While I definitely respect all these points of view, I have to question why many of us are questioning Hollywood instead of questioning ourselves. And what we should be asking ourselves is why many of us complain so much about Hollywood’s output but at the same time fail to support the burgeoning artists, musicians, writers and filmmakers in our own community?

For full disclosure:  yes, I am a conservative, and yes, I am a filmmaker trying to get my art out to the greater world. For the life of me, I have never understood why we monetarily and spiritually support artists, studios and media companies while simultaneously berating them for what they offer us. If someone delivers crummy pizza that smells weird, tastes worse and gets me sick, would I still call the same pizza place every time? No. So, why do we do the same when making entertainment or artistic purchase choices?

In film, you don’t get to shoot on 35 mm with big-name actors, commissioned scripts, or the best D.P.s using someone else’s money unless you have a track record and have proven you can make money. To become a great artist, you need time to develop and hone your craft.  You need to be able to make a living in your particular medium to justify working in the arts and to gain that 24/7 time needed to create and edit better and better material.  Having a paying audience is the only way to make that happen.  Not all “conservative” films or shows will be great and not all will be good, but all should be supported by the people most predisposed to enjoy the material, fellow conservatives.  Still, it seems to me that the right’s expectations are too high when art comes from one of their own.

It’s like being the guy or gal who struggles to make it as a local artist.  The hometown crowd is much tougher on you, and their expectations of success are so high that the bar they set just to earn a “You know, it’s alright” is almost impossible to surmount. Are “conservative” audiences really saying that until you start winning Oscars, Emmys, Tonys, and Grammys, you haven’t achieved that much? It seems that way for both new artists as well as some of the more established ones.

I paid money to see An American Carol in a theater.  Atlas Shrugged, too.  They weren’t films that met the unbelievably high expectations of their audiences.  So what? They were not bad films.  Hello? They were trying to do a helluva lot with limited budgets and the expectations that came with being the first “conservative” films in their genres.  Almost no film could have met the expectations those two had to deal with. No new artistic movement occurs overnight, and these films were steps in the right direction that deserved our money.

How do you expect to see more artists, musicians, filmmakers, etc., who think like you do if you aren’t willing to support the ones you already have among you?  Can you really expect those who are successful and established to risk everything by deciding to “come out of the closet” politically?  God bless Gary Sinise, Patricia Heaton, Jon Voight, Angie Harmon and the other stars who have come out, gotten involved and led from the front.  They are an inspiration, but fortunately for them, they had established resumés to help them weather the natural blacklisting faced by entertainment-industry conservatives.

If you don’t support conservative artists’ material, especially when they are putting their livelihoods, careers and more on the line, then don’t pine for “better” content, and don’t condemn them for not outnumbering the artists you can’t stand.  At the end of the day, you, the audience, are a vital part of Hollywood too. Your time and money determines what future projects are financed, so keep in mind that we can only make what we want if you signify to our investors that those projects will be profitable.

The photo of him posing as a Christ-figure is worth addressing because it is most likely to generate controversy for obvious reasons.  My first reaction was, frankly, disappointment.  That’s the best he can do?  I happen to think Mr. Gervais is hilarious, and his funniest material is usually the most provocative, but this one just fell flat.

After all, how many times are we going to be subjected to some knock-off of the Christ pose, which is obviously intended to inflame Christians?  In short, it’s been done to death.  Christians are an easy target and it doesn’t take much imagination, or cajones, to take pot shots at them.  In America, it’s perfectly fine to hate on the Christians.

If Mr. Gervais had real cajones, he would have created an image that is offensive to Jews.  Even though anti-Semitism runs deep and wide in this country, and often goes unrecognized and unreported, it’s still not so easy to openly hate on the Jews.   There are enough organizations and individuals that will defend us against anything remotely offensive, but the social price is high enough that Mr. Gervais is too smart to risk his career.

Nor is he likely to provide an image offensive to militant Muslims.  As John Nolte pointed out, they will literally take your head off if they don’t get the joke.  Not only is Mr. Gervais likely fond of his head, Muslims are presently in the company of the P.C. Police.  He’d likely to go P.C. jail for taking a swipe in that territory.

