Art/Culture

Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Success Story

Posted by on October 3, 2009 at 3:13 pm. 6 Comments :

Michael Moore’s new documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story,” opened nationally yesterday in 900 plus theaters after a limited engagement in just four theaters in New York and Los Angeles. The bi-coastal exclusive set the record for the year so far in per theater box office. The wide launch is now adding handsomely to the film’s success.

For Friday alone Capitalism earned $1.5 million, putting it in seventh place. The six movies ahead of it were all in two to three times as many theaters. Capitalism was the third highest earner on a per screen basis.

[Update 10/5/09: The full weekend take for Capitalism was $4.85 million. It took eighth place for the weekend. It was fourth on a per screen basis]

Three months ago I made a prediction that Capitalism would draw a larger audience than the Fox-sponsored Tea Baggings. So how did I do?

With ticket sales of $4.85 million, and an average ticket price of $7.18, it comes to about 675,000 tickets sold. That number is higher than any estimate of the Tax Day Tea Parties last April. In addition, the attendees of the 9/12 Tea Bagging in Washington were estimated to have been about 60,000 to 70,000. That estimate was provided unofficially by the DC Fire Department. There were other debunked estimates that went as high as 2 million, and they came with photo documentation. The only problem was that the photo was proven to be from a rally that took place over ten years prior. So if we throw out the ludicrous seven-figure fabrications, it would still take ten times the Fire Department’s numbers to approach (yet still fall short of) the audience for just one weekend of Capitalism’s attendance.

Conclusion? I was right! So what’s the significance of this foresight? It isn’t that I’m an uncommonly gifted observer of politics and media (well, not just that, anyway). As I wrote last June, the media made quite a spectacle of both the Tax Day Tea Baggings and the 9/12 event. The implication was that any public gathering that attracted such a crowd should be regarded as statement of the public’s mood. If that’s the case, and if Moore’s movie performs the same or better as an attraction, then wouldn’t that make this event at least as representative of the public mood as the Tea Parties were said to be? Wouldn’t that suggest that it deserves at least as much attention from Fox News and the rest of the media?

So far, Sean Hannity has not hosted a live, on location event with thousands of cheering Moore supporters. Glenn Beck has not assembled throngs of patriotic Americans who agree with Moore that our economic system is dangerously flawed. We haven’t even seen Griff Jenkins cheerleading for the film and riding along on bus tours promoting it. What’s more, the rest of the press is not treating this cinema sensation, that is outperforming the Fox-sponsored rallies by every measure, with equivalent resources and exposure.

The fact that Capitalism produced a bigger turnout than the Tea Parties should guide coverage of, not just the movie, but the issues underlying. It ought to inform the press corps that Americans are expressing their views through the free market by actually paying to align themselves with a political position that is woefully underrepresented in the media. It ought to put the lie to the claim that Tea Baggers were non-partisan opponents of reckless government spending. Were that true, they would be flocking to Moore’s movie which addresses the very issues they claimed to be so riled up about. Instead they are bashing the movie, without having even seen it.

Capitalism, the economic system, is demonstrating that Capitalism, the movie, is a far better gauge of where America is today than the lame tea socials that were so heavily promoted by Fox News and the rightist media. Despite not having anywhere near the promotional boost, or the free publicity from Fox, the movie is proving that Americans are far more interested in honesty and fairness in government than in pandering to the giant multinational corporations who got us into this mess in the first place. The Beck’s and O’Reilly’s and Hannity’s of the world pretend to be guardians of the people’s welfare, but in reality they are defenders of greed and deregulation and all of the worst faults of unbridled capitalism. When will the press recognize this and balance their coverage with reports on what the film’s success really means?

It’s is rather ironic that the success of the movie, in which Moore describes capitalism as “evil,” is also a demonstration of the free market voting for Moore’s perspective on free markets. God bless America.

The Glenn Beck Blackboard Challenge

Posted by on September 23, 2009 at 10:57 am. 20 Comments :

Let’s face it…Glenn Beck is insane. He rattles off loopy conspiracy theories that connect dots that only he can see. He makes wild and unsubstantiated accusations against his perceived enemies. He weeps incessantly over unexplained threats to “his” country. And, best of all, he draws pictures of his hallucinations that he thinks makes everything oh-so-clear.

