It just doesn’t get any better than a couple of super-wealthy Hollywood celebrities, in a fit of self-importance, running around Capitol Hill demanding taxpayers foot the bill for their pet projects – in this case, $167 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. We are broker than broke and already saddling future generations with trillions in unpaid debt, and rather than do the decent thing and hold a Hollywood fundraiser to raise this cash, these two are demanding we pay for it.

Can you imagine the goodwill Hollywood would engender if they were to stand up as an industry and say:

“You know what, America? We got this. We understand what’s happening in this country. We understand you’re already over-taxed and worried about the deficit. And while we realize $167.5 million in the face of trillions isn’t a whole lot, it is something we as an industry can cover. We call on Congress to cut this from the budget and assure the NEA this town will plug that funding hole with our own money.”

My guess is that just a tenth of the profits from “Avatar” could make up the funding gap. But they will never do it for three reasons:

1. It’s the decent thing to do and therefore not in them.
2. They need a reason to run around Capitol Hill feeling important.
3. They get a sick thrill knowing we’re paying for bullwhips in butts.

Variety:

(more…)

In his article on Robert Mapplethorpe’s X Portfolio and the controversy that ensued because of its pornographic imagery, art critic Dave Hickey noted that the efficacy of Mapplethorpe’s art was in enfranchising “…ultimately, that senator from North Carolina [Senator Jesse Helms] and insist[ing] upon his response.” In Hickey’s opinion, if you “deal in transgression,” the response and respect of a hipsterish art cognoscenti has no value. The only response that really matters is the outrage of the senator, ‘only the senator, the Master of Laws, the Father…” 

Robert Mapplethorpe was not the first and certainly will not be the last child who managed to outrage the father.  Criticism of religious and social order is not really a modern phenomenon and, however tempting, cannot be attributed to deconstructive neo-Marxists tendencies in American art. 

Child’s perpetual desire to dethrone father is usually matched by father’s not so subtle urge to devour his offspring. Some fathers need to be enraged, rebelled against, and dethroned. One could only wish that Saddam Hussein’s sons would’ve inspired a national rebellion against their father’s authority instead of becoming his instruments of torture and pillage. 

Director Ingmar Bergman, on the other hand, rebelled against the patriarchal religious order of rigid Scandinavian Protestantism. He upset many fathers, including his own pastor dad who did not approve of his son’s obsession with theater and the lantern’s ability to project images on a wall. 

But the efficacy of Bergman’s rebellion was in his ability to outrage the father, not as a juvenile, but as a child coming into his own. His rebellion was sincere, his criticism of authority genuine and threatening. 

It was also self-aware. As a true thinker and artist who could travel in time, Bergman knew that every child is just an intercourse away from becoming a father. Not surprisingly, one can find more religious insight and earnest attempt to understand the mystery of God in Bergman than in many of the more pious currents of his time.

(more…)

If you had told me when Big Hollywood launched in January of 2009 that one of the individuals we would end up covering the most over the upcoming 2.5 years would be the Vice Presidential candidate on the losing ticket, I wouldn’t have believed you. But even more than the media, our artistic community is obsessed by a former governor living way up there in Alaska who pops up on Fox News now and again, gives a speech here and there, and dabbles a little in social media. It’s really quite extraordinary if you think about it. And here we go again….

This couldn’t have come at a better time. Tomorrow morning we’re publishing a terrific and insightful piece written by Yervand Kochar that looks at the juvenile quality of this kind of art in a way I don’t want to spoil but urge you to take a look at. But I’m not stealing anyone’s thunder by saying how silly this has all gotten. What was once brave is now proof of your conformist bona fides. What was once provocative is now expected. What once ginned up outrage is now hardly worth the rolling of one’s eyes. Where once talent was required smug will now do.

Case in point? Via Gateway Pundit, this was one of the paintings used to advertise the opening of a new art gallery right here in Los Angeles. I say “was” because  the opening was way back in January. How pathetic is it that a double shot of blasphemy and Palin-hate took over two months to bubble its way into these here Internets. Where was the outrage, America?

Hello?

Anyone?

Yawn.

(more…)

You don’t have to be an art critic to see something tasteless going on at Pratt Institute. Since 1887, this venerable New York institution has been dedicated to educating “artists and creative professionals to be responsible contributors to society.” Yet teachers and administrators at Pratt have been nothing but irresponsible in their recent dealings with a fifth-year drawing student named Steve DeQuattro.