What would’ve been provocative, and done free speech and comedians in general a great service, is to have worn a Tracy Morgan mask and replaced “ATHIEST” with “HOMOPHOBE”, while keeping the same pose.   Now that would’ve burned a few barn doors off.  As my old math teacher used to say, “There is no point in getting angry, unless one is going to get angrier and angrier to the end”.

But let’s move on to Mr. Gervais questions.  Mr. Nolte dismissed the queries as being self-important.  To an extent, I agree.  The context in which these questions are presented lends a narcissistic edge to the whole presentation. Stripping away the context, however, we are left with intriguing questions.  Mr. Gervais is no stranger to philosophy, misguided though he may sometimes be.  Let’s not dismiss the value of the questions simply because we don’t like his theology (or lack thereof).

“What is a social conscience?” 

I’m loathe to cite Wikipedia, but the definition therein is pretty concise and works for me.

In short, “to be aware of the problems that different societies and communities face on a day-to-day basis”.

Does it involve positive action, or simply awareness?

Awareness.  It is to be “conscious of”, and any individual — even those utterly lacking in compassion — will have at least some minimal awareness of those problems simply based on daily interactions.  It can involve positive action if one chooses.  Of course, “positive action” is defined subjectively.  Liberals will find vastly different methods to address problems than Conservatives, while politicians in general will certainly leave everyone worse off, while driving the getaway car with piles of money in the trunk.

“What is art?” 

I’ve already written about the difference between “high art” and “popular art”.  But I will say this: utilizing the criteria set out in the linked essay, Mr. Gervais’ photo is just bad art. 

And does being art automatically justify something? 

I’m not sure what he is asking here.  Comments welcome. 

Does art have its own conscience? Or is it amoral? 

The work itself is simply an inanimate object.  Just as a gun is.  A gun itself, like art, is inert.  Both are amoral and have no conscience. 

Can there be art that is so bad that it is no longer art? 

No, it’s just bad art. 

And could art be great art but cause great harm? 

The question is vague because “harm” is not defined, nor is “great”.   Can high art hurt someone’s feelings or offend?  Unquestionably, yes.  Further, in examining the criteria of high art, there is nothing that prohibits such a work from causing “great harm”.   Take, for example, the art produced by the Third Reich, including Leni Riefensthal’s Triumph of the Will and Olympia. These films are considered to be seminal pieces of film history, of filmmaking, and of art.   Did they cause great harm?   The Third Reich was evil.  One valid argument is that anything it produced is fruit of the poisonous tree — and therefore, evil.  I’d give that answer to be an unqualified “yes”. 

Can art “cause” anything? 

You better believe it.   A piece of art is an external stimulus.  Therefore, a reaction or response is an effect from that stimulus. 

Anyway, what photo of me is your favorite? 

Hmmph.  Maybe the questions weren’t as provocative as I first thought.

Quit laughing.

In a recent Washington Post column, Kennicott takes issue with “a litany of shameful events and grievances” committed against homosexuals in the arts, from “the ‘super-macho’ ethos of the American abstract expressionists” to the recent removal of an explicit exhibit from the Smithsonian Museum. Basically, he believes that despite the disproportionate contributions of homosexuals to the arts world, the arts world has failed to honor them appropriately. And he believes that the only way to do this is to make sure that museums are upfront about (1) the sexual proclivities of artists and their subjects, and (2) the subjects’ role, if any, “the iconography of same-sex eroticism.”

For instance, since Saint Sebastian has been appropriated as a homosexual icon, museums are supposed to mention this wherever they display paintings of him. Never mind that he was not himself homosexual.

And if all this openness makes museums seem a little less “family friendly” to some, well, they just need to get with the times. “‘Family’ is now understood to include gay parents, married gay couples and people with gay children, and the absence of basic information about the role of same-sex desire in art history has become an overt sin of omission,” Kennicott explains. Because society is now more accepting of various forms of sexuality, clearly, kids need more sexual information shoved in their faces! (Since, you know, they’re not getting enough of it already from the culture around them.)

Whether or not this is actually good for the arts themselves, Kennicott doesn’t spend much time considering. He should. As Mark Steyn notes in his brilliant book Broadway Babies Say Goodnight, the modern theater’s relentless focus on homosexual issues has made the theater world more insular—and shrunk audiences.