It occurred to me that he might be able to use a little help (OK, a lot of help). So I drew up a few pictures of my own that convey a bit of the altered reality that infests Beck’s brain. This is my contribution to enhancing the understanding of a profoundly disturbed individual going through a very public psychological collapse.

If you are so inclined, feel free to make your own contributions and leave links to your work in comments.

Have at it.

And just to put some perspective on the impact of Beck, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll reveals that most respondents don’t know who the heck he is:

“According to the poll, 24 percent have a “positive” view of the Fox News host, while 19 percent view him negatively. Interestingly, 15 percent were “neutral” and 42 percent said they didn’t know Beck or weren’t sure.”

That’s comforting. And I wouldn’t worry about the 24% positive. It’s probably the same deadenders that support Bush, Palin, and Joe the Plumber.

Glenn Beck Has Seen Things You People Wouldn’t Believe

Posted by on September 3, 2009 at 11:29 pm. 9 Comments :

In the 1982 film Blade Runner, Rutger Hauer plays a replicant (human clone) who returns to Earth from an extraterrestrial labor colony to find what all humans want – more life. In a climactic scene with Harrison Ford he tries to convey the depth of his passion for life saying that “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.” His character’s name is Roy Batty. And batty would certainly describe Glenn Beck’s latest hallucinatory escapade in pursuit of demonizing progressives. He too is seeing things, and yes, we don’t believe it. [See Beck’s previous Messianic Delusions]

“I’m trying to show you the things that seem to be hidden but they’re not. They are out in plain sight. Those with eyes will not see and those with ears will not hear. You’re awake. You need to see the things that are hidden in plain sight.”

Those with fingers will not touch and those with feet will not smell. If only some of those with tongues did not speak.

Beck has used his divine vision to reveal the evidence of Satan’s secret seeds. Planted amongst us are the vile devices of communists and fascists meant to steal our thoughts and sway our allegiances to the dark side. And what are these tricks of the netherworld’s master? They are paintings and sculptures and other works by history’s subversives – the artists! These mental traps were set decades ago by devious social perverts with a century long plot and an abundance of patience.

In this sermon (captured on YouTube), Beck associates the evil artists with their patron, Rockefeller. Unfortunately, he doesn’t specify which one. In fact, he jumps around to several of them without making any distinction. It’s as if they were all incarnations of the same demon spirit. Was Beck referring to John D. Rockefeller, Sr., the ultra-capitalist business maven who founded Standard Oil? Or was it his son, the real estate magnate who built Rockefeller Center? Or was it Nelson, who was the Republican Governor of New York and Vice President of the United States? Or was it Jay, the current Senator from West Virginia? No matter. In Beck’s mind, they were all socialist stooges.

Beck begins his unveiling with a denouncement of a relief at the entrance to Rockefeller Center. The work shows two men on either side of the doors. Beck tells us that one is holding a hammer, and the other a sickle. Ergo communism! It’s right there in plain sight. Except that the first man is actually holding a shovel according to the historians curating the Center’s artwork. The figures were meant to represent the strength of America’s industry and agriculture, which I’m sure Beck views as treasonous.

Then Beck focuses on a bas relief carving by Italian American sculptor Attilio Piccirilli called Youth Leading Industry. Beck’s interpretation of this work centers on his theory that the artist, and thus the work, were avowedly fascist. Beck asserts that a strong male figure in the piece is Mussolini. Whether or not that’s true, and there is some debate, it is illustrative of Beck’s dementia that he can jump from warnings about progressives being communists to progressives being fascists without taking a breath. In the real world, Mussolini was a bitter foe of Stalin and vice versa. And the artwork itself is simply heralding a young, creative, and prosperous America. Another subversive concept in Beck’s mind.

