Conservative Artist. Who knew?

[boyando]

Who let a conservative any were near a paint brush?

McNaughton Fine Art

[FunkyTown]

Have you considered that, maybe, you need to stop thinking in terms of Conservatives and Liberals and should start thinking more in terms of specifics?

Every time you speak, you talk as if it's you against the awesome power of the Anti-Christ who wears an 'I love Democrats' shirt.

Have you considered that maybe your absurd hatred and sloppy labelling of anyone who disagrees with you as a 'liberal' might not be conducive to a real dialogue? It really splits your country apart.

[boyando]

Have you considered that, maybe, you need to stop thinking in terms of Conservatives and Liberals and should start thinking more in terms of specifics?

Every time you speak, you talk as if it's you against the awesome power of the Anti-Christ who wears an 'I love Democrats' shirt.

Have you considered that maybe your absurd hatred and sloppy labelling of anyone who disagrees with you as a 'liberal' might not be conducive to a real dialogue? It really splits your country apart.

I don't know how to break this up, so I will just take it point by point.

Have you considered that I was being specific, although self deprecating, when I stereotyped conservatives as being left out of the art community?

Have you also considered, that I am against the awesome power of the anti-christ in or out of a I love Democrats shirt?

And have you considered how your statement "your absurd hatred and sloppy labelling of anyone who disagrees with you as a 'liberal' might not be conducive to a real dialogue", smacks of stereotyping and hatred for all things conservative? Is not you disdain for labeling, a way for you to set the rules of the conversation, and there for, you control the "real dialog"?

And, if it is my lack of "real dialog" that is splitting my country apart, is the answer to put my country back together again, to avoid any labeling, or just agree with you? You who are above labels.

Of coarse, all I wanted you to do was look at the picture and tell me what you think. Instead, you told me what I should think, say and do.

Oh by the way, equating Democrats with liberalism, is sloppy labeling.

[Generally_Me]

Moving the mouse over sections of the painting revealed what the artist was thinking as he painted. Also the bullet points below. Very interesting.

[bytor2112]

Anti-Christ who wears an 'I love Democrats' shirt.

Okay...he's not wearing the tee-shirt....but what about the devil horn sign"? Hmm......

Edited November 20, 2009 by bytor2112

[DigitalShadow]

Okay...he's not wearing the tee-shirt....but what about the devil horn sign"? Hmm......

Perhaps he's telling the voters to "rock on"

[Dravin]

Perhaps he's telling the voters to "rock on"

He's been away from Hawaii a while, maybe he forgot how to do a "hang loose"?

[Moksha]

The sign preserves him from the day

light so he will not burst into flames

:)

[FunkyTown]

Okay...he's not wearing the tee-shirt....but what about the devil horn sign"? Hmm......

Hahah. Well played, Bytor. Well played.

[bluedreams]

Who let a conservative any were near a paint brush?

McNaughton Fine Art

Anyone can paint if they take the time to learn. The difference between an artist and the average paintbrush holder is the level of crazy that's infected them.

I think he's passed on that note.

But seriously, I've already given my opinion on the painting itself: I hate it, a lot. It's the uber-conservative republican version of the second coming. Which is ridiculous to think will come about. What will actually occur, who will actually be there, will probably surprise many of us and I doubt it'll have little to fall on lines of political party and current social ideologies.

As for his work as a whole, excluding the two murals he's done, I think it's quite unremarkable. Largely pretty landscapes with little originality in style or presentation. Conservative, I guess you could say. His work blends in with a long list of mediocre landscape artists. The difference is that he's "made it," tapping into a mainstream western ideal of art that has little personality or meaning beyond the very obvious image.

With luv,

BD

[bytor2112]

Et tu Spidey???!!!:eek:

[bytor2112]

It's the uber-conservative republican version of the second coming.

Oh give me a break! The painting is...unremarkable...yes, BUT, uber conservative???? Let's see.

I notice Christie Mcauliffe....she was a self described Democrat. I see a teacher.... teachers are mostly Democrat. Black college student....Likely Democrat. Immigrant...again likely Democrat. John Kennedy....a Democrat. Thomas Jefferson, who Dems like to claim as the Father of their party.