Using the musical Rent as an example of this trend, Steyn writes:

Well, I was moved, but not because of the transvestite sculptor or the lesbian performance artist. In Puccini’s bohemia, the artiness is merely the specific characteristic of universal characters. . . . But there’s nothing mythic or emblematic or enlarging about the characters of Rent: La Boheme is about everyone, Rent is about its participants. I was moved by its inability to move us, by its inability to speak to the world beyond. . . .

A theatre that loses interest in all but a few select minorities is doomed.

And so is a museum.

In the battle for the soul of our country, popular culture is the biggest guy in the room.  And it’s time that conservatives took a swing.  The Powerline Prize contest is a potential haymaker in one of the most important battles of our campaign.

Here’s how it describes itself:

The Power Line Prize of $100,000 will be awarded to whoever can most effectively and creatively dramatize the significance of the federal debt crisis. Prizes will also be awarded to the runner-up and two third-place finishers. Anyone can enter the contest—individuals, companies (e.g., advertising agencies) or any other entity, as long as the contest rules are followed. Any creative product is eligible: videos, songs, paintings, screenplays, Power Point presentations, essays, performance art, or anything else, as long as the product is unique to the contest and has not previously been published or otherwise entered the public domain. Entries may address the federal debt crisis in its entirety, or a specific aspect of the debt crisis, such as: the impact of the debt crisis on the young; the role played by the “stimulus” (Where did the money go? Why didn’t it stimulate?); how entitlements drive the debt crisis; the current federal deficit; how the debt crisis impacts the economy; or any other aspect of the debt crisis. The contest is non-partisan. Its purpose is to inform the public about the federal debt crisis.

Conservatives often dismiss the world of art as a milieu of posing half-wits seeking government subsidies for the unsellable, ridiculous and boring crap they churn out for the benefit of goateed posers and other suckers.  This is because an enormous amount of what is today labeled as “art” is manufactured by   posing half-wits seeking government subsidies for the unsellable, ridiculous and boring crap they churn out for the benefit of goateed posers and other suckers.

However, mockery – while necessary and awesome – is not enough.  We need to get into that world – into all of the creative worlds – and compete.  That’s the lesson the ubiquitous Ben Shapiro teaches in his bestselling new book on TV, “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV,” and that seems to be the intent of the Powerline Prize contest.

But can conservatives make art?  I don’t know – maybe we should ask David Mamet.  But there is a problem with conservative art, which is the same with all art in general – most of it sucks.  Most art is bad.  Conservative art seems to be bad in its own unique way.  As my Twitter pal @Salty_Hollywood – a Hollywood graphic artist – remarked the other night over drinks, “Can we get some conservative art without flags and eagles?”  I agree – I like flags and eagles as much as the next right-wing knuckledragger, but frankly that well has gone dry.  As the old saying goes, we need some new clichés.

The Powerline Prize contest is one way we on the conservative side can start to look for an answer.  But it can’t be the final word – it needs to be only the first in a long process of creating art for our sake.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Hollywood is a competitive place to live and work.  People who live and work there know that it might be the most competitive place to live in the entire world.  The drive to succeed, to find an edge that propels you to the next level can be very compelling for those who are weak.  Of those who crave the sort of attention that might compel them into the snake pit that is Hollywood, psychologists could agree that components in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs are lacking in key areas such as confidence, friendship, and even morality.  All of these mid-level needs should be met for healthy development of creativity, intellect, problem solving, and other high-level needs.  Maslow might reason that in the desperate setting of Hollywood, the underdevelopment of needs like morality, confidence, respect of self and from others might lead to the malformative finding of one’s self at the top of the triangle, with many of the more basic needs still lacking.  In Abraham Maslow’s terms, this is a recipe for disaster of philosophical incorporation.

Other factors contribute to misintegration of philosophical synthesis, as well.

Artists are often dependent on state funding.  This may elicit a reactionary response whereby an artist who might otherwise be conservative is immediately comfortable with the idea of government finance and control in order to meet her basic needs as enumerated in the physiological component of Maslow’s needs (food, water, sex, sleep, survival).