Mr. DeQuattro is a political artist. He uses his background in graphic design to illustrate the dominant political culture of his world. At Pratt, this means creating work that addresses, as he wrote to me, the “growing bureaucracy, higher tuition, new buildings for administration, new offices, and departments, and left-wing bias, all at the expense of the students.”

Steve DeQuattro, "Sustainable Liberalism In a Box" (2011)

As part of his recent work, Mr. DeQuattro has designed a cereal-box-like sculpture that he calls, ironically, “Sustainable Liberalism in a Box” (the graphics are pictured above). He has developed a piece that takes the ubiquitous Apple iPod ad campaign to address abortion. He has designed a sobering five-foot-wide mural that tracks the Democratic Party’s record on race, from Jefferson’s slave-holding days up through the racially charged speeches of Senator Robert Byrd and Vice President Joe Biden.

As a senior in the school, Mr. DeQuattro has been working on this art in preparation for a group show for Pratt’s graduating students, which is scheduled to open on April 23. While his faculty advisor has been supporting him, his peers have not. Mr. DeQuattro says they recently wrote a letter to his professors, calling his work “offensive” and complaining about exhibiting alongside him. Last week, the chair of the fine arts department stepped in to prevent Mr. DeQuattro’s participation alongside the other students in the group show–an unprecedented move in the history of the department, says Mr. DeQuattro, despite the fact that none of his work is pornographic, libelous, or in violation of the laws of free speech. Mr. DeQuattro’s advisor did not return a request for comment.

(more…)

Brian Bolduc in NRO:

Hanging in Andrew Breitbart’s living room is an eight-foot-tall portrait of Abraham Lincoln. The president’s visage — an expressionistic swirl of broad brushstrokes and bright colors — earns the admiration of everyone who sees it, Breitbart notes on the back cover of Ronald Reagan and the American Ideal, a book of paintings by the portrait’s artist, Steve Penley. Yet the muckraker saves his highest compliment for the painter himself. “Penley is one of those patriots who is heeding his country’s call,” Breitbart writes — the call to defend American exceptionalism.

It’s a weighty charge for the 47-year-old artist from Carrollton, Ga. A husband and father of three children, Penley hasn’t always painted with such purpose. These days, however, he produces hundreds of portraits of his favorite historical figures, such as Ronald Reagan and the Founders, to inspire patriotism in his fellow countrymen. “I just love my country,” he tells National Review Online.

Penley started doodling cowboys and Indians while growing up in Macon, Ga., and he continued his artistic diversions through high school. When he enrolled at the University of Georgia, however, he soon realized he “had no other marketable skills,” so he majored in art.

(more…)

When reality-impaired MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell decided to call Batton Lash and myself racists on national television, we received a steady stream of death threats and viscous hate mail, which I detail here.

The whole thing brings up memories of the threats on the Danish Cartoonists who mocked the prophet Muhammad, or the threats Molly Norris received when she came up with the idea for Everyone Draw Muhammad Day. In both of those cases, the cartoons were mild but they inspired mindless fanatics to threatened the cartoonists with death. Now we have poor man’s Keith Olbermann inciting mob frenzy.

The same Lawrence O’Donnell who recently showed his racial sensitivity when he said about former Republican Chairman Michael Steele:

“He’s dancing as fast as he can, trying to charm independent voters and Tea Partiers while never losing sight of his real master and paycheck provider, the Republican National Committee.”

This is the mental munchkin who called us “mentally disturbed racists” and went so far as tell people where we lived, who our spouses are and suggested they confront us. He’s like a gender impaired metro-sexual Mullah calling for a fatwa on unbelievers. Bad move, Larry. These creators aren’t going into hiding after your psychotic tirade.

(more…)

When we go to a movie, we know we’re watching entertainment, but are we watching art?  Big Hollywood readers should take a look at Abraham Kaplan’s 1966 essay, “The Aesthetics of Popular Art” if they are interested in a set of criteria that distinguishes popular art from what some might call “high art.”

Kaplan’s essay is too detailed to summarize here, but there are a few criteria that crystallize exactly why most films don’t resonate with audiences.  So if you’ve ever wondered why it is that a movie just didn’t do it for you, even if it was entertaining, this may help explain it.

By the way, Kaplan is quick to point out that this is not an exercise in snobbery.  “Popular art” does not necessarily mean “bad art,” and “high art” doesn’t have to be boring and pretentious.

