really. The artist is taking a premium indirectly by
being able to add the work to his portfolio / resume.

> If
> there is no value, then why spend taxpayer dollars on this particular
> official?

Because he is Chief Executive of the federal government and temporary
master of the nation's executive estate.

> With my kindest best regards,
>
> Silence

How did you come up with that name? It doesn't seem to fit :-)

Regards,
-t




> >

[thezak]

Which Elliot L. Richardson portrait is referred to?... in the
last paragraph of the article
at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/AR2008102003627_2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/AR2008102003627_2.html

> Elliot L. Richardson, commerce secretary under President
> Gerald R. Ford, went one step further. To commemorate his
> stint, he unveiled his self-portrait in 1978. "You may ask
> yourself, 'Why not the best?' " he said at the time. "The
> answer, of course, is that it's too expensive."

> 1. FreeGovInfo post on Washington Times Scrutinizes GPOhttp://freegovinfo.info/node/1759
> 2. GPO press release disputing this characterization as poppycock.http://www.gpo.gov/news/2008/08news11.pdf
> 3. Wikipedia article featuring #25 and his portrait.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Tapella
> 4. Official portraits draw skeptical gaze.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/AR200...

[Alice Addertongue]

On Jan 25, 3:39 pm, Thomas Lord <l...@emf.net> wrote:
> Because he is Chief Executive of the federal government and temporary
> master of the nation's executive estate.

I call bullshit Mr. Lord. He is only an employee of the legislative
branch. No master, merely a public servant, an obscure official!

Your loyal Reader,

Alice

[Alice Addertongue]

Mr. Thezak:

Elliott L. Richardson certainly had the right idea. Commissioning a
self-portrait has to be the most direct route here. I agree that if
the proposal for Official Portrait Opportunities be adopted, the
official in question should be allowed to participate.

Thank you for adding that point, I am your friend and reader.

Alice

[Luis Villa]

Can you guys take this discussion somewhere else? It is so completely
irrelevant to the purposes of this list that I'm having a hard time
putting it into words...

Luis

[Silence Dogood]

Luis Villa:

Everybody is a critic! What can be more important than a discussion
about art and government? Would you have prohibited Yo Yo Ma from
performing at the recent inaugural? Or Aretha Franklin!

S. Dogood

[Luis Villa]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Silence Dogood <sil...@media.org> wrote:
>
> Luis Villa:
>
> Everybody is a critic! What can be more important than a discussion
> about art and government?

A discussion about openness of government data? Since, you know, that
is what people are here for?

Government and art are important, but there are plenty of other places
to discuss it that don't fill the inboxes and waste the time of people
who thought they'd signed up for a list to discuss openness of
government data.

Luis

[Alice Addertongue]

LUIS VILLA: "Government and art are important, but there are plenty of
other places"

Many issues are important to open government! Art, architecture, even
animals! The Obama dog, the White House dog, the dog of the people,
for example, should not be dictated by executive proclamation, but
should be chosen by all of us. Surely, you must agree!?! These
issues are at the heart of open government.

Alice

[Aaron Swartz]

> Many issues are important to open government! Art, architecture, even
> animals! The Obama dog, the White House dog, the dog of the people,
> for example, should not be dictated by executive proclamation, but
> should be chosen by all of us. Surely, you must agree!?! These
> issues are at the heart of open government.

Alice, this proposal is simply a gussied-up rehash of a suggestion
made on _This American Life_ this week:

http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/372.mp3 at 45:15

> GUY AT THE SHOE SHINE STAND OUTSIDE SAMMY'S BAR IN NEW ORLEANS: They ought to let the public name the dog; they ought to let the country name the dog. Put it online!

If the Open Government community is to be taken seriously, we must
give proper attribution to the contributions of others!

[Alice Addertongue]

Aaron, thank you very much, I beg to differ.

This is no gussied-up rehash. Please retract.

The dog to which you refer is clearly not the right dog for America
today. There have been rumors of laproodles and goldendoodles, but
noted medical authorities have disagreed.[1] The American Kennel Club
has endorsed the Chinese crested and xoloitzcuintlis poodle/terriers.

Please see http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-first-puppynov11,0,7575925.story
for more detailed information.

-A.

[Thomas Lord]

On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 19:30 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> Can you guys take this discussion somewhere else? It is so completely
> irrelevant to the purposes of this list that I'm having a hard time
> putting it into words...

> Luis

I'm not sure it "irrelevant", only off topic. By this I mean:

Who are "Silence Dogood" and "Alice Addertounge"? These pseudonyms are
lovely puns. They were as well when Ben Franklin invented them. He
probably wielded them with greater wit.

Silence's domain is registered via proxy. Alice's allegedly belongs to
Malamud.

Alice introduced herself by "calling B.S." on something I'd said which
is interesting since it would seem to pointedly echo my use of that very
phrase, a day prior, on Nick Carr's blog. An odd coincidence - perhaps
accidental, though I doubt it.

