News of the Nevada-based artist’s new painting, “The Forgotten Man,” went viral over the past few days sparking massive sales and a bit of outrage as well. The painting depicts President Barack Obama standing on the Constitution while previous presidents look on with outrage.

John McNaughton’s “The Forgotten Man” sold in one day “what we would sell in three months.”

The amount of traffic the story generated even crashed his website.

“I hate to think of the sales I lost with the site being down, but I’m pleased that the message got out,” he told CBS Las Vegas.

His webmaster needed to increase the amount of bandwidth for the site four times before it went back up Saturday night.

Naturally, some Obama supporters instantly dubbed the painting racist, charges McNaughton refutes on his web site:

There is no racial meaning or undertone that the FM [Forgotten Man] isn’t black. This is not a racial painting; it is about the vanishing of the American dream.

Here is what I mean.

Alan Moore and other comic artists joining together to support #OWS is no surprise, since the comic industry is as left as the rest of the entertainment world. The comic industry previously slammed the Tea Party (although the company and writer of this particular incident later apologized; you be the judge of whether they were sincere), attacked George. W. Bush, presented the U.S. and U.S. military as evil, made an entire celebrated series out of blaspheming God and Christianity (this review of said series is actually quite good even if I don’t entirely agree with it), and has generally churned out leftist propaganda.

I no longer am scandalized at what the comic industry is doing. I expect the behavior, and I don’t envision creators apologizing for it—just as I wouldn’t have expected either Alan Colmes or Eugene Robinson to apologize to Rick Santorum for what they said about the politician’s dead child.

Leftists have made no secret about who they are, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t simply wipe the dust of their town from our feet and stop throwing pearls to them in worthless attempts to change them.

Instead, I propose we fight back.

This isn’t to say we should stop what we currently are doing; we just need to add to it. We need to promote our own beliefs as well as call the left out on its own. Hence, my proposal for a conservative OWS project.

Our OWS writing and art initiative wouldn’t simply be a response to the comic book creators project in support of OWS. Instead, our project would also demonstrate a (partial) real-world solution for those affected by our economic woes. (And that partial real-world solution would be that the people who would join our project would be able to market and sell their artwork or stories on the OWS insurgency and thus generate income for themselves).

Furthermore, the stories and artwork for our project wouldn’t have to attack OWS or its insurgents, or even directly address the matter at all. For instance, while I have a short story planned that would address OWS, I also have another one planned that would have nothing to do with OWS yet still explore a common issue—moving upwards economically. In other words, I would encourage people to be creative and to be positive.

The left isn’t going to change who it is. Therefore, I no longer see a point in engaging leftists in argument or debate. We should simply move forward and promote who we are. I want other Big Hollywood contributors (as well as Big Government, Big Journalism, and Big Peace contributors) to come on board this project, but I also am considering opening this to the general public. Those who want to join or learn more about this idea should sound off in the comments section. If there is enough support, we will move forward with additional details.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the informal have you been ostracized? poll. The results were interesting. More “in the closets” than I expected, and as I read the words, “just keep my mouth shut,” I became rather angry that my fellow Big Hollywood readers feel bullied in the workplace. Because that is what it is: bullying. When a human being fears that he may lose his job if he has the wrong thoughts, he is being bullied. Period. It doesn’t matter if the taunts are in your face or hovering unannounced in the air, only a bully uses his size and power to intimidate others into toeing the line.

Several of you indicated that you have lost your job, left your career or been blacklisted, which is even more disheartening.

Graphic designers and people in advertising, according to the comments, feel compelled to keep a very low profile. It makes sense, because this is an industry where the work must be commissioned. In order to stay employed, the artist needs to stay in the good graces of the powers that be.

The film industry, as we all might have predicted, is one of the meanest, according to those who participated in the poll. The hatred is vehement, and many conservatives feel thoroughly gagged for fear of being ostracized. The bully factor, at times, feels amplified tenfold compared to other industries. Nevertheless, as the individual gains some seniority in the business and experiences success, he or she is far less likely to just sit back and listen. This is comforting news, and as I sorted through the results, I found another inspirational trend.

