On Art

Recently, I took one of those "self-improvement" classes that someone occasionally suckers you into. One of the things that I was taught was to, well, purge all old things from your home and essentially "freshen up" a bit. So I did. One of the things I decided to do was to either donate or bury everything that I have had since high school - even things like clothes (which I still fit into - jealous?!?!?!?).

I have also been accumulating books since high school, and I have so many books that I have converted one of my rooms into a library (actually, I admit that I have more rooms that I currently need). One of the books I decided to get rid of is a picture book called "A History of Art." This was written in the 1960's, and it is a product of the 1960's - not the sex-drugs-rocknroll-extremeleftwingpolitics 1960's, but the unheard of 1960's, the smooth, liberal, ultra urbane 1960's that was as very much in place as "the counterculture," but pretty much looked over since those participants are now over 80, and the hippies overtook them in the popular imagination (probably the best known expression of this period is camelot).

I have not looked at it for over ten years - hence the need to bury it - but I decided to take a peek at it. And I started in the back, which was the period of "modern art."

Now, what impression do you get of "modern art"? Bad, incompenently made paintings? Well, one is correct on that score. Of course, the self-appointed vangard of the cultural community thought that this stuff was brilliant, and spent a long time trumpeting it's virtues.

For about 100 years, since approximately the 1880's, a bunch of artists started going away from what one thinks of as art - something that is possible to visualize. One of the arguments was that "painting needed to be rescued from competetion with the camera...that we must look at it, not thru it" (as a painted canvas is a material surface covered with pigments, per the book)Instead, they made things that looked more and more like blobs on canvas. One attribute of art, that many people would agree as a definition, would be "something that I cannot reproduce myself" (and most people would agree that it would have to be a competent person making the item). However, some of this stuff is easy to reproduce, which makes people giggle when they see it.

Some intellectuals, of course, would scoff at what I have to say, stating "he is commenting about something he knows nothing about." They further would state that one needs to be trained to "appreciate" this "art." In the old Soviet Bloc, this is known as "re-education". Everywhere else, it's known as "brainwashing." Sure, someone might get a degree in art history, and you can demonstrate that this is the peak of artistic achievement. And some people also gets degrees in such things like minority studies and women's studies. And when they graduate, the are jobs awaiting them that match their skill levels. The titles of those jobs are "janitor."

Probably the most famous piece is by Edvard Munch "The Scream." I think the best title for it would be "Honorable mention, first grade finger painting contest."

One piece, by Wassily Kandinsky, circa 1913, is called "Sketch I for 'Composition VII'". I call it, "How people will see what I had for dinner shortly after I have consumed an entire fifth of vodka."

Another piece, by Jackson Pollock, is called, merely, "One," circa 1913. No, this is much less enjoyable than the Metallica song. And much less cogent. I call it "A new exercize by dipping a brush in oil and flinging it toward the canvas about 1000 times."

The final piece in this genre is called "Compostion with Red, Blue, and Yellow." circa 1930.
I attempted to copy and paste into this blog, but have not succeeded. Essentially, it can be done on Microsoft "Paste" in about 5 minutes. I call it "The final project of my first lesson of "Microsoft Paste!""

Basically, the elite called it "art," or they might think of it as high art. We don't need the categories of impressionism, post impressionism, symbolism, abstract art, or what not. Another term can easily fit all those categories of "art." That term is "crap".

And not only do I agree, but so does most of humanity. While that jackass on the movie "Titanic" was wrong in stating that Picasso would never amount to anything, at least his sentiments were in the right place (in this instance). About fifteen years ago, Saturday Night Live had a skit where Picasso was in some cafe somewhere, make some scribbles on a napkin, sign his name, and - whammo! - that would be worth money. And once, he sneezed, saw something "inspiring," signed his name, and threw it on the floow - and all the waiters tried to grab that piece of "art."

About ten years ago, some woman in Britian submitted a "brilliant" piece of abstract art. The entire art establishment mentioned how brilliant the work was. One problem. This piece of "art" was actually done by her 5 year old, who had no art training whatsoever.

Probably the best criticism ever given was by Nikita Krushchev. Now, you may disagree with his politics, but even a blind monkey occasionally finds a banana (plus, he very nearly denounced socialism on his deathbed, so he can be forgiven). In a recent biography, "Khruschev, The man and his era," the author mentions a speech he made to a bunch of Soviet artists. He stated to them "[A colleague] told me a couple of days ago that when his daughter got married, she was given a picture of what was supposed to be a lemon. It consisted of some messy yellow lines which looked, if you will excuse me, as though some child has done his business on the canvas when his mother was away and then spread it around with his hands..." I think that Robert Maplethorpe was one of those in the audience. Krushchev further noted "Who painted this picture? I want to talk with him. What's the good of a picture like this? To cover urinals with?"

