I scoff at all of Colbert’s endeavors, but it was entertaining to see him do a perfect impression of a disdainful spokesman of the Reichskulturkammer, denouncing subversive art that undermines the regime as simple minded garbage produced by an inferior intellect. Colbert is at his best when he does a perfect impression of a tool, by being a perfect tool.
“deep seated hatred of Obama, which critics say is rooted in racism.”
Of course they say that. They can’t conceive that a lot of people don’t like Obama because of his policies or that he’s a lousy president. When all you have is the race card to play in defense of Obama, you’ve got nothing.
…as opposed to playing it some other time?
They’ve played it so much it’s become the modern and political version of crying wolf.
I’m sorry, I’m as Tea-Party as the next bearded white cubicle denizen, but that guy’s work is tasteless and offensive kitsch. About as sophisticated as a Whig-era editorial cartoon, without the charming Nineteenth-century caricatures to soften the didactic humorlessness.
” . . . that guy’s work is tasteless and offensive kitsch.”
I’m curious: why? I mean what specifically makes it “tasteless;” what specifically makes it “offensive;” and what specifically makes it “kitsch”?
Aside from Madison having a happy aneurism?
Why tasteless? The bad colors, the Kinkaide-esque overblown lighting schemes, the poor composition.
The Kinkaide apery is what, I think, makes it kitsch.
The imbecilic facial expressions are why I find it offensive. He makes Lincoln and Washington look like they’re deeply, deeply stoned. It’s even more offensive because I don’t think he actually intended that affect…
Charmless, didactic, unfocused, just plain weird. (What’s with the damn rooster in “Wake Up America”?)
Wow, Hannity bought some of this crap? I wish I could say I was surprised. He’s always been the dumbest and goofiest of the talk show crowd – an amiable, likeable dunce.
Right-wing political art is *hard*. Conservative principles are difficult to visualize, because they’re largely non-intuitive. It’s so much easier to offer statist bombast, because Leviathan is easily summed up in broad, dramatic pictures. You can see what he was trying to do in “Wake Up America”, a sort of two choices alternative. But how the hell do you picture that “still small voice” in the midst of state idolatry?
But, you know, he’s called The Forgotten Man, because he can’t be seen – Man A and Man B are right there in the stage, easily fitted into the roles of Persecutor and Persecuted, or Fat Cat and Prole, or whichever simple passion play robes you want to dress them in, but the third man, the forgotten man? He’s forgotten because nobody has an easy image of who he is, what he looks like.
Fair enough. I don’t really see that much of a resemblance to Kinkade, and the facial expressions don’t offend me. I actually like that he’s taken a socialist-realist and turned it back them: sort of hoisting the Left on its own artistic petard, so to speak.
The aping of Kinkade is less obvious in McNaughton’s political work, because Kinkade did virtually nothing in that vein. But if you compare their work on a similar subject, the resemblance between a McNaughton Cosy Cottage and a Kinkade Cosy Cottage is striking if not disturbing.
It’s like the hideous offspring of an unholy union between Kinkade, Socialist Realism for Anti-Socialists, and the worst of 20th c. editorial cartooning.
It’s the “uncanny valley”. Both cartoons and Rembrandts are well-received — things in the middle, not so much.
“My political position is so awesome that James Madison, were he not dead and unable to offer an opinion, would fall to his knees and fervently clasp his hands together in awe at its awesomeness. And so I will paint him doing so, because I can.
You can scoff at Stephen Colbert’s take on this artist here:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414028/may-09-2012/jon-mcnaughton-s–nation-under-socialism–artwork
I scoff at all of Colbert’s endeavors, but it was entertaining to see him do a perfect impression of a disdainful spokesman of the Reichskulturkammer, denouncing subversive art that undermines the regime as simple minded garbage produced by an inferior intellect. Colbert is at his best when he does a perfect impression of a tool, by being a perfect tool.
“deep seated hatred of Obama, which critics say is rooted in racism.”
Of course they say that. They can’t conceive that a lot of people don’t like Obama because of his policies or that he’s a lousy president. When all you have is the race card to play in defense of Obama, you’ve got nothing.
…as opposed to playing it some other time?
They’ve played it so much it’s become the modern and political version of crying wolf.
I’m sorry, I’m as Tea-Party as the next bearded white cubicle denizen, but that guy’s work is tasteless and offensive kitsch. About as sophisticated as a Whig-era editorial cartoon, without the charming Nineteenth-century caricatures to soften the didactic humorlessness.
Specifically, impenetrable crap like this.
” . . . that guy’s work is tasteless and offensive kitsch.”
I’m curious: why? I mean what specifically makes it “tasteless;” what specifically makes it “offensive;” and what specifically makes it “kitsch”?
Aside from Madison having a happy aneurism?
Why tasteless? The bad colors, the Kinkaide-esque overblown lighting schemes, the poor composition.
The Kinkaide apery is what, I think, makes it kitsch.
The imbecilic facial expressions are why I find it offensive. He makes Lincoln and Washington look like they’re deeply, deeply stoned. It’s even more offensive because I don’t think he actually intended that affect…
Charmless, didactic, unfocused, just plain weird. (What’s with the damn rooster in “Wake Up America”?)
Wow, Hannity bought some of this crap? I wish I could say I was surprised. He’s always been the dumbest and goofiest of the talk show crowd – an amiable, likeable dunce.
Right-wing political art is *hard*. Conservative principles are difficult to visualize, because they’re largely non-intuitive. It’s so much easier to offer statist bombast, because Leviathan is easily summed up in broad, dramatic pictures. You can see what he was trying to do in “Wake Up America”, a sort of two choices alternative. But how the hell do you picture that “still small voice” in the midst of state idolatry?
But, you know, he’s called The Forgotten Man, because he can’t be seen – Man A and Man B are right there in the stage, easily fitted into the roles of Persecutor and Persecuted, or Fat Cat and Prole, or whichever simple passion play robes you want to dress them in, but the third man, the forgotten man? He’s forgotten because nobody has an easy image of who he is, what he looks like.
Fair enough. I don’t really see that much of a resemblance to Kinkade, and the facial expressions don’t offend me. I actually like that he’s taken a socialist-realist and turned it back them: sort of hoisting the Left on its own artistic petard, so to speak.
The aping of Kinkade is less obvious in McNaughton’s political work, because Kinkade did virtually nothing in that vein. But if you compare their work on a similar subject, the resemblance between a McNaughton Cosy Cottage and a Kinkade Cosy Cottage is striking if not disturbing.
It’s like the hideous offspring of an unholy union between Kinkade, Socialist Realism for Anti-Socialists, and the worst of 20th c. editorial cartooning.
It’s the “uncanny valley”. Both cartoons and Rembrandts are well-received — things in the middle, not so much.
“My political position is so awesome that James Madison, were he not dead and unable to offer an opinion, would fall to his knees and fervently clasp his hands together in awe at its awesomeness. And so I will paint him doing so, because I can.