The more opportunity for independence – self publishing and indie films, for example – the more likely the artist feels free to express himself openly. In fact, self-published authors seem to sing with a sense of unadulterated freedom, knowing that they will never have to bite their tongues again.

THAT is the freedom we need to seek. The more conservative voices that spring up in the entertainment industry, the more ground we will reclaim from those who push a socialist, anti-American, class war agenda. We may yet win this battle for hearts and minds in favor of free markets and individualism. So let’s support one another in a mission to let our voices be heard!

As bass player Nathan Ballein wrote in the comments, “I’ve been outspoken ever since I realized that while getting fired for my political beliefs is a drag, the peace of mind is way worth it.”

I thought that perhaps it would be an interesting project to take an informal poll of Big Hollywood readers – conservatives, libertarians, and individuals who subscribe to other improper schools of thought – who work in the entertainment industry and feel out of sorts. We should keep it simple, so let’s start with something like this:

——

Industry: Publishing

Position: Author

Status: Just keep my mouth shut

——

Industry: Music

Position: Mixer

Status: Out of the closet and out of work

——

Industry: Art

Position: Sculptor

Status: Lost some friends, but feeling empowered

——

Please post in the comments section. I am especially curious about the percentage of people who feel they have no choice but to hide their political beliefs for professional reasons. If you want to email me a brief explanation, please put “Big Hollywood Poll” in the subject line and keep it as short and simple as possible. I have no idea what’s behind the floodgates that I’m prying open, so be patient with me.

Let the confessions begin!

A sturdy corollary emerges in the wake of the graphic artist Frank Miller’s recent diatribe against the Occupy Wall Street movement (“A pack of louts, thieves, and rapists … Wake up, pond scum, America is at war against a ruthless enemy”), available for perusal at frankmillerink.com). That corollary, of which we should be reminded from time to time, is this: popular entertainment from Hollywood is – to greater or lesser extent – propaganda. And Miller has his part in that, thanks to films such as 300 and Sin City.

Perhaps you have had this thought before. Perhaps you have had it often. I can remember politics dawning on me while watching a Steven Seagal vehicle, Under Siege, in 1992. I was in my early 30s. The film was without redeeming merit – there’s no other way to put it – and it was about a “ruthless enemy” and the reimposition of the American social order through violence and rugged individualism. Why had I paid hard-earned money for it? Good question. Before Under Siege, I had a tendency to think action films were funny. I had a sort of Brechtian relationship to their awfulness. And I was amused when films themselves recognised the level to which they stooped, as Under Siege assuredly did.

The moment of revelation could have come at any time. It could have come earlier, and it did among my more astute friends. Had I watched any of the later Rocky pictures, for example, or had I watched Rambo, I might have registered that there was little depicted in these frames but feel-good, reactionary message-deployment. But there were, apparently, films too embarrassing for me to see, Rocky IV and Rambo among them. I remember thinking True Lies, the abominable 1994 James Cameron film (featuring Republican governor-to-be Arnold Schwarzenegger), with its big, concluding nuclear blast – the nuclear blast we were meant to want to see – was, well, more than suspect. (I could never again watch a Cameron film without disgust. And that includes the racist, New Age blather of Avatar.) Or what about the expensive and aesthetically pretentious Gladiator (2000), which I still contend is an allegory about George W Bush’s candidacy for president, despite the fact that director and principal actor were not US citizens. Is it possible to think of a film such as Gladiator outside of its political subtext? Are Ridley Scott’s falling petals, which he seems to like so much that he puts them in his films over and over again, anything more than a way to gussy up the triumph of oligarchy, corporate capital and globalisation?

The types of men (almost always men) who have historically favoured the action film genre, it’s safe to say, are often, if not always, politically conservative: Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, Mel Gibson, even Clint Eastwood (former Republican mayor of Carmel, California), all proud defenders of a conservative agenda, and/or justifiers of vigilantism. With some of these celebrities, the kneejerk qualities of their politics are self-evident, and in other cases (Eastwood), the reactionary part of their world view is more nuanced. But the brand of politics is the same.