Turning to a more conventional subject matter for art, Beck finds fault with a biblical representation of the verse regarding turning swords into plowshares. I’m not even sure what Beck’s complaint is here, but he’s upset about something. Perhaps it just has to do with the fact that there is another swords/plowshares sculpture on the grounds of the United Nations. And the site for the U.N. was donated by – Rockefeller. Obviously there’s something sinister in there somewhere. I also like Beck’s explanation for why he keeps his own sculpture depicting the swords and plowshares. It isn’t because of the message of a peace delivered by God. It’s because it reminds him that something beautiful (the statue) can come from someplace ugly (Russia). Evidently he has never heard Tchaikovsky or seen Chagall or read Dostoyevsky.

The next piece for which Beck provides his striking analysis is a painting by renowned Mexican artist Diego Rivera. Beck is concerned by the presence of people like Stalin and Lenin in the artwork. The funny thing about this hypothesis is that the painting Beck is reviewing doesn’t exist at Rockefeller Center. Beck is reviewing a version of the painting that Rockefeller rejected because of his objection to the very iconography that Beck is pointing out. Rockefeller had commissioned a work from a draft that did not contain those elements. Yet Beck still blames him for the piece he had thrown out. And, of course, it is not one of those works of propaganda that Beck said is hidden in plain sight. Unless you’re walking around Mexico City.

For Glenn Beck to set himself up as an art critic/historian is funnier than anything Monty Python ever thought up. While his interpretations lack any knowledge of the subject, they are jam-packed with paranoid fantasies that would make David Berkowitz’ dog shudder. And Beck is the only one who can see any of it. He’s the only one who can see that Rockefeller (whichever one) was not a capitalist captain of industry at all, but a clandestine communist (or was it fascist) revolutionary. He is the only one who can see the coded symbols in the wicked artwork.

Beck has just recently recognized the malicious power of art as propaganda. He took on the National Endowment for the Arts for holding a tele-conference with artists for the purpose of promoting public service and volunteerism. Now I actually would have agreed with him that that may be outside the mandate of the NEA, but his manic distortions of reality make it impossible to even tangentially agree with anything that comes out of his warped brain. If he regards an initiative to boost the Peace Corps as a dangerous example of propaganda, how can he be taken seriously?

Rightist demagogues have long feared the power of artistic expression. In January of 2003, shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Colin Powell assembled the media at the United Nations to comment on his presentation in support of war. But before the media arrived, the tapestry of Picasso’s masterpiece, Guernica, was covered by a blue drape. A press conference to discuss launching an unprecedented war of aggression could not be held in front of one of the twentieth century’s most moving anti-war statements. The symbolism of literally throwing a blanket over this representation of truth is unmistakable.

But Beck is not demystifying art, he is attacking it. He is assigning false intentions to the artists and their work. He is denigrating these long-respected icons of free expression and celebrations of American prosperity and spirit. And worst of all, Beck is virtually inviting his disciples to do harm to these works, or any others in which they imagine horrors lurking. He is no better than the Taliban mullahs who destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan, giant statues in Afghanistan that were over 1,500 years old.

If Mullah Omar had a show on the Taliban Fox Network he would have been making the same sort of claims about the Buddhas that Beck is making about this art. Hopefully Americans are more tolerant than the Afghans that allowed Omar to blow up the Buddhas. And hopefully they are smarter than Beck and his congregation of glassy-eyed followers who wouldn’t know art if it was right in front of them everyday – like the over 100 works commissioned for Rockefeller Center.

Farrah Fawcett’s Legacy Will Be The Beauty Of Her Courage

Posted by on June 25, 2009 at 1:38 pm. NO Comments :

With the passing of Farrah Fawcett, there will be endless references to her beauty, to her smile and hair and the figure so famously captured in a poster. But there is much more to this woman than the surface assets that fueled her celebrity.

After her star-making role in Charlie’s Angels, Farrah was cast as a victim of domestic abuse in the television drama, “The Burning Bed.” It was a role that required her to challenge the critics who, at the time, dismissed her as eye candy. It was a role that called for her to set aside her most bankable qualities and portray a character that was often grotesquely beaten and painful to look at. And it was a role that was controversial in its day, not just for addressing a subject about which few people spoke, but for the assertive, defiant, and aggressive response of the character she played.