Do you find men like John Adams and Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt too uber conservative? Or what about Susan B Anthony or Frederick Douglas...liberal?????? How about the black Union soldier? I read below the painting that he tried to include MLK but had copy right issues......even though MLK was a registered Republican.......was he too conservative for you?

I notice the only mention of "liberal" is regarding a reporter. Is it the politician, Justice, lawyer and Professor being portrayed negatively that leads you to see this as "uber-conservative republican"? Why do the Founding Fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence offend you? I mean really...the art itself is blah...but uber conservative Republican......get a grip. Your comment is knee jerk and reactionary and false.

Edited November 21, 2009 by bytor2112

[bluedreams]

Oh give me a break! The painting is...unremarkable...yes, BUT, uber conservative???? Let's see.

Actually, though I really hate his painting, I think it and his other painting are among the few of his more original ideas as paintings.

But fine, I'll take out the uber. It's still conservative and it still has a conservative bend to it.

I notice Christie Mcauliffe....she was a self described Democrat. I see a teacher.... teachers are mostly Democrat. Black college student....Likely Democrat. Immigrant...again likely Democrat. John Kennedy....a Democrat. Thomas Jefferson, who Dems like to claim as the Father of their party.

It's not about the actual people, but what they represent. They're his version of american heroes and thus what it means to truly be an american. He also has Ronald Reagan in there, though he puts the media, hollywood, and politicians as influenced by ye old Satan. It isn't the men/women themselves and their individual or personal thoughts/actions but what they represent to him. Christie Mcauliffe reps the sacrifices for advances in technology (specifically the space prorgram. The teacher does not represent demographics, but teaching our youth important stuff (unless they're biology teachers pushing evolution, cuz then he's right over with satan and his liberal left professor minion). The Black college student is probably not a liberal....look at the book he's holding. The immigrant is asian and has little to do with political affiliation (though asian immigrants are pretty split with both parties anyways) and his purpose in the painting isn't to do with that anyways. He just in a bit of surprise cuz he wasn't christian and is just now learning what makes America great. So having JC with a constitution in his hand is a shocker. JFK's is alright cuz he wanted civil rights (which even most conservatives will like nowadays because it's now an ingrained point in the American psyche, even if these same conservatives may have been with Benson in worrying about possibly red connections) and a strong space program (this guy really likes spaceships, though I think its connections to how great the constitution is is fairly limited). Jefferson is there (and in the position that he is) cuz he wrote the DoI as a founding father of the nation, not the democratic party.

It's not the people, but what he interprets their lives to be, that displays his conservative flare and the overall message. They're not people in the usual sense, but symbols of the America that's built through hard work, cool technology, ideas that he sees promoting the idea of all men created equal, and preferably with limited government practices or those crazies who believe in evilution in humans (spelling error on purpose).

I mean for pete's sake he chooses a soldier to represent King who took a note from Ghandi as a very strong pacifist (bringing social change through nonviolents methods). If that's not interpreting people's lives in terms of ones ideology I don't know what is. He states it himself. They're symbols....of those who maintained liberties, promoted conservative values, desired a more christian education, and staved off socialism in his mind.

I notice the only mention of "liberal" is regarding a reporter.

Aparently you didn't read closely about the professor where he's holding the book origin of Species and saying he "represents the liberal lefts control of our education system."

Is it the politician, Justice, lawyer and Professor being portrayed negatively that leads you to see this as "uber-conservative republican"?

In part, but not all. The entirety of it pulls off the message.

Why do the Founding Fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence offend you?

They don't.

I mean really...the art itself is blah...but uber conservative Republican......get a grip. Your comment is knee jerk and reactionary and false.

No, my knee jerk reaction was simply that I didn't like it...it sort of creeped me out. Nothing new to me. I don't like almost everything from Dewey, Olson, and Swindle as well for varying reasons. Wouldn't call any of their's necessarily uber-conservate republican (a lot of other things, but not that). I don't like his other piece that's very similar to this one in style because it also creeps me out and I wouldn't call that one uber-conservative republican. No, it was only after I actually took a better look at it and delved into his symbols that the original creepy, moved closer to disgust and for it to land on my short list of paintings I don't just dislike but absolutely hate and inevitably label it the conservative version of the second coming. If I hate a painting, I don't do it for knee jerk reasons.

With luv,

BD

Edited November 22, 2009 by bluedreams

[bytor2112]

It's not about the actual people, but what they represent.

