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.

Sarcasm off.

This incident has vintage guitar owners left wondering…”What next?”  Will the Feds be busting down the doors of musicians, guns drawn, to inspect our guitars to see if we have any contraband they can confiscate?  I have a hunch if that were to happen, they’d target musicians who are openly…dare I say…conservative.

And guess where they would start.

Nathan Picard

It just so happens that our featured artist, conservative singer/songwriter Nathan Picard, makes his own guitars.  Here is what he had to say about the latest display of thuggery by this Administration:

The irony of an out of control administration raiding Gibson guitars (one of the all-time most successful producers of some of the highest quality musical instruments and employer of thousands) during one of the worst economic downturns in our county’s history shouldn’t be lost on anyone.  The raid is reminiscent of a raid on a crack-house except the only crime of which Gibson is guilty is not towing the Big Government, Keynesian, Socialist line.  The message that one could take away from this is…don’t dare speak out against the Obama administration or they will use any means necessary to silence you.

Silence us?  Good luck with that.

As you will see in Nathan’s music video “It’s A Beautiful World”, Americans have a proud history of defeating tyranny and come November 2012…we will do it once again.

—–

Nothing like great music with a positive message to soothe one’s soul in these troubled times and Nathan Picard’s music is just what the doctor ordered.  Nathan has quite the impressive resume/bio:

Nathan Picard has spent much of the last decade fronting a band from Colorado, touring nationally, and making a name for himself in the LA music scene.

Nathan’s songs have been featured on T.V. shows such as Criminal Minds (CBS), MTV’s Road Rules, Kyle XY (ABC), VH1’s Tough Love, and Army Wives (Lifetime) reaching over 400 million viewers.

Nathan is a member of ASCAP and has his own publishing company, Two Tone Technicolor Publishing. He has shared the stage with such acts as Jewel, Three Doors Down, The Calling, and Lenny Kravitz. Nathan has recorded, written, and worked in the studio with artists Ed Bernaro (Executive Producer Criminal Minds), Aaron Kamin (The Calling), Jesse Valenzuela (The Gin Blossoms), Trace Ritter (Candlebox, Chalk Farm), Joe Bishara (Producer Gun’s n Roses), JR Richards (Dishwalla), Doug Grean(Producer Stone Temple Pilots) and Michael Blum (Producer Madonna, The New Radicals).

Nathan’s songs have been raved about by Music Connection Magazine with the “Number One Demo of the Year”, and the “Hot 100 Unsigned Artist of the Year”.

Nathan comments, “The best lyricists can write about an emotional experience for themselves, but relate it to everyone.” As a prolific writer, Nathan continues to deliver a wide range of songs that are both anathematic and relevant with current music trends.

In His Own Words

Some of my best experiences playing music are touring the U.S. with my best friends and bandmates in a total jalopy that we paid for ourselves…breaking down tons of times, and enjoying every minute of it! Although I will say that I don’t miss being totally broke and eating Ketchup sandwiches.  LOL  I guess some of the coolest shows that I have played were opening up for Lenny Kravitz, Jewel and Smash Mouth.  I think the first time I played the Viper Room will stay with me for the rest of my life as well.  I will say though that the shows that I look back on that bring the biggest smile to my face are the small shows we played back in Colorado springs when we were all a bunch of naive kids. I guess they were one of the experiences that taught me what it means to be self sufficient.

I am soon going back into the studio to record my second solo CD….my ninth overall, and I can’t wait.  I am planning a lot of new shows all over L.A. to support it.  I am really excited about the new tunes, and finally getting to record them.  Some of my songs from my last album have been selected for placement on a few T.V. shows in the near future, and I am really excited to hear my stuff on T.V again.

We are honored to have Nathan sharing his incredible talent at our site about which he had this to say:

I absolutely love what you guys are doing at BigDawg’s.  I think it’s about time that we, as proud, free-thinking, patriotic Conservatives begin a new cultural Conservative awakening. To me it isn’t acceptable any longer that the clear majority of common sense Conservatives are so under-represented within popular culture…and I think BigDawg will do a great deal to correct that inequity.  Although it may run contrary to popular perception within the media culture…liberalism is not a pre-requisite for talent.

We love that Nathan not only writes incredible songs and is an accomplished musician with an amazing voice, but that he makes guitars too.  Nathan shares how he got started:

I have always been fascinated with the artistic ability required to not only play a guitar, but to make one as well.  It’s an art form in itself.  I guess my first venture into making guitars sprang out of a reunion with my father after not speaking to one another for almost 13 years.  I learned that he was a really talented guitar maker…and woodworker…and I guess you could say he sparked my new guitar making addiction.  I began to learn a lot from him, and began practicing over and over again until I had the basics down.  It seems as though making guitars is a lot like art and songwriting itself….you never end up with a perfect outcome, and you are always perfecting the craft.

Let’s hope there are no eco-nazis looking to sic the Feds on Nathan for using an old cabin in Colorado to make this guitar.  If anything, they should celebrate his creativity in recycling those old wall joists.

Music truly is universal and while the messages in the songs of the artists at our site may not appeal to most on the left side of the political spectrum, all musicians should be alarmed at what has happened to Gibson Guitars.  This is how this administration intends to silence the opposition or force us into submission to their policies and is a harbinger of things to come .  Does anyone really want the government to have that kind of power?  How would liberal musicians feel if a Republican administration did this to Martin Guitars?   There would be riots in the streets and you know it.

Juszkiewicz has since launched a petition asking President Barack Obama to resolve the inquiry and now the Feds want to meet with him next week to talk.

Silencing Obama’s opponents may be the goal of the left and if their latest attempts at doing so with the Gibson raid as well as their recent launching of the now-widely-mocked Attack Watch (snitch-on-your-neighbors) website are any indication of just how low they will stoop, the immediate conservative response should be an indication to them of just how threatened we feel.

Thanks to artists like Nathan and so many others at our site, like Ezra Dulis, one of the comedic geniuses behind the hilarious “Attaaaack Waaaatch” ad which has gone viral, we have absolutely no intention of accommodating them.

That which does not kill us (unless Teamster thug Hoffa has his way) only makes us sing louder.

Hell, you not only have a right to do it, but you have a right to have it federally funded through the NEA by the very taxpayers whose collective mind you intend to blow by getting so darn real.   It’s right there in the Constitution, amid the emanations and adjacent to the penumbras.  Oh, but if you accurately depict the acts leading up to the murder of nearly 3000 Americans, you’ve got to be stopped.  After all, the artistic elite can’t let you upset the Krugman-esque party line that 9/11 was really about Bu$Hitler and Company’s wars for oil or something.

The artistic community is anti-censorship right up until the second it decides it wants something censored.  Then it piles on.

A little background.

Steve Reich is a Pulitzer-winning composer who lived a few blocks away from the World Trade Center when the planes hit on September 11, 2001.  He was out of town at the time, but his family was home.  They barely escaped, but the experience was so emotionally traumatic that it was only as the 10th anniversary of this monstrous crime approached that he was able to finally express his feelings through his art.  You would think the artistic community would praise him – well, you would think that if you had not been paying attention and still believe that it possessed the capacity for shame at its own rank hypocrisy.

Reich’s composition was called “WTC 9/11.”  As described by Terry Ponick at the Washington Times, it “is a short, three-part work that blends live music with the actual recorded sounds of the day’s events playing in background and foreground.”  The CD was originally scheduled to be released on 9/11/11, but a completely unexpected (if you don’t understand the Left) uproar occurred.

The uproar?  Take a look at the original cover photo above.

Kind of makes you think, doesn’t it?  The sight of that jet being guided straight into the South Tower as hundreds burn alive in the North Tower makes you think about how 9/11 was not just some random tragedy that befell us, as if by mere misfortune or a twist of fate.

