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…)

The left in this country has a problem.  Well, they have a lot of problems, many of which involve personal hygiene and anger management issues.  That is a column for another day though.  The left is losing the pop culture media war in this country, and it bothers them.  In 2008 Reuters reported that the top four radio formats in United States were news talk, country, contemporary Christian, and Christian teaching. 

 
Stripper Pole!

Liberals failed miserably when they tried to take over the talk radio industry with Air America.  It reminded me a lot of the time that Pearl Jam took on Ticketmaster, which in turn reminded me a lot of a bowl of jell-o taking on a herd of wildebeests.  The left can’t compete in the Christian market.  Let’s face it, the folks who declare Robert Mapplethorpe “art” simply have no credibility in that particular market.  With that said, Country is a family friendly format they still think they have a chance of corrupting, and Miley Cyrus may be their perky little Trojan horse into that industry. 

Music and American politics have become linked, with most of the genres in the “Hope and Change” category.  During the 2008 presidential campaign, a country artist I am acquainted with talked about the stress of that election and how her vote was putting her at odds with her family, friends, fans, and industry (three guesses who she voted for).  To change the very culture of that industry, you need to pave the way for the shrill Natalie Maines types with the seemingly harmless Miley types.  Ms. Cyrus is presented to us a fully Disneyfied young lady with a Christian background and the values to boot.  This is the sort of person that the Middle America country fans should love, right?  As with many things in the entertainment world, her image is a well manufactured myth and the truth is that this young lady brings an entire suitcase of San Francisco values with her as baggage when she eventually breaks into the country music scene.   (more…)

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is always one of the hottest topics in the theatre community.  A huge amount of theatre in the US is created or presented at non-profit theatres that operate under the protection of or were first started with grants from the National Endowment for the Arts.

The latest NEA controversy broken here at Big Hollywood by Patrick Courrielche has become a fascinating Rorschach test within the theatre community.  The response has been disappointing yet predictable from the left-leaning proponents of the NEA and this administration.

Robert Mapplethorpe

To fully expose the inconsistencies and intellectually dishonest positions they have taken in their knee-jerk defense of everything Obama, we first need a little background for the Big Hollywood readers who might not remember all of the details in the recent history of controversies with regard to NEA funding in the theatre community.

NEA Primer: Now I don’t pretend to suggest that the following breakdown of the NEA struggles dating back to 1990 is a definitive or even thorough explanation of the recent history of left vs. right combat over the NEA.  I encourage all of my readers to research and read about this issue.  And, I especially want them to read the perspective of liberals/progressives/leftists who were in the middle of the struggle on the other side.  It is informative and enlightening to read how they really feel about the subject. (more…)