Shape vs. Form

When we watch a movie, we are usually focused on the movie itself, and not on our experience of the movie.  We are interested in outcomes as opposed to the unfolding of events.  We are engaged by curiosity, but not by suspense.  It’s like looking at a sketch of Michelangelo’s David as opposed to beholding the sculpture in all its glory.  We have traced a shape but not experienced a form.  In other words, we don’t have to do any work as a viewer.  It’s all predigested.

Think about the difference between Little Miss Sunshine and Mulholland Dr. I enjoyed the former, curious about how it would end, and let it happen to me.  With the latter, the experience of the mystery unfolding is itself the purpose of the film.  I was engaged entirely by suspense.  We impose ourselves and our perception onto Mulholland Dr., whereas we merely recognize and acknowledge Little Miss Sunshine. (more…)

Well…ok…he’s no Michelangelo and he’s definitely no Leonardo…but then…who is?

Besides, that was then and this is now. In this time of excruciatingly mediocre talent, where the line between reality show contestants and some of our entertainment superstars is…ummm…blurred, Steve Martin’s talent is proof one need not settle for second best. In Hollywood, the worlds most famous, over-crowded town of wannabe-wannabe’s (yes, the bar has been lowered that much), he’s the real deal and more.

Not only is he one of America’s most famous comics, who actually happens to be LOL funny, Steve Martin is an accomplished actor, a successful writer and a talented musician. Some of his accolades include: an Emmy, four Grammy’s and a Disney Legend Award. He was awarded the 2005 Kennedy Center’s Mark Twain Prize for American Humor and he is one of the Kennedy Center’s 2007 Honors recipients.

As if that weren’t enough, he also happens to be one serious art collector. I found out about this side of him, around twenty years ago, at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. There was an exhibit of contemporary art and I came across this fantastic, representational abstract. The painting was by Neil Jenney, an artist I was unfamiliar with at the time, and it was on loan from the collection of a Mr. Steve Martin. I wondered if it was the “Steve Martin?” It was. (more…)

All the controversy surrounding the ant-covered Jesus exhibit that was eventually pulled from the federally funded National Portrait Gallery at the Smithsonian, reminded me of a trip the wife and I took to one of the prestigious art museums last year here in Los Angeles. Most of the exhibits were gorgeous, ranging from sculptures from ancient Greece to art deco furniture and household items, and we especially remember a wing filled with Catholic art that was absolutely breathtaking.

As expected, the contemporary art section was much less impressive, most especially what you see above. My photo’s a little blurry, but I promise that upon closer examination this is exactly what it appears to be: a canvas with the two ends painted black and the middle painted white. And this is just one example of many pieces that were quite obviously absurdly simple to create and yet still qualified for the kind of showing many artists, strugging or not,  would kill for.

One of my standards for art, which isn’t unreasonable, is that if I can do it, it’s probably not art. And who couldn’t paint this painting. All you need is a t-square. It’s the same with so much that qualifies as “contemporary art” today, including that ant-covered Jesus video and anything by paint-dripper Jackson Pollock. To be fair, some of the contemporary pieces were interesting and even provocative, but for the most part there was little to no artistic talent involved in the creation. 

So it’s not art, it’s nihilism; by design or not, this is a way to destroy art by taking away its meaning. The motivation behind this might be jealousy or laziness, a way to live the life of an artist (and to qualify for all that grant money) without having to do the hard work of actually becoming an artist. And this might even be funny if we weren’t paying for some of it with our hard-earned tax dollars. (more…)

***UPDATE: Smithsonian Pulls Video of Ant-Covered Jesus But Leaves Images of Naked Brothers Kissing.

Another turn in this story, again via CNS News, and in my opinion a hollow threat from John Boehner and Eric Cantor:

House Speaker-to-be John Boehner (R-Ohio) is telling the Smithsonian Institution to pull an exhibit that features images of an ant-covered Jesus or else face tough scrutiny when the new Republican majority takes control of the House in January. House Majority Leader-to-be Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), meanwhile, is calling on the Smithsonian to pull the exhibit and warning the federally funded institution that it will face serious questions when Congress considers the next budget.

CNSNews.com had asked both congressional leaders if the exhibit should continue or be cancelled and both indicated it should be cancelled. …

“Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves to end the job-killing spending spree in Washington,” Smith said.

When asked to clarify what exactly Boehner meant by calling on the Smithsonian to “correct” their mistake with the exhibit, Smith said Boehner wanted the exhibit “cancelled.”

Cantor, meanwhile, said the exhibit should be “pulled.”