It makes you think about how it was a calculated act of murder by people who wanted to enslave or kill us, and who still want to enslave or kill us.  And the artistic elite can’t let that thought cross your mind.

Slate’s Seth Colter Walls is suitably mortified that the simple image is so…simple:

Given the piece’s complexity, it is surprising to see that the first studio recording of WTC 9/11, due to be released by the esteemed label Nonesuch Records just days before the 10^th anniversary of the attacks, is being marketed with cover art that looks like something swiped from Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign press shop circa January 2008.

Yeah, it’s surprising that was piece called “WTC 9/11” and inspired by the events at the World Trade Center on 9/11 might have a cover that actually depicts the World Trade Center on 9/11.  Sorry, Seth, if it’s a little on-the-nose for you.  Now go complain about poetry that rhymes.

The “controversy” – to the extent rank censorship by self-appointed guardians of the public consciousness constitutes a “controversy” – over Reich’s chosen cover art has delayed the CD’s release until the 20th.  That will give the informal Ministry of Truth time to scrub away the cover image that might give rise to unapproved thoughts.

Here is the new cover:

Wow.  Wispy grey clouds – it could be a thunderstorm or perhaps some other act of nature.  Maybe smoke billowing from the factories of one of those corporate polluters we hear so much about.  It could be anything.

Anything except the Twin Towers and the plane piloted by jihadi cowards intent on murdering us.

Ponick of the Washington Times does an excellent job of explaining why the Left demanded this ritual sacrifice:

The grievance was almost certainly generated by hyper-touchy liberal New Yorkers who’ve appointed themselves guardians of 9/11 imagery, aided and abetted by the media coverage (notably Slate and NPR) of reflexively leftist scolds who don’t want to be reminded that the U.S. is not always the bad guy in the arena of human events.  And it’s this latter group that really made the album cover an issue.

Yes, it’s the Left being the Left being the Left. Of course their reaction to 9/11 is just the opposite of “never forget.”  They want us to forget the truth and instead impose a false memory more conducive to their agenda.  They prefer, “always remember America is the villain.”  And the original cover reminds us that America is not.  So it must be suppressed.

In the Los Angeles Times, August Brown fretted, wondering if “the subtlety of the piece accurately conveyed by this incredibly blunt and literal cover?”  Not surprisingly, the Washington Post’s Anne Midgette agrees that the cover should be changed:

It’s the right decision. But the debate is, for me, a red flag that, in the well-meaning wish to guard everyone’s feelings, we risk losing sight of the inherent transformative process of a work of art.

Of course, the “transformative process” the truth might initiate is to transform people from couch-bound lumps thinking in the passive voice about “the tragedy that happened” into furious citizens roused to righteous anger – and their own defense – against the threat that still faces us.

Is one album cover going to turn American culture 180 degrees from the weepy, passivity our liberal elite, spearheaded by the artistic community, wants to keep us trapped in?  Of course not.  And is Reich himself a fire-breathing warrior urging on the American people for further feats of martial achievement?  Probably not.  According to Midgette, his statement read:

As a composer I want people to listen to my music without something distracting them. The present cover of WTC 9/11 will, for many, act as a distraction from listening and so  . . . the cover is being changed.

Regardless, it’s sad that Reich feels forced to constrain his artistic vision not because it is wrong but precisely because it is right.  The elite is not trying to suppress lies but to hide the truth – that a gang of fundamentalist Muslim jihadis murdered 3000 Americans and would do so again, and that we either fight and win, or choose enslavement and/or death.  The latter is what the original cover says, and what it says is the truth, and the truth is precisely what they want to censor.

The artistic community doesn’t stand against censorship – it embraces censorship.  Crying “wolf” about censorship is a useful weapon to protect its untalented hack members who make crappy art off the largess of Uncle Sucker.  And it will not hesitate for even a second to use censorship against its own members when they cross the party line.