"Dogood" made the initial provocation. While I know not to nourish
trolls I am not usually quick to judge people as such ("Never explain by
malice..."). Thus, I gave a straight-man answer to the superficially
useful query about the portrait spending. This brought out "Alice,"
apparently.

What's unclear is whether these characters were brought forward as a
joke, or as an attack, or as symptoms of something else. If an attack,
it is unclear whether the aim is at the list and open government effort
or at me personally or both.

In any event it *is* clear that the "Dogood"/"Addertounge" performance
is coordinated and pointed. What's not clear is what the point is.

Those who enjoy tin foil head gear might recall that it was the habit of
Our Government under COINTELPRO and related and similar programs to
infiltrate and disrupt attempts at citizen organizing. Of course,
"everyone knows" that COINTELPRO and similar activities ended with the
Nixon administration, right?

-t

[Aaron Swartz]

> Those who enjoy tin foil head gear might recall that it was the habit of
> Our Government under COINTELPRO and related and similar programs to
> infiltrate and disrupt attempts at citizen organizing. Of course,
> "everyone knows" that COINTELPRO and similar activities ended with the
> Nixon administration, right?

Yes, hiring Benjamin Franklin to reopen COINTELPRO nicely compliments
Obama's strategy of finding the best person for the job, no matter
what people think of the job. (See also my recent thoughts on Cass
Sunstein.)

[Thomas Lord]

On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 20:31 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> > Many issues are important to open government! Art, architecture, even
> > animals! The Obama dog, the White House dog, the dog of the people,
> > for example, should not be dictated by executive proclamation, but
> > should be chosen by all of us. Surely, you must agree!?! These
> > issues are at the heart of open government.
>
> Alice, this proposal is simply a gussied-up rehash of a suggestion
> made on _This American Life_ this week:
>
> http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/372.mp3 at 45:15

So, we have two pseudonyms stolen from Franklin "Silence Dogood" and
"Alice Addertongue", two sketchy domain names, provocation that passes
the trolling touchstone test (the reply to a straight answer), and
apparently this plagiarism as well.

Quite a parlor game.

>
> > GUY AT THE SHOE SHINE STAND OUTSIDE SAMMY'S BAR IN NEW ORLEANS: They ought to let the public name the dog; they ought to let the country name the dog. Put it online!
>
> If the Open Government community is to be taken seriously, we must
> give proper attribution to the contributions of others!
>

You are speaking to someone (Alice but also, really, Silence) who has
taken rather elaborate steps to veil themselves.

Interesting times.

-t





> >

[Thomas Lord]

Speaking of "open government,"...

COINTELPRO and the tail end of MKULTRA were contemporary with my
childhood. They are that recent (I'm going on 43).

They were "busted" in that a few particular programs within those
umbrellas got outed. Many thousands of pages of heavily redacted
documents were thrown at Congress and the public. There are some pretty
good books that give insight into the general system that produced those
crimes.

And so those programs were canceled. The government paid out some small
amounts of money in civil liabilities. Nobody of any note did any jail
time.

It was popularly assumed that the public availability of those many
thousands of pages of documents and the formal testimony before congress
somehow put those kinds of abuses behind us. The "government openness"
about those crimes was taken as an end in itself - a victory enough.

People stopped seriously worrying about the problem.

Nobody of note did any jail time and the government paid almost nothing
in compensation for these crimes.

The documentation of the crimes simultaneously (a) suggests a much
larger program that extended far into the private sector wings of the
"intel community" (b) gives no indication whatsoever that any structural
reform at all took place that could give us confidence those activities
stopped.

It's a matter of undisputed history (no parties disagree) that at the
time COINTELPRO and MKULTRA were (allegedly) "busted" the U.S. had a
secret police conducting experiments on unwitting citizens, infiltrating
and disrupting political organizing, etc. That much is part of the
congressional record.

Why in the world would we believe that a mere 30-40 years later things
are any different, given the public record? (I have personal knowledge
to the contrary, with absolute certainty, but not anything for which I
can provide trivially verifiable evidence.)

"Open Government" efforts from the technology sector should not neglect
to cast sunlight on the intel community, both its governmental and
private sector components.

-t

(I personally know for absolute certain that the opposite belief is
correct however I can not objectively prove it to you: you would have to
just take my word about some things and, anyway



>
> >

[Thomas Lord]

On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 18:24 -0800, Thomas Lord wrote:

> -t
>

My mouse button "stuttered" and pasted in the scrap that followed just
as I was "hitting send". This bit, at the end:

> (I personally know for absolute certain that the opposite belief is
> correct however I can not objectively prove it to you: you would have to
> just take my word about some things and, anyway
>

Is just an accidental "paste". Sorry.

-t

[thezak]

For an image by email of Elliott Richardson's selfportrait, email
iHarris at doc.gov
http://www.commerce.gov/opa/photo/photoservices.html


On Jan 25, 7:30 pm, Alice Addertongue <adderton...@trystero.net>
wrote: