Big Hollywood has a piece up by John Nolte in which he provides examples of federal dollars being spent to support starving artists whose works, basically, suck.
Of course. This should be no surprise, and this premise explains two recurring forms of outrage on the right.
First, why artists of all media tend to support kooky and ridiculous forms of leftism. Why does Matt Damon say dumb stuff about the economy? Why would Danny Glover worship Hugo Chavez? Why the love for Che Guevara, Oliver Stone, and Michael Moore and their jaw-dropping fantasies about capitalism? Because in a Leftist world, moron artists get paid extremely well, and criticizing them is forbidden. Here is a far-flung example: in North Korea, you can get in huge trouble for throwing out a picture of Dear Leader. State-sponsored artwork is protected artwork. If we had a Leftist utopia, Michael Moore would not have to explain why his movies are under-attended. Matt Damon would not have to answer criticisms that he emotes as well as a plank of wood. And Danny Glover does not have to explain why he gets very little work these days. They would just be given work, and you will see it, and you will like it, or you get the hose.
Second, why people keep finding horrific exhibits in art galleries funded by the NEA. You know, it usually centers around crucifixes, Marian themes, or other religious imagery combined with something vulgar, pornographic, or biologically distasteful. “And we’re paying for this?” you ask. Yes, you are, because someone else is not buying it. What the NEA knows all too well but would never admit is that the artists they fund are freaking incompetent. If they knew how to do decent artwork, they could someone to buy it. In fact, good artists can make pretty substantial money. Bad ones cannot because their work is basically (and sometimes literally) shit.
The irony here is that the NEA giving money to starving incompetent artists would be as insane as the Department of Health giving money to doctors who kill a large number of their patients. And with Obamacare in the wings, that might happen. Maybe we should find a better example.
Okay, try this: the NEA giving starving artists money for their stuff is quite often similar to a government agency giving money to race car drivers who crash every car they have. Imagine a free-market system, where this sort of exchange might occur:
Tina: I just sold a fantastic painting of a dog I did for $1,500. Are you into art?
Mitch: Yeah, actually, I am an artist as well. I specialize in dunking statues of St. Joseph into honey pots.
Tina: That’s unusual. Are your works popular?
Mitch: I clean toilets at the airport to pay the rent.
But if Mitch were to receive $10,000 for his stuff from the NEA, why he might be inclined to lean Left.
It’s enough to give you a pain in the Ars.