Next, maybe Reich can write an album about this incident and the community or artists that has abandoned him.  His only problem will be finding a cover art image that suitably evokes the concept of hypocrisy.

Here’s the gasbag, now, gasbagging:

—–

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill – a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

So, to put it plainly: If you want to play your guitar in the subway, no worries – we’ll supply your health care. If you want to join a death metal barbershop quartet that plays everything on a children’s xylophone- that’s cool too. If you want to freeze-dry your feces, jar it, and call it an indictment on the Bush regime, relax, you daring artist – we’ll pay for your pink eye.

This is EXACTLY the news our young Americans need. With health care a non-concern, they can now focus on their crappy folktronica ragacore techstep. I’m sure their parents will be pleased to know their kids will get a real job.

Look, it used to be that those who embarked on careers in the arts did so because the lifestyle rejected the idea of a safety net. The rest of those boring old farts can become accountants and lawyers – but not the creative soul! He’s leaving town with nothing but a guitar, the wind at his back, herpes in his future. But when he snubs his nose at the safe and the boring – he also snubs the benefits that come with it. That boring company he mocked happens to provide steady income and benefits.

Life on the road doesn’t. That’s why it’s called “life on the road.” Somehow I don’t remember Bruce Springsteen singing, “Tramps like us, baby we were born to stay on our parents’ policies as dependents until age 26.”

Although that sounds better than the original, if you ask me.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe who won’t boycott Arizona.

Tonight’s show puts the delight in delightfanstastic!

We’ve got

Andrew W.K.!

Steven Crowder!

Juliet Huddy!

and Slayer’s Kerry King!

All of these efforts are driving would-be volunteers to Serve.gov. The question is, for what purpose?

Buffy Wicks

Encouraging volunteerism is a noble effort undertaken by every US President. However, this Administration’s national service outreach has led on multiple occasions to outright policy advocacy. I’ve shown this throughout my writing on the subject, with a primary focus on the National Endowment for the Arts. However, the Corporation for National and Community Service is playing an even bigger role in this White House effort, and I don’t think general volunteerism is the only goal in mind. 

The national service initiative is being led by The Corporation for National and Community Service (The Corporation) and the White House Office of Public Engagement. On the now infamous August 10th conference call, Nell Abernathy of The Corporation introduced Buffy Wicks as the person who championed the art community’s involvement in the Obama election campaign as well as the person spearheading this national service initiative. Wicks, the Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement, explained the White House’s rationale for selecting service by stating, “part of my role [at the White House] is working on service, and so when we were thinking about how do we take a lot of this energy that’s out there, how do we translate folks who have just been engaged in electoral politics and engage them in really the process of governing, of being part of this administration in a little bit of a different way because politics is one thing and governing is something totally separate, we really saw service as the platform by which we can do that.”

The White House views service as a good way for those that have just been involved in electoral politics to stay active, and is driving them to Serve.gov to organize and manage them. Buffy Wicks didn’t state that national recovery was the rationale for encouraging partisans to serve. She conveyed that the White House was interested in transitioning partisans from the election cycle into the administration, and using “service” as the mechanism for this transition.

What made candidate Obama’s campaign so successful, in simplistic terms, was his grassroots volunteers and his brand messaging. Of course there was the mainstream media favoritism, the unpopularity of President Bush, his fundraising, and the 2008 Democratic Primary schedule that also played a role. However, these areas were either out of his control or fed by his volunteers and branding.

So it is safe to say that to stay in power, it is vital for his organization to keep these resources organized and active so that the machine retains its potency. There is no better federal agency than The Corporation to serve this purpose. The Corporation’s entire existence is to encourage volunteerism. It is also the nation’s largest grant provider supporting volunteering. And starting sometime this month, Congress will reconcile two bills that fund the Corporation’s expanded role, which includes tripling the number of volunteers to 250,000 and the creation of an ArtistCorps and MusicianCorps.

