Peter Berdovsky, Next Chapter
A Herald story on Peter Berdovsky, he of the "Aqua Teen" marketing mess, is an exercise in journalistic knee-jerkism. It also might explain why younger people are abandoning newspapers in droves.
Let's break down the tape.
Herald lead: A dreadlocked street artist’s effort to cash in on last year’s light-board bomb scare has one high-ranking Hub official vowing she’ll reach into the jokester’s pockets to grab a share of any profits for the city.
Dreadlocked. With a wink, the writer delivers a message to his loyal readers. Obviously, with that look, this guy has to be a questionable character. Because, you, loyal reader, wouldn't want some dreadlocked guy - don't they listen to Bob Marley and wear clothes made of hemp - taking your daughter out on a date.
Cash in. So an artist's attempt to make art out of what was clearly a pretty fascinating public situation is simply an easy way to make money. What's funny is that this Associated Press story, which seems to be at least mildly disgusted with Berdovsky, makes it clear that he has no money. But wait, didn't we know that... he's an artist!
What's great about this story, as well, is that clearly the Herald feels as if it got "beat" by the Associated Press, so it needs to advance the "news" by adding in Boston City Council President Maureen Feeney. As the story tells us, she likes to scoff.
“He continues to poke a finger in the eye of the people of Boston,” said Feeney.
And...
Feeney "said the city should “share in the profits” of any sales."
Take another pause. Didn't the city already get $2 million from Turner Broadcasting? And isn't there still some question about whether the city overreacted?
But finally, we have to ask ourselves about Berdovsky. Is he supposed to stop being an artist? Or, at least, is he supposed to sign an agreement not to make art that might reference the incident or, even better, be in any way controversial.
Maybe he should just make stuff like this:
Yeah, but he was in fact dreadlocked, wasn't he, Geoff? He looks that way in the photo. I'd save my sneers at the Herald for when they get the facts wrong, not when they get them right (even if said facts appeal to their oh-so-unhip audience). And I find your concern about artists' rights a little unconvincing when applied to this particular artist - who is most famous for working as a marketer, after all, not an artist. (But then I think that's an elision you often make yourself - indeed, you think it's somehow "avant" to make that elision.) I also infer from your article that you were not one of the people caught in that day's traffic jams - if you had been, I think you would have found the "public situation" much less "fascinating."
The Mooninite fracas is our Scopes Monkey Trial. An embarassment from the get-go, we're going to keep bringing it up over and over again in the hopes that doing so makes it less embarassing, when in reality all that does is make it more embarassing.
I read both papers on-line. That's because I can't get them delivered in GA.
I think that while the Globe can usually complain about the Herald's salacious headlines and lead-ins, any criticism is off base this time.
He had dreadlocks, he claims to be an artist, and I do not believe that he should reap any profit from the incident that he was "famous" for, since it was a criminal act.
The thing that seems to get lost about that incident is that it had nothing to do with art or artists. That the two individuals involved were artists was irrelevant: they were just workers hired to do a job. That Berdovsky wants to capitalize on the incident or that some local artists think that was a free speech rallying point just shows a narcissistic self-involvement all too common with artists.
The hyperbolic local government and press reactions? Well... that's another story.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
browse this blog
by categoryrelated links
INside Boston.com