What is it about what they represent that turn you off??????

They're his version of american heroes and thus what it means to truly be an american.

So, who should he have included? Many of the figures are memorialized in national symbols as well....should they not be considered a American heroes? Who did he leave out?

He also has Ronald Reagan in there, though he puts the media, hollywood, and politicians as influenced by ye old Satan.

Ronald Reagan was an actor BUT is most known for his role in ending the Cold War.

It isn't the men/women themselves and their individual or personal thoughts/actions but what they represent to him.

What is WRONG with what they represent......I'm confused.

The Black college student is probably not a liberal....look at the book he's holding. The immigrant is asian and has little to do with political affiliation (though asian immigrants are pretty split with both parties anyways) and his purpose in the painting isn't to do with that anyways. He just in a bit of surprise cuz he wasn't christian and is just now learning what makes America great. So having JC with a constitution in his hand is a shocker.

So...that makes it uber conservative republican? Who'd a thunk! Yeah....didn't see the book......does that mean he is a Mormon or is just studying about how racist Cleon Skousen is?????

JFK's is alright cuz he wanted civil rights (which even most conservatives will like nowadays because it's now an ingrained point in the American psyche, even if these same conservatives may have been with Benson in worrying about possibly red connections) and a strong space program (this guy really likes spaceships, though I think its connections to how great the constitution is is fairly limited).

Perhaps a refresher in history...it was the Democrats that opposed civil rights. And why bash President Benson.....communism was a worldwide threat responsible for....at least 100 million deaths. A very real threat during his day I would say.

Sorry, but i still don't see the connection. I don't dig the artwork, but after I think about it a bit...you are right. A liberal would never revere the very things or people that made this land great....an inspired group of men and a very inspired nation and founding document. So, I take it all back....spot on.

Although I would be much more convinced it he could have at least included David Duke and George Wallace and maybe hidden Nathan Bedford Forrest somewhere in there...........

Maybe the next uber conservative piece will have some cool flames with Barrack smoldering next to Bill and Hillary and Saul Alinsky....watching as Noam Chomsky sizzles away next to Ted Kennedy. Then...it will definitely be obvious.

Edited November 22, 2009 by bytor2112

[Moksha]

Justice, lawyer and Professor being portrayed negatively that leads you to see this as "uber-conservative republican"?

I think it is Chief Justice Earl Warren crying because all those pesky amendments were left out.

:)

[boyando]

Anyone can paint if they take the time to learn. The difference between an artist and the average paintbrush holder is the level of crazy that's infected them.

I'm living proof, that not everyone can paint.

But I think I can say that, I do qualify as crazy. But then again, can some one who is crazy, self diagnose?

Oh, the dichotomy of self impressionism.

[Maxel]

I like this painting. I don't agree that everyone he included should be in their respective spots, but I think the central message- that God inspired the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, and is responsible for the prosperity of America- is right on the money.

Do you disagree with those notions, bluedreams?

Edited November 23, 2009 by Maxel

[Hemidakota]

Who let a conservative any were near a paint brush?

McNaughton Fine Art

It would be nice if they made the Savior alot broader and taller.

[bluedreams]

What is it about what they represent that turn you off??????

What they represent to him...more specifically. Most of the people I'm not litterally turned off by. (Well except for the generalized people who represent stereotypes. That's moreso out of a general dislike of stereotypes.) I guess it would be moreso what is excluded of being truly American would be a given. It isn't exactly what is explicitly said, but what comes with his underlying message that strikes me the wrong way...sort of. To put it simply, I really just don't agree with the message to some extent in almost every way.

So, who should he have included? Many of the figures are memorialized in national symbols as well....should they not be considered a American heroes? Who did he leave out?

He already painted into the painting a number of figures that he sees as wrong about America. That most of these people (esp. the historical figures) are considered american heroes isn't in question. It isn't about how many of them he could jam into one painting. It's about the story he painted with them. He could have painted the same story with no one or with 500 people in it.

What is WRONG with what they represent......I'm confused.

If you 100% agree or even 90% agree with the message, nothing. If you don't, plenty.

So...that makes it uber conservative republican? Who'd a thunk! Yeah....didn't see the book......does that mean he is a Mormon or is just studying about how racist Cleon Skousen is?????

