I’m currently reading through J.D. Cowan‘s short book The Pulp Mindset: A NewPub Survival Guide (those are Amazon Affiliate links; I receive a portion of any purchases made through those links, at no additional cost to you), which isn’t precisely a guide on how to write pulp but, rather, an extended argument for why one should write pulp. Cowan unapologetically—indeed, enthusiastically—argues that the “low art” of the pulps provides readers what they want: action and wonder. He makes a reasonable argument for reviving this older form of writing, which features punchy writing and upright heroes: audiences want to read such stories, but “OldPub” (his term for the current publishing industry) prefers massive tomes that push approved messages. Readers lose out, therefore, on good stories, and the publishing industry is dying as a result.
That’s gotten me thinking about art and writing and what not. Last summer, a guest writer, Brian Meredith, wrote a post entitled “There’s No Such Thing as Bad Art” here at TPP. I don’t precisely agree—I think we can have (more or less) objective standards for what qualifies as good art and literature—but he does touch upon what I think is the important distinction between “low” and “high” art. Cowan argues in his book that pulps are “low art,” but that doesn’t make them worthless. But both low and high art can, I would argue, be quite bad. Just take this example from author and poet Liza Libes (Libes is an exquisite writer; she’s just sharing an excerpt from some trashy “romance” novel); no one can read that and not realize it’s awful writing (and not just because of the lurid subject matter).
But the worst art is art that is only valuable in the financial sense because the people making it are either a.) well-connected and/or b.) elevated because of some perceived victim status. We’ve had too much of both lately, and it’s why—as Cowan argues—the publishing and film industries are dying slow deaths (and, yes, yes, shortened attention spans due to TikTok and what not play a role, too, I’m sure, but people go to those platforms because they at least give folks what they want). That was the crux of this post, first written back in 2021 and reblogged mercilessly every summer.
With that, here is 25 July 2024’s “TBT^4: Modern Art and Influence“:
The state of modern art is not exactly a pressing concern in a nation wracked with attempted assassination attempts and listless, anxious youths. At this point, I suspect most of my readers will realize that modern art is something of a joke played on the rich and gullible to separate them from their money. It’s also an attack on Beauty, one intended to demoralize us.
What I learned shamefully recently is that modern art was also a CIA psy-op. That’s not some wild-eyed conspiracy theory; it’s so well-documented and mainstream, even the BBC wrote about it—in 2016 (see, I’m late to the party)!
I’m actually not opposed to government funding for the arts, but whenever the government gets involved with anything, there is the risk that the government will pervert and distort what the art is supposed to be. One very real risk is that “art” will devolve into propaganda. That’s fine if we’re fighting the Second World War and need to inspire people to fight Hitler and the Japanese; if we’re trying to demoralize our own populace with nastiness, it’s not.
The other, related risk is that the government will fund art that we don’t like, personally or collectively. The government is ostensibly “of the people,” but when everyone allegedly is in charge, no one is. The functionaries responsible for handing out National Endowment for the Arts grants are likely doing so based on qualities of the artist—race, regime-approved ideology, gender, etc.—rather than any actual technical skill. So we end up with patronage not of skilled artists, but well-connected or demographically-approved artists. The results are predictably terrible, and we’re all flummoxed as to why we spent $2 million of taxpayer money on it.
A healthy government that actually cared about its people would fund art that promotes Beauty and Truth. If we had such a government, I’d be all for government funding of the arts. Indeed, we probably do have that at the local and State levels. I personally love that the City of Columbia, South Carolina subsidizes the South Carolina Philharmonic. Many Republicans and/or conservatives would balk at that, but it is a worthwhile investment to keep classical music alive in—let’s face it—the “Sahara of the Bozart,” as H. L. Mencken cruelly (and, I think at the time, unfairly) labeled the South.
I feel like I’m contradicting myself a bit here, so to distract from that—and to get on with the post—here is 27 July 2023’s “TBT^2: Modern Art and Influence“:
Doing these retrospective TBT posts reminds me of the cyclical nature of life. Just like least year, we’re in the slow, lazy days of high summer, when the heat is so intense, a permanent haze hangs over the land. There is something surreal about it being blindingly bright and languidly hazy at the same time.
I don’t have much more to write about modern art, although I got an eyeful of it at the Art Institute of Chicago. Some modern art is quite striking and challenging, to be sure, but when I saw a canvas that was literally painted black, I groaned internally. A former colleague of mine, an art teacher, always said of modern art, “well, somebody had the idea to do something, and did it, so it’s art” (I’m paraphrasing rather loosely there).
It’s one of those things that’s so stupid, it sounds profound. Her argument was essentially that if you did something—even something asinine—first, you were creating art; you just weren’t born early enough to be the guy to paint a canvas solid black and offer up some lame justification for why it’s a study in how we perceive color.
I’m fairly certain that if I painted a canvas a solid color and donated it to the Art Institute of Chicago, they would not put it on display. I understand that modern art seeks to “shock” viewers, but the only thing shocking about a black canvas is that it’s presented to the public in one of the finest of fine arts institutions in the country.
But I digress. It’s all just wealthy idiots smelling their own farts.