Volunteers were the backbone of Obama’s grassroots organization and artists were the ones that led his unofficial campaign branding.  These two groups were both massive tools used by the Obama campaign. And a pivotal developer of that tool was Buffy Wicks, the same person “spearheading” the White House volunteerism initiative.

Wicks, a former labor movement and anti-Iraq war organizer, helped develop the Obama campaign’s national grassroots field strategy. Her goal was to have as many organizing teams on the ground as possible and to have an infrastructure to support the addition of new volunteers. She expressed this goal in a Camp Obama training session during the election when she stated, “If we had an organizing team in every precinct, we win this campaign. Like that’s it, end of story, we win this campaign.”

You get a feel for her national volunteer strategy through this Camp Obama video. Her grassroots and infrastructure goal is in the 36:45-40:10 segment.

The NEA and White House conference calls and The Corporation’s new iParticipate effort all drive traffic to Serve.gov – a website that provides the infrastructure and mechanism for growth of volunteerism that looks a lot like what Wicks was advocating on the campaign trail. And Wicks, a political activist with a history of organizing people to take political action, is working with The Corporation on this effort.

By itself though, there is nothing nefarious about pushing volunteerism. However, there have been many warning signs that the White House is attempting to politicize national service.

The August 10th conference call is an obvious example. The call was partisan in nature, it led to policy advocacy, the Communications Director of the NEA resigned, the NEA issued a statement acknowledging inappropriate language, and the White House issued conduct guidelines to address the partisan “appearance” issues. The cover-ups and historical revisionism displayed by the White House, The Corporation, the NEA, and the moderator were troubling indicators of the calls intentions. Another example is the May 12th White House briefing, which also led to extreme policy advocating – but that meeting has yet to be fully vetted.

These partisan volunteer efforts along with the expansion of The Corporation are alarming signs. Through expanding the size and power of The Corporation, the Administration is in essence organizing and increasing the pool of resources that helped it acquire power.

But another event, on further review, adds to concern about the use of The Corporation.

On June 11th, President Obama controversially fired Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service. The termination, possibly violating a watchdog protection law, was thought to be due in part to Walpin’s dogged persistence in pursuing the misuse of The Corporation’s funds by grant recipients, one of which was a big supporter of Obama, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. After a brief period, Johnson’s funding suspension by The Corporation was lifted, triggering Walpin to scold the agency’s board of directors for that decision. Walpin was later fired by the President with little explanation.

If Walpin’s funding misuse investigation showed the White House anything, it was that he was actually going to be a watchdog – a good quality in an Inspector General unless you don’t want the dog watching.

It is my hope that the mainstream media, along with Congress, begins to look into these White House volunteerism efforts with a bit more of a critical eye.

This new iParticipate initiative by the Entertainment Industry Foundation and The Corporation appears tame on review of the press release and website. But a memo uncovered by Big Hollywood shows that the TV networks are being encouraged by this initiative to infuse the issues of health, the environment, and energy into their storylines.

Such a close relationship between the government and the networks should leave many to wonder whether the networks are too close to the White House to be critical. And recent comments by Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, attacking a legitimate news network seem designed as a preemptive strike to marginalize critical inquiry.

The free press needs to keep a critical eye, regardless of whether the White House likes a watchdog or not.

Also see:

PART I: LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set

PART II: Search and Ye Shall Find…Left-Wing Advocacy

MORE: List of ‘Organically’ Created iParticipate Television Programs

Today, the Washington Times compiled a long list of the invited artists who are grant recipients, and…

Fox News followed up with this report:

“Rappers, dancers, writers and other activists from around the country were invited to a May 12 session next door to the White House where they were “challenged to come up with promising and attractive ideas about how artists can work to promote the administration’s agenda.”

“The White House convened a meeting of 60 artists to help push the president’s domestic agenda in May, months before a controversial conference call with artists in August led to the reassignment and, on Thursday, the resignation of the communications director of the National Endowment for the Arts.