Around this time, a revolt against the revolting started. And it was started by someone who the left so admires, Andy Warhol. He made "pop art" which was to paint pictures of soup cans. Like Campbell soup cans. Which takes infinintely more competence to do than throwing blobs of paint on a canvas. And have you ever heard of the "minimalists?" They existed to make fun of the above-like art.

Fortunately today, due to the democraticization of our culture thru technological mediums like this one (and radio, and cable, and other), the influence of actual artists is now overtaking those of the garbage the elite so admires. For example, there is a very popular style done by Thomas Kincaid, known as the "artist of light." He is essentially unknown outside of evalgelical Christian circles, or those who do not read publications like Readers Digest. He is a neo-impressionist, but uses lots and lots of light. It is a very positive product that he produces, since really, the only time artists today express themselves positively is when they are engaging in fornication, about to engage in fornication, preparing to engage in fornication, plotting to engage in fornication, or swooning to get audience members to engage in fornication with said artist - for example, see just about every popular song written since 1920.

Of course, Thomas Kincaid will never break into the so-called "mainstream" culture. You see, he is a family man that goes to church. For an artist to go to church, that's sacrelige! For him to break into this culture, he would need to get into chains, whips, and leather, espouse anti-American doctrines, and become a junkie. But then again, if he did those, he would stop producing the work he produces.

Or maybe he will. Rush Limbaugh started as a fringe product in a fringe medium. But after ten years, he became the leading American commentator - whether you agree with him or not, he has more of a following than any other commentator. Thomas Kincade now has imitators - I bought a couple of prints from an imitation artist and have them hanging in my eating area. And, many of his works will end up in a museum. For Thomas Kincade is that good. Unfortunately, his prints fade, but hopefully, he will find a way to improve that. I had never heard of him, saw his works, and walked into a gallery and saw his paintings, and was so impressed, I asked about him, and was told about him. And how many millions of others were so duly impressed, like me, too? The concept of great art is something you think is fantastic when you first see it, and can't get enough. A similar analogy is when I first heard "Smells like Teen Spirit." (Seriously!!!) I thought this song was fantastic. So did millions of other kids, and this launched a new genre of rock into the stratosphere.

Due to the democraticization of American culture over the last ten years, I think that we will see a return to art that makes sense. I further think that art will go back to representing things that have some kind of plausibility - even a man throwing spears at a dragon is more plausible than a blob on a canvas, because we can visualize ourselves doing that, even though there are no dragons. And as sales from actual art vastly overtake the sales of garbage, people will stop producing garbage, and everyone (but a few wierdos) will buy real art again. This is one reason why the intelligentsia hates capitalism - vox populi ultimately gets to determine trends when both the culture and the economy are democratic, not a bunch of snooty, overschooled board members. Remember, it was the cultural elites who were in league with bigoted southerners in the 1950's when trying to stop the rock-n-roll juggernaught.

Let us hope that, in the visual arts, people will buy more impressionist paintings, landscapes, sea photos, coyboy pictures, or anything else where humans can acutally place themselves. Now, if you will excuse me, I have been drinking a lot while typing this piece, there is a canvas, and I need to do something to make some money...

Harry Potter Part II - What this series is really about

There has been a lot of speculation that the Harry Potter series is about witchcraft, and witches and wizards making all kinds of magic. I believe it is about something else, and it is quite obvious.

One of the major themes throughout the series is the dispute between the purebloods and the mudbloods - at least for those followers of Slytherin. And some of the purebloods make a big deal about their connection to the past. However, as far as one can tell, everyone is now either a a mudblood of a halfblood - even Lord Voldemort, as his mother Merope and his uncle were the last two purebloods - Merope dying after giving him birth, and his uncle was murdered by him.

Now, take this series into context. It takes place in England - where there are lots of castles, titles, and social stratification. And, I'm sure some of the nobility still has a snotty view of the commoners - even though the nobility is pretty much worthless. As an example, in America, there is enough social mobility in that a Caribbean immigrant's child can become Secretary of State, while his British cousin, who lives in London, has a hard time finding a better job than a bus driver.

So, what does this have to do with Harry Potter? Taking a look at the decrepit wizard world, one can see a metaphor for the decrepit British social system. Look at the heir, the Prince of Wales, and see what an absolute goofball he is. Another interpretation can be as an attack against all forms of racism. But I believe the former applies more.

Of course, the British social system is the most rotten in the world, and is ready to collapse. In a generation or two Britian will have a complete social revolution, and the new ideology will be Sharia. Unless some of the Muslim elites are allowed to share power, and dictate some control of society. But, that is another posting at another time.

Thus, I believe that J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter basically as an attack upon the entire British system, which will be evident from when the young Britons become adults.