The Burning Bed was directed by Robert Greenwald who now runs Brave New Films, a progressive production company and Internet enterprise. The TV movie was nominated for eight Emmys, including Outstanding Directing and Outstanding Lead Actress. Amongst Greenwald’s more recent projects is the brilliant “Outfoxed.”

While Greenwald has gone on to be a profound spokesman for progressive causes, Farrah became a featured guest at conservative events. Yet they never lost their affection or respect for one another. The Huffington Post has just published Greenwald’s account of his last meeting with Farrah a month ago. He recalled their working together:

“I was directing her for the first time and her fearless commitment to going to the darkest places emotionally never wavered. She never hesitated when I took her to battered women’s shelters. To interview women with painful stories.

And she never flinched when I described how we needed to take away her wonderful beauty and life force to make the film and role authentic.”

In her final months, Farrah demonstrated her unique courage by being uncommonly public about the dire state of her health. She appeared in a gut wrenching documentary, “Farrah’s Story,” that chronicled her search for a cure. The ultimate result of her generous accessibility will be to empower others to face and fight the misfortunes in life that most of us will encounter at some point. The same is true for her contribution to the fate and strength of women in destructive relationships that she brought to the forefront of the national dialogue more than twenty years ago.

Rest In Peace, Farrah.

Jill Greenberg Makes Glenn Beck Cry

Posted by on June 17, 2009 at 1:41 pm. NO Comments :

Last year, photographer Jill Greenberg became the subject of a mini-controversy over some less than flattering pictures of John McCain. The Republican media machine, led by Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, condemned her for “not manipulating” the photos to make McCain look better. The vitriol directed at her was intense and threatened to curtail her access to conservative public figures.

Enter Glenn Beck. Greenberg just completed an assignment for GQ Magazine that features her photos of a sobbing Beck. This is a little more than ironic in that Greenberg is famous for her series of crying children:

What could be more appropriate than Beck portrayed in the same manner as the wailing toddlers with whom he has so much in common? He is just as infantile and ill-informed as the crybabies Greenberg previously captured so movingly.

It is also notable that the man who insists that his tears are genuine can put on a performance like this. He has previously asserted that he could never fake the emotion that pours out of him when contemplating the ruin of America by evil liberals. He told a Philadelphia Magazine reporter who questioned his sincerity that…

“If you’re going to make that case, I deserve a frickin’ Emmy. That’s unbelievable acting.”

I’m not sure I agree with his assessment of his acting skills. In fact, the reason so many people suspect him of feigning sentimentality is that he is such a bad actor. If he were any good at it, no one would be questioning him.

Under George W. Bush, Republicans peddled a flavor of right-wing ideology they called “compassionate conservatism.” It was a transparent ploy to make us believe that the party of selfishness actually cared. But don’t let Beck’s weepy punditry fool you into thinking that he gives a damn about anything but his own place on the media throne. He envisions himself a leader of a peasant uprising. He spent much of his show today haranguing his audience for not being out in the streets fighting for…well, whatever it is that Beck tells them to fight for. He begins every show by exhorting his viewers to, “Come on, follow me.”

Thank goodness for artists who can express the deeper meaning of their subjects with honesty and insight. Jill Greenberg deserves our gratitude for eliciting this vision of Beck – one that captures both his childishness and his superficial dishonesty.

Are Conservatives Getting Stupider?

Posted by on May 14, 2009 at 11:32 pm. 1 Comments :

“I sense intellectual deterioration of the once-vital conservative movement in the United States.”

Those are the words of Judge Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Posner is also one of the founders of the Chicago school of law and economics, a cornerstone of modern conservatism.

I’m not sure that I agree that there was ever a vital conservative movement, but Posner’s essay this past weekend offers an interesting inside perspective of the decline of conservative intellectualism. You know that there are troublesome tempests taking shape when an icon of Posner’s stature says this:

“…it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising […] By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.”

Since the fall of 2008, things have only gotten worse. The Palin/Plumber contingent has grown to include Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Loon), Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Miss California. Whatever pretense held by a previous generation of conservative thought leaders (i.e. William F. Buckley) has been abandoned by the contemporary crop of conservatives who prefer style over substance. Their superficial aspirations are exposed by an agenda that values public relations over policy.