“In what some critics are calling a “troubling” early effort by the Obama administration to politicize the NEA, rappers, dancers, writers and other activists from around the country were invited to a May 12 session next door to the White House, where they were “challenged to come up with promising and attractive ideas about how artists can work for the administration’s agenda,” according to a report written by organizers of the meeting.

“An NEA official in charge of grants for performing artists was in attendance, as was the organization’s former chief spokesman, Yosi Sergant, who was reassigned last month after he led a similar conference call with 75 artists and urged them to promote Obama’s policies. The NEA announced Thursday that he had resigned.

“One participant in the May 12 session “suggested the people in the room equaled a think tank to serve the administration’s aims and asked how in practical terms we could connect to the administration’s work,” the report says.

“Government watchdogs said the meeting at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building was a problematic and partisan use of the NEA, which is supposed to be politically neutral.

“”They didn’t violate a law but it doesn’t seem like a good idea,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It seems like they’re overly politicizing the NEA, and it seems inappropriate.”

“Sloan said it was “troubling” that the government-funded NEA was suggesting to artists who rely on it for aid that they make a push for the administration.”

You can read the full Fox News piece here.

When did artists in this country decide it was a good idea to take marching orders from the government? Did I just wake up in some third-world country from a long sleep or am I having a nightmare where I go back in time to Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russian or Hitler’s Germany? No such luck — this is actually happening here and now and some of you artists are too stupid to figure out you’re being had. Wake the $%@# up! Always question the powers that be! The only “change” that has taken place are the faces in high places. Politicians have an agenda-first, last and always — but make no mistake — these guys are worse, much worse!

Today’s liberals are the art community! From galleries, curators, critics, authors, film makers, musicians, actors, bloggers, magazines, publishers, collectors, directors of art institutions, museums and alternative art spaces to the artists themselves-most are already in lock step with the liberal ideology that has been a long standing tradition. That’s why the conference call between the White House, the NEA and the other artists was an easy call to make … literally. They invited Patrick Courrielche to sit in on the call — too bad for them but great for those of us who care.

In Hollywood, actors and others learn to keep their conservative opinions to themselves if they want to work-I get that! It’s the same thing with conservative visual artists like myself, no matter where we live. That’s why I put out my A Call To Artists video. I wanted to let my fellow artists know they are not alone. What I don’t get is how so many of these artists can be so easily swayed? Are artists truly as talented and intellectual as we have been led to believe or are we the recipients of our own praise and largess at the expense of the little guy we pretend to respect and care for so much? Who is pulling the strings? How many hoops do you have to jump through before you begin to understand that you are not an artist if you are not free to express yourself as you see fit. The artist formally known as Prince understood that and made his choice. I like his art/his music-but right now I really admire his stand.

I known first hand about wrongly being labeled and how much more difficult that makes it to earn a living. I also know what it’s like to be shunned by my peers. What I don’t get are the conservative artists who have had great success and are still hiding in the shadows. How much more money, fame, success do you need to feel safe enough to speak up and what does that say about the state of fear we already live in? What are you afraid of and where are your priorities? Here I must thank Mr. Jon Voight for having the courage to speak out. You, sir, are a man!

Have established artists not figured out that if you don’t speak out and stand up for your rights now you can kiss your freedoms goodbye, along with everything you have earned and worked for your entire life? And don’t worry about who gets what when you’ve passed on. At this rate it will belong entirely to the state. Hell, a lot of it already does!

How much more proof do you need to believe that this has been going on for a long time now — this current administration has just shifted to light speed! They’ve been watching, listening, studying and learning, especially from their mistakes. They have been patient and are now fully entrenched. They believe this is their moment and that they cannot let it get away — so anything goes!

 This is not a sparring session, this is the championship bout, the final round — winner take all and “We The People” better come out swinging!!!