I’m sure some on the Left will scream censorship, but this is what happens when an institution takes money from the government, or anyone else. If the Smithsonian depended on big private donors to fund this junk, those big private donors would likely demand a say in what their money’s used for. Same with Congress, and not just in the arts. Whether you’re on welfare or a big corporation receiving subsidies, all taxpayer money comes with certain conditions. (more…)

Via CNS News, just in time for the Christmas season; a little desecration of the cross with a side order of incest:

The federally funded National Portrait Gallery, one of the museums of the Smithsonian Institution, is currently showing an exhibition that features images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show’s catalog as “homoerotic.”

The exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” opened on Oct. 30 and will run throughout the Christmas Season, closing on Feb. 13. …

A plaque fixed to the wall at the entrance to the exhibit says that the National Portrait Gallery is “committed to showing how a major theme in American history has been the struggle for justice so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America’s promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity.

Social dignity for everyone other than Christians, that is. But during this Yuletide season, let’s show a little tolerance for incest, shall we? 

Good grief, there are rolls of toilet paper edgier than this junk. Incest and blasphemy? Please. If you want to impress me with your artistic courage, pay tribute to the American flag or Sarah Palin. Naked brothers kissing is about as avante-garde as bringing a keg of imported beer to a frat party. (more…)

And herein lies my real problem with NBC/MSNBC. What Keith Olbermann does as a private citizen and with his own money should be the least of  NBC/MSNBC’s concerns. But they are so delusional over there that they’ve convinced themselves that a two day suspension over a few thousand dollars in private campaign contributions will in some way bestow “journalistic integrity” on the very same network that would seek to legitimize a racist leftist like cartoonist Ted Rall, who is now openly calling for a violent revolution to overthrow the American government and put a stop to the Tea Party. 

“Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution? The answer is obviously ‘yes.’”

That’s not a Ted Rall statement, that’s MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan. As you watch the video below, imagine the (justifiable) uproar had those words come from a Hannity or Beck in the same context as this — an interview with a right-wing extremist calling for violence against his political opponents:

—–

For those of you not familiar with Rall, he’s a witless, radical left-wing editorial cartoonist who’s probably most famous for his inability to draw, but thanks to the venomous left-wing viewpoints he holds, he’s enjoyed an incredible amount of mainstream success. According to his own site, the same cartoonist who called Condi Rice a “house nigga” and is now calling for organized violence in order to “bully” his insidious left-wing worldview on the rest of us, “now appear[s] in more than 100 publications around the United States, including the Los Angeles Times, Tucson Weekly, Willamette Week, Newark Star-Ledger, Village Voice and New York Times.”

Here’s an excerpt from his new book, “The Anti-American Manifesto”: (more…)

Over the last few weeks, a lithograph in a public art museum in Loveland, Colorado has drawn a lot of attention. The reason for the attention is that the lithograph, titled “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals” and created by Enrique Chagoya, seems to have depicted Jesus Christ receiving oral sex from another man. (I say “seems to have” in describing the piece because the sections of the lithograph that depicted Christ thus were torn out by a protestor with a crowbar on October 6.)

Others, who have not used crowbars, have nevertheless ripped the display with labels such as “pornographic” and “offensive.” And while there’s no doubt such labels are well-suited in this case, I believe we miss the greater point if we fail to see the display in light of the fact that it is first and foremost an example of the ongoing cowardice of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

That’s right: the tax-payer subsidized NEA, now basking in the attention it’s receiving from “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,” has yet to proudly sponsor a piece of “art” that mis-characterizes Islam or depicts figures of various other religions (outside of Christianity), in a provocative, if not perverted, sexual posture.

What’s up with this feigned bravery? This propounded art-above-all-else mentality that is actually nothing more than an assault directed at the one religion the NEA trusts won’t react violently?

What a bunch of scaredy-cats.

This all reminds me of my October 13th post on Big Hollywood which pointed out the sheer hypocrisy (and cowardice) of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)’s criticism of Vince Vaughn’s line, “electric cars are gay,” in the trailer for the movie The Dilemma. It was hypocritical (and cowardly) because they chose to criticize a line in a comedy but remained completely silent about the fact that Malaysian officials were, at that very time, censoring Adam Lambert’s flamboyant homosexuality by allowing him to perform in their country on the condition that he curtail his sexuality in front of the crowd. (more…)

Via C. Edmund Wright at American Thinker:

NEWS FLASH: Student Loan Forgiveness for the Arts

Good news for those who work in the nonprofit or public arts and still carry student loans or employ those who might. Some of your debt might be eligible to be “forgiven” by the government. Under the health care reform legislation passed in February in the United States, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program was established to encourage individuals to seek out employment and remain employed full time in public service organizations. The deal is that the remaining balance of federal direct loans would be forgiven after the borrower has made 10 years of monthly payments (beginning after Oct 1, 2007) while employed full time by a public service organization. Find all of the details at http://studentaid.ed.gov.”