Recently Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference, advised his party peers to cut their legislative staff to make room for communications aides. And bigshots like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Eric Cantor launched an effort to re-brand the Republican Party, as if branding were their problem and not their paucity of ideas. In this environment, how do Republicans recruit a new generation of policymakers capable of contributions more profound than abstinence-only family planning?

Posner’s focus on this issue is not the first light out of the right-wing wind tunnel. Conservative stalwarts like Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell, and Arlen Specter have articulated similar laments as regards the right’s brain drain. I, myself, have long been frustrated by the apparent drift in American culture toward an exaltation of averagism as a superior alternative to reason and intellect. It is this trend that allowed an inarticulate, persistently mediocre, dynastic runt to pass himself off as a brush-clearing cowboy and assume the presidency. It is a mindset that defines anyone subjected to higher learning as elitist and out of touch and, therefore, unfit for public service. During last year’s campaign, I wrote a handbook for electoral success in this new era of self-imposed idiocy. It’s a concise guide for how to appeal to an electorate that has been deliberately stupefied by a congregation of conservative anti-intellectuals, and a compliant press corps.

It’s nice to see that there are still conservative thinkers like Posner with the courage to tell the truth about their colleagues, the honesty to face their movement’s shortcomings, and the insight to understand the consequences. It’s nice to see that there are still conservative thinkers who actually think. Unfortunately, what thinking conservative thinkers think is that today’s conservatives don’t think.

The Pre-Obituary Hate Thread

Posted by on May 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm. 15 Comments :

George W. Bush: “History? We don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”

This past weekend, Jack Kemp, a giant of Reagan-era conservatism passed away. The news has been covered with an almost uniformly reverential tone, no matter the venue. Even from the most avowedly partisan Democratic sources, there was abundant praise and sympathy from all but a few insensitive weasels. And that’s as it should be, whether regarding Kemp, or William F. Buckley, or Tony Snow, etc.

Death is without a doubt the single most non-partisan issue that any of us will ever face. No amount of devotion to the second amendment or global warming will be sufficient to filibuster the grim reaper. And while mortality observes the purest form of equality, it is not in the remotest sense democratic. We must all comply with its laws, but no one gets to vote. Nature is such a Fascist.

So as time collects its due from amongst life’s loitering souls, those of us still queued up react to the passing of our earthly cousins. For the most part we are respectful and reserved. We follow the dictum that prohibits us from “speaking ill of the dead.” Whether the deceased is someone with whom we have affinity or hostility, we share the knowledge of our common fate and withhold judgment.

But no such forbiddance precludes us from ripping the living to shreds.

I can’t help but wonder what our reaction would be to the passing of certain individuals whom we regard as patently evil. Would we be as generous with our sympathy upon hearing that Donald Rumsfeld kicked the bucket? Would we exhibit the same tolerance for those responsible for lying us into a war that snuffed out the lives of hundreds of thousands? Would there be an R.I.P. thread for Karl Rove or Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney? And what about George W. Bush himself?

Would we struggle to find redeeming qualities in folks who so resolutely brought pain and tragedy to so many? Would we be considerate of their mourning families? How would our demeanor change from what we would say about them today, compared to what we would say about them in hindsight?

I, for one, believe that there is a special place in Hell (if I believed in Hell) reserved for the mass murderers of BushCo. I could care less about their eternal souls, other than to hope that they suffer. The only sympathy I have for their families is due to their having been cursed with such despicable relatives.

This is not to say that I presently wish death upon anyone. And, despite the tone, it is not even vengeance that I seek. It is more something like justice (which, by the way, is something that we can still achieve while the perpetrators live). The question is, if I can articulate the harsh thoughts that I have above, while the subjects are still enjoying the fruit of their atrocities, could I still do so upon their demise? The answer is, probably not.

The impropriety of disparaging those who have shuffled off is so ingrained into our culture that anyone who engaged in it would be immediately ostracized. It is nearly irrelevant if someone practiced Satanism yesterday. If they die tomorrow society expects you to reassess your judgment and say something nice about the devil.