“Did the White House initiate the conference call-cum-political pep rally? Or, even worse, did the NEA, an independent agency, spontaneously politicize itself? Something that reads awfully like an invitation went from Sergant’s NEA e-mail address to a cohort of “artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, tastemakers, leaders or just plain cool people.” …

“The NEA is the nation’s largest single source of financial support for the arts, and its grants often prompt supplemental private donations. He who pays the piper does indeed call the tune, and in the four months before the conference call, 16 of the participating organizations received a total of nearly $2 million from the NEA. Two days after the call, the 16 and five other organizations issued a plea for the president’s health-care plan. …

“[T]he Obama administration is tightening the cinch on subsidized artists, conscripting them into the crusade to further politicize the 17 percent of the economy that is health care.

“Time was, artists were proudly adversarial regarding authority, the established order, etc. “Epater le bourgeois!” and all that. Now they are just another servile interest group seeking morsels from the federal banquet. Are they real artists? Sure, because in this egalitarian era, government reasons circularly: Art is whatever an artist says it is, and an artist is whoever produces art. So, being an artist is a self-validating vocation.”

You can read the piece in full here.

Your correspondent, as absorbed by the Warhol Museum, 117 Sandusky Street, Pittsburgh, PA.

A dance craze— like “freaking”— it is not, but rather, a point of view.

Back in January of this year, Andrew Breitbart announced “Big Hollywood’s modest objective: to change the entertainment industry”.  The announcement is as important as it is radical, assessing the power of Pop Culture in shaping global attitudes and standing athwart contemporary assaults on Western values, yelling, as did William Buckley in 1955, Stop.

Ask yourself: Is a vision of the world that is contrary in almost every way to the prevailing cultural paradigms a difficult “sell”?  Given this is always so, how is such a challenge overcome?

“Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.”  —Andy Warhol.

This from a man whose art, at a time when the prevailing artistic paradigm was the dynamic force of abstract expressionism, cut against the grain entirely with stark, cold, objective representations—with silk-screened wooden boxes virtually indistinguishable from their cardboard counterparts containing Brillo pads, and with paintings of common household items— Campbell’s soup cans, most famously. It is not impossible to shift the paradigm, to change the perspective, to assert new viewpoints in art and capture the minds of the audience for them.

The business of producing “art”— representations of reality in every possible medium— generates billions of dollars and has an enormous impact on culture. In point of fact, those representations reinforce sensibilities in their audiences and participants that not only contribute strongly to the creation of culture, but also to the attitudes that are informed by culture.

What’s the problem with so many contemporary attitudes? They are, among other things, non-judgmental, amoral, narcissistic, belligerent, pathologically emotional and unreasonable, anarchic, obsessed by a sense of entitlement, absurd, destructive, willfully ignorant, nihilistic, devoid of self-knowledge and an understanding of human nature, externally motivated, and as controlling and manipulative as an adherence to leftist ideology, whether conscious or unconscious, can produce.

These leap to mind and reveal nothing more than the tip of the iceberg, saying nothing of the attendant symptoms of such folly in over-excitement, anxiety, ennui, sexual dysfunction, chemical dependency and so forth. The litany can go on and on and on… but to go so far as to question the ‘appropriateness” of such attitudes is, as often as not, viewed as intolerable.  Such benign expressions as affectations of dress or teenage dancing simply must not be “suppressed” or linked to the entertainment industry, since kids have always done it, and they’re just having fun.

Somehow (golly gee-whiz, I wonder how?) these attitudes and viewpoints have come to define convoluted and contradictory ideas— twisted ideas— of freedom and the pursuit of happiness more in line with fear and loathing than with joi de vivre. Are these viable foundations for a life worth living? We can’t ask Lord Byron. We can’t ask Kurt Cobain. Nor can we ask Michael Jackson.