Full piece here.

Few citizens anywhere would have a living room large enough to hang this very bloody-looking billboard in. Secondly, few of us are “Connoisseurs.” Thirdly, is it really worth “The Connoisseur’s” time to try and understand this painting? A true art connoisseur instantly said the object of discernment is Rockwell’s impressive version of a Jackson Pollock. “No. 00,” perhaps.

I, for now, can only come up with “A Satellite Photo of Some Third Millennium, Urban Nightmare,” or, “The Fundamental Transformation of the United States of America.”

This painting within a painting, given the Progressive Obsessions of art critics, might eventually be worth more at a Sotheby Auction than the painting itself. “The painting within the painting?! Wrap it up and throw the rest in the wastebasket! I’m a rich man who hates Norman Rockwell but loves Jackson Pollock!!” In other words, such a destructive buyer would be some mega-rich Progressive. He’s possibly George Soros or the now exponentially enriched Jeffrey Immelt.

With both Sarah Palin and Herman Cain being, for me at any rate, the political equivalent of Norman Rockwell, I believe this visual version of the Progressive New World Order, hanging so impressively on the museum wall, looks out, beyond The Connoisseur, at the conservative writers and readers of Big Hollywood, and reminds us of how prophetic Norman Rockwell can be.

The painting within the painting could be called “Post OWS” or “The Progressives’ Zuccotti Park” or “A Bird’s Eye View of the Obama Nation.” Suggestions for other titles in the comment section would be most welcome. “The Connoisseur” is an unsurpassable description of the entire painting.

If, as I believe, this revealing glimpse of Norman Rockwell’s prophetic insight doesn’t hold you spellbound as it has myself, then you are not a Norman Rockwell fan.

While composing this editorial I mistakenly typed Norman Mailer instead of Norman Rockwell! Now there is more than a Freudian slip of my computer fingers. Mailer vs. Rockwell?!

If, indeed, The Connoisseur is staring at an aerial portrait of The Progressive New World Order, Post OWS, Zuccotti Park or The Obama Nation Itself, we have Norman Mailer looking at this bloody mess from a hotel window in Chicago during the 1968 Democrat Convention.

I spent a very unpleasant evening at a dinner table with Norman Mailer. The author was convinced that I should play the role of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in whatever project that he was dreaming of. I was still a blind Liberal then, so I threw my napkin at Norman Mailer with surprising accuracy.

He held the napkin up and then said, rather poetically, “That hurt.”

I said, before my next drink of wine, “I intended it to.”

I, now utterly sober for eight years, would avoid any further contact with Norman Mailer, living or otherwise; and I still wouldn’t want to get even near a script with Giuliani in it, let alone play the role.

I lived under Mayor Giuliani as a New Yorker. He’s one of the reasons I left that once-greatest-city-in-the-world. His lawyer’s defense of legalized abortion and “strict construction” is only the beginning of why I don’t trust anything about him.

What has all this to do with Norman Rockwell, The Connoisseur and Bringing America Home?

If anyone contributed to Carrying America Off To A New World Order, it would be Norman Mailer et al. The et al includes Henry Kissinger and reminds me that the only reservation I have about a President Herman Cain is that his reading on American foreign policy includes a respectful nod to Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

Ergo my title for America’s general enemy, those who helped to drag the United States away from both its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution: “The Bipartisan Progressives of The New World Order.”

Herman Cain’s utter lack of membership in the Washington Beltway Fraternity is one of his greatest assets and recommendations.

Herman Cain’s governing principles are meat and potatoes Norman Rockwell and, undoubtedly, offer the only way to renew America and insure us that Mr. Cain himself is the most reliable, Presidential candidate to Bring America Home Again.

Since Mr. Cain is now becoming the main target for both Democrats and dueling Republicans, I look forward to cheering him on during this year-long home stretch for Republican candidates. They have already become, in some instances, too familiar to offer anything new to the America audience.