No...my point was moreso that not all black people are liberals or democrats. That's he's reading Skousen more likely shows where his hypothetical political affiliation stands more so than the color of his skin.

Perhaps a refresher in history...it was the Democrats that opposed civil rights. And why bash President Benson.....communism was a worldwide threat responsible for....at least 100 million deaths. A very real threat during his day I would say.

well at least until the Dems and Republicans decided to switch roles. THe history of Dem's and civil rights was beginning to turn prior to the 60's. I'm not bashing President Benson....but I'm saying he was wrong in worrying about the civil rights undercover mission was to bring in communism. Just as people were wrong to believe the Japanese living in the U.S. were inherently suspicious of some conspiracy or spy work for Japan during WWII and people are wrong now to believe people of the Islamic faith are automatically desiring death to America. Fear and real threats/problems instigating these beliefs does not negate this.

Sorry, but i still don't see the connection. I don't dig the artwork, but after I think about it a bit...you are right. A liberal would never revere the very things or people that made this land great....an inspired group of men and a very inspired nation and founding document. So, I take it all back....spot on.

Yeah...that's it. I'm not going to try and demonstrate my love for the country. It's there, it's ingrained, and it's apart of me through and through. I probably don't have as much country worship as some might. America's made it's list of mistakes and errors, faults and missteps, and a number of problems in the past and present that are reprehensible. It's more of a love that is very aware that what is loved is far from perfect, isn't necessarily your one and only fated soulmate, but that's enduring, real, and still going strong.

But what I love about the nation and its foundings, how I would depict it, and how I connect that to my faith is different to this painting. The painting irritates me in a similar light as someone who speaks of their lover as entirely flawless and that love (the romantic, good feelings type of love...not the Charity, pure love of christ type) is all you need to make things work in a relationship.

Although I would be much more convinced it he could have at least included David Duke and George Wallace and maybe hidden Nathan Bedford Forrest somewhere in there...........

Woah now....I didn't say the guy was racist. THere's a differences between uber-conservative republican and overt racist.

Maybe the next uber conservative piece will have some cool flames with Barrack smoldering next to Bill and Hillary and Saul Alinsky....watching as Noam Chomsky sizzles away next to Ted Kennedy. Then...it will definitely be obvious.

Yeah, but then he wouldn't be taken seriously. Art is more subtle.....that work is more for graphic artists and very bad political cartoonists, not a muralist. Art wise, his message is still heavy handed without being ridiculously blatant.

With luv,

BD

[bluedreams]

I'm living proof, that not everyone can paint.

Sure you can....maybe not well, but I'd probably let you have it in a white room to do some touch ups

But I think I can say that, I do qualify as crazy. But then again, can some one who is crazy, self diagnose?

Oh you probably are. Self-diagnosis is completely legit on this one. Artists are just a different type of crazy in the nut farm.

With luv,

BD

[NeuroTypical]

Have you considered that, maybe, you need to stop thinking in terms of Conservatives and Liberals and should start thinking more in terms of specifics?

Every time you speak, you talk as if it's you against the awesome power of the Anti-Christ who wears an 'I love Democrats' shirt.

Have you considered that maybe your absurd hatred and sloppy labelling of anyone who disagrees with you as a 'liberal' might not be conducive to a real dialogue? It really splits your country apart.

I have noticed a trend over the years in America, and I would welcome hearing anyone's experience if it differs. When a staunch conservative does something very powerfully patriotic, and holds it up as an example of their conservative values, liberals get very touchy. This is understandable, because a liberal would say they hold the same values, and you don't have to be conservative to do what the conservative did, and to say it springs from "conservative values" only does the liberal a disservice. I can understand why a liberal would be offended by such a thing.

But that's not the trend I've noticed though. The trend I've noticed, is that liberals pretty much never do powerfully patriotic things. At all. Pretty much never. The last time I can remember a group of liberals doing something powerfully patriotic was after 9/11 when both houses of congress assembled on the steps of the capital to pray and sing God Bless America. I know of nobody who stands on the left side of the aisle who has ever done something powerfully patriotic all by themself. Maybe Joe Leiberman, but then how many liberals would claim him as one of theirs?