Harry Potter - Part I

Hi! I'm back! At least for anyone who reads this.

On November 18, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire will appear in theaters. Now, for those of you who are Harry Potter fans, I think that the movies are way worse than the books. But that is what people usually say when comparing the two. There is way too much missed. And they are very nearly children's films. And, they keep eliminating my favorite character, Peeves!

We will hear, for the next few days, how Harry Potter is a bad influence, in that he encourages things like witchcraft, the occult, etc. Of course, things like fairy tales have been around for centuries, and the Grimms did not lead anyone to attempt to turn mice into horses, or make beanstalks grow into the sky, or other things of that sort. So Harry must have some kind of magical property now, right?

That is the allegation by those who do not read Harry Potter. The magic that is covered is, well, impossible. You can't go around transfiguring anything you want into something else. Real attempts to play with witchcraft turn you from a homeless, drug-addicted "artist" into a raving maniac intent on conquering the world - at least as legend portrays it. But that is another subject for another time.

The real reason why I think Harry Potter is a bad influence on kids is that he is a pathalogical liar. One would get this by reading his books. And he has other character flaws, too, but that is what leads to "literature." The wizarding stuff merely adds flavor to the story - kinda like an older Grimms fairy tales.

And someone would have to be pretty stupid to be influenced by this series. For example, not only is the magic totally fictional, but the characters are highly unrealistic. Let me explain. In book six, the males finally learn to like girls, and start making out with them. At age 16. See a problem there? At age 16, most boys no longer interested in getting to first base, but scoring home runs. Er, bad analogy. Let me correct myself. At 16, most boys are no longer interested in getting the quaffle into the hoops, but grabbing the snitch. There, better analogy.

Plus, Hogwarts is a place where 16 year olds have the ability to brew love potions. By reading the books, you know that it is essentially a hyper-aprodiasiac. Most boys are not brewing the potions, but the girls are. Something seriously wrong here!

If I were to make the series much more realistic, the 16 year old boys would be lining up to the dungeon, day after day, and manufacturing the love potions in mass quantities. I know I would if I were not a muggle, and had that ability. I think they would spend other moments of their free time perfecting their engorgement charms. And they would be way, way beyond making out with the witches in the castle.

In fact, if this series were anything realistic, the hospital ward would spend most of it's time dealing with deliveries, abortions, and treating venereal diseases. As Hogwarts caters to teenagers, especially those who have potent sexual abilities. Unless wizards have some kind of charm to ward those off. And, there would be a pretty big nursery in the Hogwarts castle - something not mentioned in any of the books.

Of course, this is not the only unrealistic aspect of this series (besides all that magic stuff). Hogwarts castle is full of perils - even when Voldemort and his death eaters do not make it a more dangerous place. The boys would not only be lining up by the dungeons, but a bunch of American trial attorneys would be lined up at the castle gates armed with "summons and complaint"s to serve for all those injuries sustained by everyone there. I think that Neville has at least 25 potential suits against Hogwarts, if the series is any indication. Voldemort would be the least of Hogwarts' worries - it would be trying to get all the money to pay those verdicts rendered against it.

Some people on the religious right would see that Harry Potter is not so threatening in that Hogwarts actually celebrates Christmas! What would happen in America if a public school celebrated Christmas?

Now, I think Harry Potter, being children's literature, is fairly easy to predict the outcome. We have come to book six. I believe that he has anywhere from 3-5 horcruxes to destroy to be ever victorious over Voldemort. That is probably what book seven will be about. Unfortunately, the plots of the Harry Potter books are such closely guarded secrets, and I now have reason to believe that both the CIA and the Whitehouse are taking lessons from the publisher about how to totally prevent leaks 100%!

I will make a prediction. In book 7, not only Voldemort get his ass kicked, but - ready? - Harry will die. It's quite obvious. This has been predicted throughout the series. It's obvious Voldemort will go away, because if he does not, us muggles are doomed. But everyone will be "surprised" by Harry's death - which is not a surprise. Then again, he may marry Hermione, or Loony, or Ron, and live happily ever after, as everyone expects, but for some reason, I do not expect that to be the outcome.

Another quick prediction. Harry will be betrayed by the Durslings. Go back to book one. Why do you think they were so adament that he not go to Hogwarts and become a wizard - when they had an excellent chance to get rid of him. I believe that either Petunia's mother, or Mr. Durslings mother, is a Riddle - so they have a reason not to like wizards. Or, one of Petunia's parents was a squib.

Of course, there is not much use analyzing children's literature. Unless most children read it, and many adults read it, and it becomes part of the cultural fabric of our society. Then it needs to be analyzed and criticized. I think there is a dominent theme in this series that is overlooked, and I will go over it tomorrow.