The test now for Herman Cain the frontrunner is how much grace under pressure he can sustain in the grueling year ahead. So far he is proving to be the most regal candidate of them all and unquestionably the most presidential.

I suspect that his entire Presidential campaigning, particularly in a polarized America, will prove vastly more challenging to Herman Cain than the Presidency itself. His clarity of purpose will balance out any dilemmas he might face as occupant of the Oval Office.

The fact that, as President, he no longer just wants to “make a difference” but actually is achieving that goal will be more than enough satisfaction to keep him in, yes, joyously fighting shape. It has been his Destiny all along to become President of the United States and bring America back from the brink of Marxist suicide.

I find Herman Cain an even more comforting voice than that of Ronald Reagan. It has the wisdom of true suffering in it, yet without self-pity. He will lead not only by example but by the very rich sound of his voice.

You now have more than the perfect American President for this Third Millennium. You have the United States reunited and coming home to heal.

After what has happened to America since John F. Kennedy’s assassination, that would be a miracle.

In addition to street markets, artists have other options. Small galleries, coffee shops, restaurants and even hair salons display art for sale. For the rare few, a weekend exhibit in a prestigious gallery can turn a passion into a career. The Internet explodes with opportunity for artists who build clever websites and take advantage of social networking. Even animals are staking a claim in the world of art – elephants, horses, and dogs.

The doors are open to artists of all species who use a variety of mediums – paint, clay, bronze, glass, charcoal pencil and animation – to create, display and sell their art. We don’t even question the legitimacy of the concept. I would be appalled if a small enclave of people appointed themselves to review and reject or accept each piece submitted by an artist.

Yet that is what we have come to expect of the literary community (I ought to be ashamed of starting that sentence with yet, but I relish the freedom of breaking the rules).

As I illustrated in my previous article about Bowker, the publishing world actually condones the notion that reviewing, polishing, and presenting 300,000 titles is for the good of the American public. After all, a rogue author left unattended might present a story or argument that comes into conflict with their all-powerful Current Accepted Philosophy. God forbid the printing press be invented and guys like this are allowed to publish whatever nonsense they see fit to spew out into the world.

We ought to be protected from the kind of rubbish that might be produced by authors who clank away randomly on their keyboards. I like both of those artists very much. This isn’t a slight but an example of the enormous amount of freedom artists possess – a freedom authors are only just beginning to realize as they accept the validity of choosing not to grovel their way into the 300,000 — coloring outside the lines, if you will.

I do not need to be protected from people who produce art that either bores or offends me. Everyone can enjoy a painting of  the Virgin Mary fashioned from pornography and donned with elephant dung (no matter what Rudy Giuliani says) or a nice sculpture of  Jesus in urine. George Bush, the friendly urinal, is also a popular item (even my children are past the potty humor stage, but no squat toilet is too low for some).

I find this exhibit most interesting, and even though I dislike every piece of art displayed, I celebrate the fact that no one was hauled away by the Secret Service.

The First Amendment protects artists, journalists and people of all walks of life. Even if I consider a piece of art loathsome, I would not wish for an elite community to decide whether or not anyone is allowed to see it.

Neither should literary agents, publicists, and trade publishers, and they know it.

I used to see the words “under contract only, no self-published or print on demand authors” on the websites of publicists. Fortunately (or unfortunately, since now I cannot back up my claim) I can find no examples as of October of 2011. That was the mindset a year ago, but it has vanished in the ethosphere. In fact, now publicists welcome self-published authors. They make good customers – eager to promote their work and often lost in the new world of marketing.

The barrier, held in place so carefully for decades, has dissolved. Authors are free to write beautiful stories, loathsome rants or random streams of consciousness. Now we have the same power as the street market artist. We may make it big; we may not. But no one can suppress our voices. The printing press has been released from its chains.

—–

Jones would like to elevate the discussion … now. I’m not sure what happened between now and Tuesday when he refused to apologize and defended the Tweet by stating it was his “job as an artist to up a mirror to society.”

Big Hollywood didn’t make a big deal out of the original tweet. We were simply one of the first outlets to report it as yet another example of the glaring double standard at work among our entertainment class.

