Sunday, November 16, 2008

What is it with Liberals?

This blog entry was inspired by a recent comment on one of my posts. When you disagree with their dogma, Liberals attack you on a personal level, rather than engage you in a reasoned debate. It is not the first time I have encountered this behavior, nor is it exclusive to Liberals. They are, however, more prone to it, and therefore masters of the tactic. I don’t expect an explanation that will justify it anytime soon. I just feel the need to vent. The following are examples of the point:

1. Anyone who argues against the liberally biased art community is ridiculously ignorant.
Being college educated and an artist, this accusation is entirely invalid. Although I would not think to describe myself as a genius, it has more to do with my self-confidence than fact. I don’t feel an overwhelming need to assert my superiority over other people. As an artist who is not Liberal and a producer of political art, I have a first hand perspective of the way the art community is biased and their behavior toward dissenting views. It is nearly intolerable to a Liberal artist to face the idea that a fellow artist would be Conservative, and god forbid, Libertarian. Don't dare venture into the realmof political art with such views.

2. That's the problem with "conservatives" (which you really say to mean Christian theists).
Liberals like Republicans can’t see an alternative to the status quo. Also, to be fair, all Republicans are not evangelicals.

3. Based on the history of great artists in the past, it seems to me that philosophy has little to do with style and only a little to do with content.
This point is so ignorant I don’t even know how to address it adequately. Are philosophy and style mutually exclusive? Can you not have a philosophy, and express it through your art? I’m curious to know what this person defines as great art. Jackson Pollock? Mondrian? Various and sundry other hacks with a paintbrush?
Yes, I’m an art snob. I consider art to be something that has an aesthetically pleasing quality, some measure of talent and vision, and a purpose other than merely shocking people. I blame Duchamp. Nailing a urinal to a wall was the downfall of modern art.

4. Furthermore, note that politics is related to society whereas art is often introspective and based around the individual.
Since I am an individual, and my art is introspective, and I’m politically motivated, this argument is invalid. Also, the actions of society and politicians affect my life as an individual, often adversely. Therefore, the expression of my ‘feelings’ through my art is related to politics and my philosophy.

5. That is why there is a natural bias of art towards individualism, which is the basis of liberalism.
This statement is an oxymoron because Liberals are inherently collectivists.

6.but you are probably heavily involved in it and concerned (1) because you are a minority and (2) because your art isn't well regarded. Stop being so buffoonish. Go out and make the change in yourself that you wish to see in others. Educate yourself and then fight for change. Only then can you fight the injustices facing your sub-culture. Not by ignorant running of the mouth.
This is where the name-calling and personal attacks come in. From separate conversations, I have also been informed that I am ignorant and disadvantaged due to a lack of education on my part. I would change my mind if I understood what I was talking about. I’m really a Liberal and just don’t know it.
It’s all very inspirational. We’ll see how long my work is not well regarded. The only point I will concede to him is that Liberals are not the only people who collect art. Therefore, I will carve a niche, through hard work and talent. I know that’s a bourgeois concept, but it’s a burden I will gladly bear.

For the comment in question and my response in their entirety, see my previous posting under: Why is this election so important. The comment in question was posted anonymously.It’s a fun read.


Ashok said...

I'm curious to know how much you think education nowadays has created a sameness among many liberals, i.e. "collectivists" as you say.

When I was in Philly with a friend, we stopped by a gallery and saw some amazing work. I've critiqued one portrait that relies on a shallow notion of womanhood and feminism, but the truth is I see art like this all the time: technically proficient, nothing to say.

machinepolitick said...

I would say you have me pegged pretty well. I am adamantly opposed to government education for many reasons, the dominant one being the tendency of public schools to teach to the average. I am not interested in having my son be anything other than what he is. If that means he needs extra help, that is what he will get. If he excells in school, I expect him to be challenged. That is why my husband and I sacrifice to have him in Montessori school. I also do what I can to challenge him at home.
The Liberal mindset in general, is something I cannot grasp, much as I try. It helps to understand the opposition, but I fail to do so.
As to art, I tend to work in a style that is too edgy for many conservatives. There are many Liberal artists whose work I appreciate aesthetically. At the end of the day, if the art is pretty and you like it, I say buy it. If you dislike the message, ignore it.
As to political art, one of the reasons I started on the road to that genre was the extreme lack of a non-liberal point of view. Liberals will argue adamantly in defense of diversity, but it is simply not there in political art. Everyone is painting George Bush as a Fascist devil. It has become quite boring, regardless of any technical merit.
I don't think art should be shocking or controversial just for the sake of such things.
At the end of the day, I paint what I feel. When I can afford to collect, I will buy what I like. It will more often be traditional or classical art, rather than contemporary. My son can supply me with scribbles and abstraction.