Well, it isn’t tomorrow yet. So we are still free to wail on the dastardly denizens of doom that torment us. And we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to bitch at the fiends who drove our nation into an unnecessary and illegal war; who tainted and trivialized our Constitution; who sanctioned torture; who continue to befoul our planet; who value wealth over human dignity and compassion. We should get it off our chests now, loudly and with conviction. We should pound them into pulp and show them no mercy.

Why? Because tomorrow they may be dead and we’ll have to bite our tongues.

The Horror Of A Laughing President

Posted by on March 23, 2009 at 12:21 pm. 4 Comments :

It’s really sort of pathetic how utterly humorless modern conservatives have become. Following Barack Obama’s interview last night on 60 Minutes, a torrent of indignation was released across the mediasphere that blew past Politico, Drudge, and countless right-wing blogs. What had Obama done to unleash such fury, even causing interviewer Steve Kroft to inquire if Obama was “punch drunk?” He laughed. Yep, that’s it. He laughed.

To any rational viewer, the moment merely demonstrated the President’s amusement of the relentless curiosity of media figures that don’t get it. At worst, he was just using laughter as a stress reliever. That’s something that many real people do during anxious times. For critics who have been hammering him for weeks about being too glum, it is absurd for them now to assert that a gentle laugh suggests that, all of a sudden, he is too flippant and detached.

All of this fits right in with the sorrowful character of conservatives. They were dismayed when they thought Obama did not do enough to assuage their grief. Now they are disturbed that he is not exhibiting enough grief of his own. Either way they are consumed by their incessant grieving and blaming it all on Obama.

The lack of humor on the part of the right is reaching epidemic proportions. Their comic heroes are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. How sad is that? Last week Tucker Carlson presumed to lecture Jon Stewart on the art of comedy. This weekend, Bill O’Reilly’s column attempted to bring the funny, but missed miserably. The article is a collection of fake headlines (something O’Reilly and Fox News should be adept at), aimed at mocking the liberal media. But there are two significant problems with O’Reilly’s comic foray. First, it isn’t remotely funny. Second, the only thing he succeeds at making a mockery of is himself. In the first paragraph he says:

O’Reilly: The other day, left-wing muckraker Seymour Hersh went on MSNBC and said he had information, provided by the usual anonymous sources, that Dick Cheney was running an assassination squad out of the White House.

However, the Pulitzer Prize winning Hersh never went on MSNBC with this story. So in an article seeking to ridicule the liberal media for making up news stories, O’Reilly actually made up a story of his own in the part of the article that he presented as factual. Is there any part of his wretched reality that doesn’t put satire to shame?

So where are the funny conservatives? Where is the right’s Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Chris Rock, Tina Fey, George Carlin (RIP), etc.? Is Rush going to have to be both the head of the Republican Party and the chief conservative comic? Or will it be the indecipherable Dennis Miller or Fox’s Greg Gutfield, who just got a few yucks at the expense of dead Canadian soldiers? There is, of course, the hysterical escapism of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, but if you don’t already suffer from acute paranoia, do you really want to assume that risk?

It really is pathetic how desperate and forlorn the right has become. They appear to have nothing left but to invent outrage where non exists, and to cling to leaders who offer only obstacles. And when the human spirit requires uplifting more than ever, they are stuck with clowns who have painted on permanent sneers. And even worse, their melancholy is magnified merely by witnessing the horror of a laughing President. It makes me sad just thinking about it.

Are Artists Real People?

Posted by on February 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm. 2 Comments :

Believe it or not, there are actually living relics of the Dark Ages who have the audacity to publicly wonder as to whether artists are real people. One of them is Georgia’s Republican Congressman Jack Kingston who, addressing what he felt were wasteful provisions of the stimulus bill, said the following:

“We have real people out of work right now and putting $50 million in the NEA and pretending that’s going to save jobs as opposed to putting $50 million in a road project is disingenuous.”

Someone needs to tell Rep. Kingston that some of the real people who are out of work are artists, and that artists are more than the celebrities whose fame creates thousands of jobs. They are people who write textbooks as well as novels. They design ads for local businesses to help them to prosper. They create products in every industrial field, which puts other people to work manufacturing them. What’s more, some of those who are out of work are real people who have labored in jobs that support the arts like electricians, caterers, carpenters, truck drivers, seamstresses, ushers, janitors, printers, and accountants.