(more…)

People have asked me my opinion of the Rev. Terry Jones’ threat to burn the Quran this past weekend. Personally I think the best thing to do with this story is to not give this insignificant media-hound with all of fifty parishioners a voice. But it’s way too late for that now. So, of course I find the action in poor taste – I would never burn any religion’s sacred parchment. That is just wrong and disrespectful to millions trying to practice their faith and go about their daily lives in peace.

But (there’s always a “but” in such testy cases), when I juxtapose this one twisted symbolic gesture against the disregard—and I would argue contempt—being shown by so-called “moderate” practitioners of Islam who insist on building their mosque almost on top of the ashes of 9/11 victims against the wishes of so many Americans, I can understand the frustration that creates a Jones and his ilk. And the fact is, as Mayor Bloomberg offered up, if there is freedom of speech for the fanatical Muslim goose, it must also be for the crackpot Christian gander.

Still, as a matter of common decency I hope this guy tables forever his plans—and there are no copycats. And as a practical matter, I agree with General Petraeus in that the last thing our men and women in the field need is another faux propaganda storm putting them in greater harm’s way… although I do believe that fear of retaliation should not be a reason to quell free speech but rather to fight harder for it. (Easy for me to say as I am not humping a pack in Kandahar I freely admit!)

However, something did occur to me this weekend. Jones is going about this all wrong. If he really wants to burn the Islamic holy book, I know a way that he could do it while at the same time have every left wing pundit and mainstream news outlet not decry his act but rather defend and even celebrate it. He should burn it on the steps of the Museum Of Modern Art up here in New York. And instead of calling it a protest, or a statement, he should just call his Quran torching “art.” In the interest of consistency, artistic integrity and fairness, maybe he can even do it in the building, right on the same spot where in 1989 the infamous “Piss Christ” photo was proudly exhibited. You remember that? The piece of “art” that showed a crucifix submerged in urine? As artist Andres Serrano explained his artistic vision in an open letter to the National Endowment for the Arts: (more…)

Once a year the portrait of Chairman Mao that hangs above Tiananmen Gate is replaced by a new one. Who the artist is has never been disclosed.  For Napoleon, Jacque-Louis David was his favorite painter and the man most responsible for creating his iconic image. Artists like these do not toil away at their craft because they love their leader, they are told to paint. That’s what makes Obama art so dangerous, the artists do it for love. In the last election the public plastered the image of Obama to America with the same hormonal glee that I did when I nailed Farah Fawcett to my childhood wall. 

Barack Obama told voters everything they needed to know about who he was, but mesmerized by his image, America didn’t listen, and now finds itself in a dirty shirt underlined by a faded message.  

The artistic images of Obama are no accident and they can come from only one place. A place so deprived of rational thinking that when the brain has a vision, it sees itself changing the world with every turn of its cog. I’m speaking of the American contemporary art scene. 

Salvador Dali once famously said, “Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.” Artist on the left produce nothing, disguised as something, hoping the masses will imitate it. When Sheppard Fairey stole the image of Obama from an AP photo and created the “Hope” poster – he knew what he was doing. That’s what makes Fairey so brilliant, he knows how to sell an image without being told. My respect for Fairey comes from his willingness to tell you up front that his art is propaganda.  (more…)

Today’s L.A. Times:

For years, Frank Miller spoke of a Gotham City graphic novel that would be like no other — for the 120 bone-crunching pages of “Holy Terror, Batman!” Miller — arguably the most important comic book artist of the last 30 years — envisioned a story in which the Caped Crusader went on a blood quest against Al Qaeda.

Earlier this week, sitting over coffee at the U.S. Grant Hotel in San Diego, Miller said the elusive project is finally close to completion but that the name and central character have changed and that DC Comics won’t be the publisher. Miller frames all of this as a decision that was driven by the work itself and not dictated by a DC leadership that, according to insiders, has long been leery of the politically charged concept.

“It’s almost done; I should be finished within a month,” Miller said. “It’s no longer a DC book. I decided partway through it that it was not a Batman story. The hero is much closer to ‘Dirty Harry’ than Batman. It’s a new hero that I’ve made up that fights Al Qaeda.” (more…)

—–

Ed. Note: Starting next week, Obama Nation movies to its new permanent home at Big Government.

(more…)