Artists know that success is often found in pushing boundaries.  Art is usually only cutting edge once, and genres tend to have a shelf life.  There is only one O’Keefe, only one Eastwood, only one Bach.  Those genres, recomposed for today, would not have the impact because they already did.  The easiest way to create a niche is to push a boundary (for example, Ke$ha, Katie Perry, Madonna). Preserving tradition often results in preserving the status quo, and taking that to a level of marketable creativity is only for the artistic genius (It’s a Wonderful Life; The Passion; The Blind Side; Amazing Grace).  The reality is that not all artists are geniuses.  Therefore, they will be tempted to crutch on breaking norms to accomplish notoriety, rather than rely on genius they don’t have, or hope to have.

Erich Fromm said, “If I am what I have, and I lose what I have, who am I?”  His ominous warning told a tale of the reality of someone who does not properly and systematically actualize.   

Creativity is usually born of deep emotional angst.  In order to tap into the deepest of creative ability, it is often necessary to dwell on emotions others have the convenience of glossing over.  We are all sad when we experience the death of a pet.  The creator of King Kong had to not only experience the death of an animal, he had to think of every complexity, and focus in depth on the emotional trauma in order to invite his audience to experience it on film.  While we all at some point are witness to the death of an animal, the writers and producers of King Kong had to delve into every painful portion of those experiences, contemplate it, ruminate on it, and experiment with it in order to assure that his audience would live the most compelling parts of that loss in the movie.  The result of all this is that the artist dwells in the realm of emotion.  While all of us experience emotion, the rest of us have the luxury of moving on.  Not the artist.  He has to dissect it, magnify it, and live it for months on end.  Then, like some cruel joke, the artist is often rewarded for his attention to detail in describing for all of us the precise most painful components of pain, loss, grief, insecurity, and other emotional parts. Thus, the artist is conditioned in a Pavlovian way to act based on emotion. It would seem natural that he would then transpose that action on other elements of his life, including his marriage, his friendships, and his politics.

Artists are not paid for tapping into the power of rationale, but rather, the power of emotion.  Therefore, they have no real reason to exercise or even acknowledge the rational argument of a situation.  Much of art is fantasy to begin with, for example, one would not appreciate the movie King Kong if the artist explained how a giant gorilla couldn’t really do what his movie depicted.  The Harry Potter films would flop, Poe would be a side note, Monet would have sunk right into his pond, and the Twilight would be bankrupt.   When an artist takes a look at how to “fix” a social or economic problem, it shouldn’t surprise us that they are looking for heroes and villains, for victims and perpetrators, and for bigger than life fantasies that aren’t based in reality (and therefore won’t work).

Artists are not trained to delve into the gray.  They are trained to define the absolutes such as living, dying, good, bad, heaven, and hell in ways that most of us never really have to face.  Therefore, when it comes time for an artist to consider possibilities, and rational conclusion in areas like politics that they don’t know, their mind immediately goes to the dramatic—the victim, the hero; the winner, the loser; the angel, the demon.

To further complicate matters, man has an innate need for God, or religion.  Conservatives argue that such needs are God breathed, but liberals have to try to push those needs aside.  Artists, who tend to be deeply emotional, sociologically less adept, and psychologically needier than the basic population, arguably have a deeper need for God than any other professional population. Liberalism, in it’s cult-like compulsion toward legalistically defined behavior as dictated by leaders (bankers, producers, dealers, funders) in Hollywood, and one that provides a sort of moral promise of victory, can be very alluring.  This allure meets the higher level Maslovian esteem needs that the artist may not be prepared for if he has not met the lower level needs, as he has not in many cases.  Thus, liberalism becomes a pseudo religion whereby answers to other unmet Maslovian needs promise to be met somehow; some way.   As the expectation continues to exceed the outcome, the artist may grow weary of their religion of “Liberalism,” and make the switch!  This may explain why many artists become conservatives later in life (Mark Twain, Charlton Heston, Ronald Reagan).

This predisposition toward emotionality and validation would make the most sound minded, conservative-leaning artist somewhat reactionary.  The combination of gratification for emotional response to stimulus, and the fact that most artists deal in a fictional depiction of absolutes would naturally lead to a skewed perception of how people really work.  Artists are not rewarded for reality.  They are rewarded most often for their dramatic, condensed representation of what reality could be.