Arts = JobsKingston should surf over to the web site of AmericansForTheArts.org, where he would learn that 5.7 million people are employed in the arts; that the arts occupy a $166 billion chunk of our economy; that the arts generate almost $30 billion in taxes.

Kingston might then be able to figure out that $50 million is a pretty cheap way of putting millions of real people to work and boosting local economies across the country. Then he could tell his pal Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) to stop asking stupid questions like this one:

“…what does $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts have to do with creating jobs in Indiana?”

The stimulus bill, as passed by the House, contained the NEA grant. In the Senate, however, it was removed by an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that lumped arts funding in with a bunch of other projects. The amendment passed 73-24 with the votes of some supposedly art-friendly members such as Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Bob Casey, and Russ Feingold. It stipulated that…

None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project.

At this point I think it would be appropriate to note that Coburn’s daughter, Sarah, is a budding opera singer. She will be opening in November at the Los Angeles Opera playing in Handel’s “Tamerlano” opposite Placido Domingo. The LA Opera has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NEA over the years, but today, like so many arts enterprises, they are in dire straits. Domingo, the Opera’s general director, deferred his salary to reduce costs. Last month they announced that they would have to…

“…lay off 17 employees, stage fewer performances and reduce its operating budget by a quarter to cope with falling donations and reduced endowment income.”

For now, Tamerlano is still on the Opera’s calendar. But by November it may be a different story. I’m sure the Senator’s daughter/diva will be fine. I’m not so sure that the same can be said of the workers laid off by this facility, or hundreds of others – to say nothing of the related workers and small businesses that depend on these venues and other artistic enterprises. They number in the millions and, contrary to the insensitive blathering of Pence, Coburn, and Kingston, they are real people.

Update: Arts Recovery Funds Restored in Economic Stimulus Bill [Woo hoo]

AP Seeks Bailout From Shepard Fairey

Posted by on February 5, 2009 at 11:56 am. NO Comments :

Obama HopeIn the course of last year’s presidential campaign it was impossible to avoid an image that became irreversibly associated with Barack Obama. The work by Shepard Fairey was everywhere, distributed by the artist, the campaign, and by millions of individuals who, with Fairey’s consent, downloaded and printed the “HOPE” poster and plastered it on every available wall.

Apparently, it was impossible to avoid by everyone except the Associated Press, who seem to have just found out about it and are now seeking credit and compensation. They claim the work was derived from their copyrighted photo. In fact, Fairey admits that the photo was used as the source for his work. The question is whether it was “fair use.”

Now, there are plenty of people who would criticize Fairey for his tendency to take inspiration from the work of other artists. But in this case, the claim is beyond absurd. The derivative work was plainly an artistic representation of the original and was executed as constitutionally protected, free, political speech. And, according to Fairey, it was entirely non-commercial, with proceeds going to the Obama campaign.

This action by the AP is certain to further tarnish the reputation of the Conventional Media that is already suffering from a deficit of respect. You would have to wonder why they waited until after the campaign; after the image was globally recognized; after its inclusion in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery; for the AP to assert its claim. Are they merely hoping to benefit from the success of the image that was achieved without any effort on their part? Are they so hard-up for cash that they have taken to suing artists to keep their struggling enterprise afloat?

Surely the AP’s legal team is aware that they will have to show that they suffered financial harm in order to claim damages. That will be a hard case to make since, more likely, Fairey’s work has enhanced the value of the AP photo beyond anything they could have accomplished on their own.

McCain NOPEBut the big question here is: Why won’t anyone sue ME? I’ve been working my ass off promoting a variation on Fairey’s theme directed at John McCain. It is derivative of both Fairey’s art and a photo (of which I no longer know the source) that was probably copyrighted, so I have a double infringement liability. Fairey is already a wealthy artist whose work is published, collected, and displayed in galleries and museums. I, on the other hand, am trying to scrape up rent money and put my artwork on bus stop benches or telephone poles or anywhere else it can be seen. I need the fucking publicity!

It must be great to be AP and let somebody else, in fact, millions of somebody elses, do their work for them and then collect after the fact.