Claims that “it’s only rock and roll” or just a movie, TV program, a video game, etc., are bogus. These popular diversions can and do consume our time and attention, often demanding the total focus of consciousness it takes to be an Indy driver or a member of a Bomb Squad.  Ephemeral, disposable, they may be, but those things that produce such riveting effects cannot be dismissed as mere entertainments, i.e. of little consequence.

Ideas have consequences. Art has consequences. Both worlds create connections in the mind to abstract visions that, again, inform cultures and subcultures collectively and individually. “Everybody here is wearing a uniform, and don’t kid yourselves”, as Frank Zappa, a wise guy, put it. Black tie, rainbow bumper sticker, stacked heels, AC/DC or Che T-shirt, cowboy hat or rose tattoo—what are the connections?  They can be almost infinite in terms of thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, ideas, self-images, all broadcast by various media, and it might be reasonable to suggest that not all of them are in one’s best interests.

And if such choices regarding personal appearance reflect only the surface, what lies in the depth of the content of our character? What can be said of our thoughts and emotions? What of our words and actions? Do our deepest inner selves and our reputations among others reflect genuine integrity of character in the combinations and permutations of all these elements of personality?

But we’re smart. We’re highly intelligent. Yet we are like consumers of some exotic hallucinogen so jaded by long experience we say derisively, “That stuff has no effect on me” as we ramble somewhat aimlessly from one personal or cultural/political disaster to another.

“If conservatives don’t figure out popular culture soon, the movement will die a deserving death”, said Mr. Breitbart six months ago, and rightfully so. What, then, must conservatives, independents, libertarians, classical liberals, free-thinking artists, producers, and, yes, patrons of popular culture who are unswayed by leftist “progressive” dogma figure out?

Andy Warhol assumed a role of detached observer, a recorder, a mirror; an objective overview of Warhol’s work, one not distracted by glitter and trash, brings certain elements of popular culture into clear focus. First among equals is Economics, and it’s no more complicated than the artist’s quote above. Make the money, work hard for it, be smart with it. Good business means making the hard work pay off with financial growth and independence. Diversify. There’s no yawning abyss between art and music, film and literature, magazines and photography, sculpture and performance art, news and gossip and entertainment. They are all mediums through which an artistic vision may be realized. Media is meant to be used, to be manipulated.  Objectively, is most effectively manipulated by the controlled application of CASH.

Invest.  Invest in Ideas.  Artists, (you know who you are, if no one else does) knowing with certainty that there will be no grants from National Endowment for the Arts, get a job, be self-supporting, and invest in yourselves.  There is no such thing as “selling out”; selling out is the whole point. Tongue planted firmly in capitalist cheek, of course, with the hope that conservatives and others will get a handle on pop culture, and soon.

And Fat Cats take note: George Soros has moved so much money in the promotion of the Left in politics and media he could easy change the name of his Open Society Institute to “Global Social Engineering R Us”.  Those who wish to see their values portrayed in artistically viable ways, in a manner conducive to accessibility and commercial success, need to ratchet up their efforts to compete with this monster— or at least put up a viable Resistance.  Put your money where your mouths are, and into the hands of artists and producers who may be “under the radar” but who know (knowing hunger and even the concept of thrift) what to do with the financial resources, and will do it wisely with the intentions of realizing their creative ideas and reaping a profit, thus keeping your patronage.  You might even avoid seeing the wealth you’ve worked so hard for over the years go up the noses of your trust fund beneficiaries.  (Don’t worry about their dance floor behavior, though.  It can’t possibly be an indicator.)

Another important Warholian element for consideration is the idea that there are differences between the culture of the fine arts and the popular culture. Simply put, it does not matter. Warhol effectively erased a great many such distinctions, and if there are to be any, history will be the judge. The intellectual and moral crises challenged by those who rebel against the cultural dominance of the left today are of such existential moment it is foolish to labor over such points.

The real work of redefining the future is what is of profound importance.

NEXT: Do The Warhol— Part 2 of 4: The Cult(ure) of Personality