Last week, I was stewing in this column about Rochester not getting its act together. We've had some bright spots this fall, though, starting with the opening of the new Nazareth Arts Center - and the vision that it expresses. And last week, the University of Rochester opened its renovated Eastman Theatre, now known as Kodak Hall.

It's hard to exaggerate the significance of that event. A new concert hall for the Rochester Philharmonic and a renovated Eastman Theatre were being discussed more than a decade ago - before Renaissance Square was concocted. The hope was for a large performing arts center serving numerous groups, including the Rochester Philharmonic and the Rochester Broadway Theatre League.

That idea got co-opted by Ren Square, and when the cost scared political leaders, they jettisoned all of the arts groups except RBTL.

But the classical-music community had their own vision, and they didn't give up. In particular, philanthropist Betty Strasenburgh didn't give up. During opening-week events, UR President Joel Seligman, State Assemblymember David Gantt, and Assemblymember Joe Morelle said Strasenburgh basically stared them down, insisting that the state add substantially to its funding for the Eastman renovation - and that the University commit to expanding the Eastman complex to include a new, smaller theater, fulfilling George Eastman's dream.

And so as construction crews completed the work on Kodak Hall, they were well under way with the new space, expected to open in 15 months.

I groused when the Eastman Theatre's name change was announced, but it is no small thing that Kodak donated $10 million for the project. At one of the opening-week events, Kodak CEO Antonio Perez said the Eastman Theatre is good for both the community and his company. Kodak, he said, needs "a thriving and exciting" community "so that we can attract the best minds."

We have a strong foundation to build on, and Eastman and Nazareth are reminders that arts are a vital part of it. The question is whether we recognize that, and whether we embrace it.

Obama's prize

Does Barack Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? I'm still wrestling with that question.

For those of us who were driven mad by the Bush administration, there's a certain satisfaction in the Nobel award. But as Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive magazine writes, "He doesn't deserve the Nobel Prize just because he isn't George Bush."

Rothschild has big complaints: our military is still involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama is continuing many of the Bush policies regarding detainees, and he hasn't been able to get Israel "to give up the Occupied Territories."

Many commentators concluded that the award was as much about hope as it was about accomplishment. And some thought it was a way to get him to live up to his rhetoric and his promises.

But maybe it was more than that. Maybe the Nobel committee finds real accomplishment in his words and in his early policies.

Obama fan Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, had this justification on the NewsHour on Friday: "In the course of less than a year, he really has refined America's relationship with the world. He has grandly improved America's image in the world. He has committed America to a series of policies designed to resolve conflicts and to deal in a non-unilateral fashion with key issues. And he has committed America to grand goals in the area of nuclear weaponry, global problems, and so forth."

The Nation's John Nichols credits Obama for having the guts to embrace a policy of diplomacy during the presidential campaign, knowing that his opponents would attack him for being weak. And certainly it is important that Obama insisted on rethinking our Afghanistan policy - and that he is listening to dissenting views. I worry, though, that in the end, Afghanistan will become our new Vietnam.

On the NewsHour, as he insisted that Obama deserves the Nobel, Brzezinski also said he'll have to earn it. Maybe Afghanistan will be the test.