Christmas Day

It is now 12:30 am on Christmas day 2006.
This post by Phil about the impact of Calvinism on American values
and this one by Chuck about the origins of Santa Claus have set me wondering:
What has caused the slow transmutation that is evident between these two histories? What is it that has gradually changed American values from the Puritan obsession with work, vocation and hard earned practical uprightness to the Romanesque aimlessness of self-indulgence, constant getting and the right to convenience?
In my mind, Santa is almost the opposite of what Calvin represented. He lifts from our shoulders the responsibility of giving to one another - especially the poor - at Christmas and symbolizes, before his time so to speak, the American love affair with right-to-your-doorstep service, the demand for immediacy and insistence upon product that is perfectly catered to individual desire. Even the naughty or nice part of the modern Santa legend has become something of a joke in recent times - everyone knows that Santa wouldn't dream of being so discriminating. He represents the social yearning for complete moral ambiguity. Santa (unlike St. Nicholas as Chuck points out) puts the focus squarely where it ought to be in contemporary America: on getting what you want.
How has our self-made religious and social pragmatism morphed into this flabby, decadent milieu? And how can we move away from both - quickly?

Borat and Barbarism

I haven't yet seen the blockbuster Borat film.
Baron Cohen is a very funny man, and I have been anxious to get a glimpse at his fearless, ingenious mockery of political correctness (appearing at his premiere on a cart being pulled by peasant women, for instance, is hilarious). However, I was given reason to pause a day or two ago when I read a column by Andrew Bolt - a local conservative who makes a living by outraging liberal thinkers - that outlined several reasons Borat's whole premise is on shaky artistic and ethical ground.
Essentially, after seeing and researching some of the background to the film, he thinks Baron Cohen's use of deceit and his eagerness to exploit the goodwill of (real) unsuspecting Americans (in some cases causing them very public embarrassment or ruining their small businesses) in order to make money by releasing the footage in a film is not only base, it should not be applauded as clever satire. While acknowledging the film's intent to expose prejudice and roast political correctness, Bolt insists that Borat's tastelessness is more a justified encouragement of barbarism than ironic social comment.

Though I'm not necessarily a supporter of Bolt's ideas all of this has forced me to stop and think about my notions of artistic integrity. Is it really legitimate to make art (and money) at the expense of others? Is there any real difference between Borat's brand of humiliation humour and the homemade DVD I mentioned in an earlier post that showed a young girl, who was baited into meeting some teenage boys, being stripped and then sexually and physically abused? Perhaps in degree, but is it any different in kind?
Does the artist have any responsibilities to society?

Read Bolt's article.