Wake me when some brave artist “holds a mirror up to society” with jokes about killing Michelle Obama.

Crowd-sourced funding is a brilliant concept.  People who seek funding for a project post it at Kickstarter, and regular folks can donate whatever they wish to the project — from $1 on up to thousands.  In exchange, they receive a reward for their contribution.  It may be a mention of the donor’s name in the project’s credits, copies of a movie on DVD, a limited edition of a given book or product, or a gourmet dinner at the artist’s house.  In short, it’s like pitching an idea from a soapbox in the town square.

And it is genius.

While there is an opaque pre-screening process before one may post a project, from what I can tell, there is no blatant political skew to the projects selected.  For all I know, perhaps there is one, but there’s not yet any evidence of that.  Every project is, quite simply, someone’s dream, regardless of where they stand politically.  Each project is an expression of individual ambition and exceptionalism in a certain discipline.  Each individual is given space aplenty to detail their project so that potential donors can choose of their own free will if they want to fund it or not.

In perusing all the projects that have been completed or are in the process of being funded, I am blown away by the breadth and depth of the offerings.  There truly appears to be something here for everyone.

Don’t be fooled; the arts are important.  They are particularly important to child development, and due to the financial mismanagement of public schools, they are being ignored in that regard.  They are important for any number of other reasons I’ve outlined here and here.

There’s certainly been plenty of controversy over whether or not government should be funding the arts, but Kickstarter proves that any artist has the potential to fund his project through the free market if he can give a compelling presentation why others should financially support it.  Yes, the free market exists in the arts, and Kickstarter demonstrates that it not only works well, but works like gangbusters.

In 2010, Kickstarter successfully funded almost 4000 projects and raised over $27 million for them — an average of almost $7,000 per project.  There were a staggering 386,000 pledges, meaning the average pledge was only $71.  That regular folks were willing to put up a small amount of money in this economy to help someone fund a project is really quite amazing.

And, in true American spirit, Kickstarter itself is able to stay afloat by taking a small commission on each project.

Kickstarter’s success is delivering vital and important messages to all Americans:

Pursue your dream.  Others will help.

Pursue exceptionalism.

You have a voice.  Express it.

Don’t let anybody tell you it can’t be done.

I would encourage BIG readers to check out Kickstarter and find a project to fund.

Obama Poster Contest Angers Design Community: It’s ‘The Opposite Of Jobs’

President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign recently launched a poster contest, inviting artists from across the country to submit designs in support of the president’s $447 billion jobs plan and re-election. Although three winners will be given framed copies of their artworks signed by the president, artists who apply will not be paid for their labor, and they must relinquish the rights to their own work upon submission, according to the contest website.

Ed. Note: This photo was not in the original HuffPo piece and was added by Big Hollywood.

Many professional designers and illustrators — a group not exactly known for bashing liberals and casting Republican votes — say they find the contest detrimental to their industry. They argue that such competitions, entered by artists “on speculation” in hopes of gaining exposure, are helping to depress wages in an already tough job market, even when the artists know upfront what they’re getting into. …

Of course, this president surely understands, perhaps better than most, the power of an arresting political poster. The “HOPE” design created by artist Shepard Fairey — and emblazoned on countless posters and other objects during the 2008 campaign — already ranks among the most iconic images in American political history, having played an obvious yet incalculable role in Obama winning the White House. Obama’s 2012 campaign is clearly hoping to harness a bit of that poster magic again.

In an email, Fairey told HuffPost that he’s disappointed when he considers the poster contest, although not for the same reasons as the anti-spec crowd. He believes that artists should distinguish between lending their art to political causes, as in the poster contest, and participating in commercial spec work.

Fairey said he didn’t ask to be compensated for the HOPE design because, “In my mind, Obama’s election and the progress that hypothetically would yield was the reward.” That reward, he implies, hasn’t arrived yet. …

“Now that we are in a terrible economy,” he added, “maybe Obama should do what FDR did with the WPA program and put artists and designers to work, rather than just asking for help with his campaign art.”

Full story here.