So the question becomes then—why do artists feel compelled or qualified to delve into the political when they have no training for it at all, and even their life experience lacks credentials necessary to relate to real Americans who don’t live in Hollywood?  Should they not simply exclude themselves, much like a judge does when she knows she has conflicting experience that might impede her rational judgment in a case?   Well, no, because we believe in freedom under the US Constitution—even under the knowledge that freedom could result in loss of liberties for having them.

In Frontpagemag.com, John J. Ray has a theory about fame and ego that is too good to paraphrase:

My basic proposal, then, is that most (but not all) Leftists/liberals are motivated by strong ego needs — needs for power, attention, praise and fame. And in the USA and other developed countries they satisfy this need by advocating large changes in the society around them — thus drawing attention to themselves and hopefully causing themselves to be seen as wise, innovative, caring etc. Rightists by contrast have no need either for change or its opposite and may oppose change if they see it as destructive or favour  change if they see it as constructive.

We will see below why one of the most consistent themes to emerge from the Leftist’s love of change is the claimed need for “equality”. And the belief in “equality” also tends to lead to support for such things as redistribution of wealth generally, heavily “progressive” income taxes, inheritance taxes, foreign aid, feminism, gay rights and socialized medicine. Again for reasons explored below, Leftists also tend to oppose religion and the churches and this in turn tends to mean that they favour abortion and oppose or obstruct religious schooling in various ways. So let us now briefly look at some of these characteristic Leftist/liberal themes to see how they relate to basic Leftist motives.

And he concludes:

But in all cases, bitter experience has shown that Leftists in power are very dangerous and destructive people. Where their power is effectively unchecked, they generally seem to resort sooner or later to mass murder (as in the case of the French revolutionaries, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and many Communist regimes and movements worldwide) and where they are partially thwarted by strong democratic traditions and institutions, they at least bring about large-scale impoverishment (as in post-independence India and pre-Thatcher Britain).

All people including artists want to believe that their work is meaningful and significant.  For artists, this propels their belief that human nature is changeable with proper “education” which thereby gives credence to their work.  Thus, to believe in their own meaningful output of work product, they must fancy themselves “educators” capable of changing people in important ways.

If you believe, as I do, and as John J. Ray does, that liberalism is inherently destructive and conservatism, while imperfect, is the far better alternative, then you need to know that my psychological training perceives hope on the horizon, because of the current liberal artists’ dilemma: the liberal artist is marketing today to a glowingly conservative consumer.  Conservatives are crying out for family oriented, morally compelling, traditional values that once graced the silver screen and our television sets.  The heart of America is sentimental for a turn back to the roots of Hollywood.  If the market is demanding enough, it just might result in the artists resorting to Maslow’s Hierarchy to make a living to meet their basic needs, and that might look a lot like the recent mid term elections when we just threw the bastards out and changed the course of history.

Bravo, Hollywood.  The best is yet to come.

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.

His latest novel: “An Object of Beauty,” reflects his passion and knowledge of the art world, and that brings us to this: On Nov. 29, 2010, Mr. Martin was at the 92nd Street Y in New York City to promote “An Object of Beauty,” when something rare happened; he disappointed.

Apparently, he thought it appropriate to talk about the novel and the art world it was about, without so much as putting on that gimmicky arrow-thru-the-head thing. About a half hour into the talk, a note was slipped to the host, Deborah Solomon, informing her that they were receiving emails from the closed-circuit television viewers…they were not amused. When she read the note out loud, the audience came to life and cheered. The Y wasted very little time and voluntarily offered to refund the evenings tickets with same-price-as-paid gift certificates to future events.

Personally, next to a roomful of full-of-themselves progressives, few things can ruin an evening more then some insecure comic, constantly interrupting whatever is going on at the moment, with nervous attempts at humor. Clearly, that is not a problem for Mr. Martin and that makes me like him that much more. Not an easy thing to do, when I consider that he co-wrote and starred in “The Jerk,” one of the funniest movies ever.

To his comic credit, Mr. Martin pointed out: “As for the Y’s standard of excellence, it can’t be that high because this is the second time I’ve appeared there.” Channeling a little Groucho Marx…perfect.

So, let’s see: he’s an award winning comedian, actor, novelist, playwright, producer, musician, composer, business man, art collector and, a pretty decent guy.

Yeah…Steve Martin: Renaissance Man…works for me. Let’s show a little more respect.