With that, here is “TBT: Modern Art and Influence“:
It’s that dead time of the year, news-wise, when nothing much exciting is happening—unless, of course, rising food, gas, and home prices are your idea of excitement. Everyone’s in a summertime mood, and no one wants to worry about the troubles and strife in the world when we can be out swimming and eating ice cream.
Of course, as we’re out there on the beaches, we’re going to see a lot of people, beautiful or otherwise. We’re all beautifully and wonderfully made in God’s Image, and He Cares about each of us. There is Beauty and dignity to be found in every human life.
Naturally, some humans are blessed with more Beauty than others. Nevertheless, I’d like to think that, as a species made in God’s Image, we all instinctively appreciate True Beauty when we see it. That our ruling class actively supports “art” that is anti-Beauty is another sign that they are illegitimate and, quite frankly, Satanic.
Most modern “art” is not worthy of the moniker. We all understand that a great deal of its support comes from wealthy doofuses who want to look cool. Unfortunately, these hipster doofuses—whether intentionally or not—are destroying culture in the process of celebrating “art.” The destruction of Beauty is a crime against God and civilization; the celebration of ugliness is a sure sign of moral and artistic decay.
Fortunately, there’s still a great deal of Beauty in the world. We just have to seek it out—prayerfully and intentionally.
With that, here is 28 July 2021’s “Modern Art and Influence“:
Most readers of this blog will likely agree with the following sentiment: “modern art is terrible.” In my more intellectually generous moments, I’d add “most” as a qualifier to start that phrase, but with age comes orneriness, and orneriness does not lend itself to intellectual generosity.
Perhaps the best treatment of this sentiment in a scholarly—dare I say “intellectually generous”—way is Roger Kimball‘s The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art. The book is a quick read, but even in 200 pages, it’s depressing seeing the increasingly bizarre, flat-out wrong interpretations politically-motivated Leftists bring to classic works of art. The unfortunate trend of comparing everything that ever happened to Harry Potter is no-doubt the watered-down, pop cultural version of this academic shoehorning of the ideology du jour into artistic interpretation.
Of course, there is a corollary to the maxim that “modern art is terrible.” It’s that “modern art is only successful because wealthy dupes want to look cool.” That’s a bit of a mouthful, [but] we all know it’s true.
So it is that two close relatives to the current Pretender’s regime—scandal-ridden, sister-in-law-loving drug addict Hunter Biden, and not-pretty-enough-to-be-a-model model Ella Emhoff (Vice President Kamala Harris‘s stepdaughter) have made good money peddling “art.”
I’m not here to point out the hypocrisy of the Left using political influence to peddle crappy art. For one, it doesn’t do any good—what, is Hunter Biden suddenly going to see the light and repent because some chubby conservative blogger calls him out?—and it’s just a matter of influence. George W. Bush makes mediocre paintings that, if they sell, only do so because he was the President of the United States.
No, the point I want to make is that these kind of nepotistic, corporatist relationships make for bad art. Or, even if the art is okay—Ella Emhoff’s knits aren’t universally terrible—it’s leapfrogging far more deserving creators out there.
Most importantly, it’s an assault on beauty itself.
Aesthetically speaking, Ella Emhoff’s “look” is not appealing. It’s the kind of androgynous, formless fashion that gay men and their sycophants love. But because Emhoff is Kamala Harris’s stepdaughter, her wearing a frumpy coat to the Inauguration makes her a star in the world of fashion. She looks like the dowdy librarian in that outfit, but instead of becoming a salacious 8 when she lets down her hair and takes off her glasses, she basically moves from a 4 to a decent 5. She is, at best, a moderately cute Jewish girl (although, oddly, her Wikipedia entry takes pains to point out she is not Jewish, even though her father is). There’s nothing wrong with that—there are plenty of cute Jewish girls—but it’s like giving the perfectly normal, quiet girl in your class a lucrative modeling contract: everyone kind of knows it’s not deserved.
What makes it worse with Emhoff is that she’s proactively taking points away from her physical beauty score, with weird poses, tattoos, and all other “body positivity” crap. The modeling world has always favored some oddball beauties, but as moderately cute as she is (when unmaimed), Emhoff doesn’t even seem to have that quality.
I don’t mean to dump on some girl’s looks; my point is that we live in an artistic world that cares little for actual Beauty, and instead revels in all sorts of weirdness—and even ugliness. It’s not just aesthetically wrong—it’s morally wrong. Hunter Biden should be in prison right now; instead, he’s involved in scams involving his art because his father is the (alleged) President of the United States.
Look, we all network. I’ve landed gigs before because I’m persistent, reliable, and network well. I’m not the best musician in my area by a long shot, and one of the worse pianists, but I’m not afraid to work my contacts and build up new clientele. I also put on a good show, and genuinely entertain when I perform. Having some connections—and the social skills to make them—are important for artists to develop.
But what does Hunter Biden do? At least Emhoff knits clothes (allegedly). He could sell artwork like my stupid Magic Marker stuff for thousands times more than what I charge (and even I charge too much). That doesn’t make me bitter—it makes me mad! There are legitimate visual artists who make good work, but they’ll never enjoy the kind of success that Biden does because they have the wrong last name.
Well, there is some vindication: Hunter Biden will occupy a special place in Hell (though I sincerely pray he renounces his wreck of a lifestyle and accept Christ), and True Beauty will never die.
The Portly Politico 