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.

Some of the most beautiful art me and the misses have come across we’ve found hidden away in a series of Catholic Missions along the California coast that, here and there, we’ve been visiting for the past few months. There are five missions within a hundred miles of us and they make for memorable day trips or one-night getaways.

While a young country called America was getting its act together on the other side of the continent, out West, Spain provisioned Franciscan Friar Junipero Serra and some soldiers for a trip into the wilds of the Pacific Coast to establish a series of religious and military outposts. The idea was to Christianize the Indians and to give Spain a foothold on the yet unclaimed land. By 1823, long after Serra’s death, an incredible chain of 21 missions — each about 30 miles apart — were built, and through wars, statehood and even earthquakes they still stand today. And while they’re tourist attractions, they’re also owned by the Catholic church (thanks to a decree signed by President Lincoln just a few days before his death) and still function as such, holding regular Sunday masses and the like.

But what gorgeous artistry they preserve, and not everything was shipped in from Spain. The Mission Indians, as they were called, obviously moved by their newfound faith, created some beautiful paintings and sculptures. Here’s some information on the missions and I’ve posted more photographs of the artistic treasures they hold below. You need not be a Catholic to appreciate Catholic art just as you need not be contemporary to see that there’s not a whole lot of talent that goes into contemporary art (or my photographs):

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.

The problem is that there’s no teeth behind this threat. The time to end the grossly immoral practice of funding the arts (and PBS) in every shape, manner and form was sometime between 2002 and 2006 when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Pardon my cynicism, but if the Republicans didn’t have the sand to do it then, they sure don’t now with even less power; so you can bet the Smithsonian isn’t exactly shaking in their boots.

I’ll make the point again that the left’s desire to fund the arts is revealing. You would think anyone legitimately outraged over child hunger — and under the mistaken belief that the government could do something more about it — would be even more outraged that millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars that could be used to feed hungry children are instead being allocated to fund the least talented artists in America. But the Left’s okay with that…  

… and that says everything about them.

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.

[A]ccording to Linda St. Thomas, the Smithsonian’s chief spokesperson. The National Portrait Gallery itself received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2010, according to St. Thomas. It also received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal 2009, according to the museum’s annual report. The gallery’s overall funding in that year was $8 million.

St. Thomas told CNSNews.com that federal funds are not used to pay for Smithsonian exhibits themselves, including the “Hide/Seek” exhibit. The federal funds received by the Smithsonian, she said, pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff, including the salaries for curators of exhibits. …

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and a former senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, told CNSNews.com, “If the Smithsonian didn’t have the taxpayer-funded building, they would have no space to present the exhibit, right?

How can the same political party that claims our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling, children are going to bed hungry, and that more money is needed for breast cancer and AIDS research justify spending millions on this crap?

Do Leftists want people crushed in bridge collapses, children to starve, and women and gays to die prematurely?

I guess so. There’s really no other way to explain their priorities.

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. 

Not so much with other artists. 

David Cordero went a step farther than Fairey’s hero worship by creating a life size Obama as a messianic figure – entitled “Blessing,” which gave him a moment in the national spotlight but no lasting following and no buyers for mass produced neon lit Jesus Obama’s.  Liberal artist are only able to see outrage in the world when they’re political hero or God is not in office.

The sophomoric art of the Bush presidency was only hailed as artistic because artist were creating it for an audience that was, at the time, susceptible to anything they created. And, if it could ultimately hold their morning coffee or cover their waxed chest, all the better for them to show the world their outrage while making money off hyped up Hope and Change fools. 

These same artists are not creating work today that depicts Americans struggling through this tough time in history because that won’t get them into nightclubs in New York and L.A. Instead they spend their time designing Nike sneakers and filling out paperwork for grants from the National Endowment for the Arts and hoping the money comes through by 2012 so they can paint the evils of being a Mormon, a Christian or a conservative. 

With Democrats is such deep water headed into the November elections, will artist like Fairey attempt to bail out their party with pop culture art in the hopes of washing away the rational thinking of the American public? Only after November will we know if we sat and watched the paint dry, or we covered it up with a broad stroke of primer. If art is to be part of the culture war, then we as conservatives should break out the war paint and color the face of America back to its red, white and blue.