So, if I can predict some responses, folks might claim that protesting wars or pointing out corruption or serious flaws in our country is patriotic. It's within the realm of possibility that a liberal might point to Michael Moore as an example of a patriot. To these people, I would point out the various definitions of the term:

One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

...

one whose ruling passion is the love of his country

...

a person who regards himself or herself as a defender

Protesting is not defending something, it's attacking something. Examples of activism pointed at flaws are not the actions of someone who loves a thing. Surely, principled zeal exists in the liberal camp, and that is a good thing, but it's not patriotism unless it's in defence of this country.

So I submit the question to you folks. Do you have any examples of American liberals displaying patriotism? Individually (as this artist did) or collectively?

If not, then shouldn't FunkyTown do a little thinking about what's really ticking him off?

LM

(needlessly divisive)

[thekabalist]

Did anyone else accidentally misread the title of the topic as "Conservative Atheist. Who knew?" Now that would have been quite a story.

[Guest Godless]

Eh, not as much as you might think. My grandfather is an atheist, and very conservative in his political views.

[FunkyTown]

I think I quoted quite succinctly in my original post what was ticking me off, LM. I'll quote it again in case you missed it:

Every time you speak, you talk as if it's you against the awesome power of the Anti-Christ who wears an 'I love Democrats' shirt.

However, it's interesting that you say liberals have never done anything patriotic, considering that America was the first modern liberal state . I suppose you could say that George Washington, having been a citizen of the British Empire, wasn't a patriot. I'm just surprised you would.

However, here's an example of someone you would consider a flaming liberal by todays standards:

Dwight Eisenhower helped lead the Allied nations to victory during World War II.

He then went on to develop a public works interstate highway system that had never been done before. This is something I'm fairly certain most people have used and are grateful for.

Taxes on the wealthiest were at 92% under Eisenhower. 3 times what they are today.

Ike on taxes: "We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income,until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."

On the millitary in general

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense."

On 'Preventative war'(Such as in Iraq):

"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

And one of my favourite quotes from Ike:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

So... What? Was Eisenhower unpatriotic?

I have noticed a trend over the years in America, and I would welcome hearing anyone's experience if it differs. When a staunch conservative does something very powerfully patriotic, and holds it up as an example of their conservative values, liberals get very touchy. This is understandable, because a liberal would say they hold the same values, and you don't have to be conservative to do what the conservative did, and to say it springs from "conservative values" only does the liberal a disservice. I can understand why a liberal would be offended by such a thing.

But that's not the trend I've noticed though. The trend I've noticed, is that liberals pretty much never do powerfully patriotic things. At all. Pretty much never. The last time I can remember a group of liberals doing something powerfully patriotic was after 9/11 when both houses of congress assembled on the steps of the capital to pray and sing God Bless America. I know of nobody who stands on the left side of the aisle who has ever done something powerfully patriotic all by themself. Maybe Joe Leiberman, but then how many liberals would claim him as one of theirs?

So, if I can predict some responses, folks might claim that protesting wars or pointing out corruption or serious flaws in our country is patriotic. It's within the realm of possibility that a liberal might point to Michael Moore as an example of a patriot. To these people, I would point out the various definitions of the term:

One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

...

one whose ruling passion is the love of his country

...

a person who regards himself or herself as a defender

Protesting is not defending something, it's attacking something. Examples of activism pointed at flaws are not the actions of someone who loves a thing. Surely, principled zeal exists in the liberal camp, and that is a good thing, but it's not patriotism unless it's in defence of this country.

So I submit the question to you folks. Do you have any examples of American liberals displaying patriotism? Individually (as this artist did) or collectively?

If not, then shouldn't FunkyTown do a little thinking about what's really ticking him off?

LM

(needlessly divisive)

[NeuroTypical]

However, it's interesting that you say liberals have never done anything patriotic

So, as anyone can see in my post you quoted, of course I did not say that. Here's what I said: "The trend I've noticed, is that liberals pretty much never do powerfully patriotic things. At all. Pretty much never." I then go on to explicitly mention an instance of liberals doing something powerfully patriotic.

Surely, you can tell the difference between "pretty much never" and "never", right?

But let me try again to spell out my position clearly:

I've been paying attention for over a decade, and I see hardly any examples of modern American liberals (who would identify themselves as liberals or progressives) doing powerfully patriotic things. I call it a trend. And I'm asking for examples to show that this trend I've noticed isn't as bad as I've noticed. I'm NOT saying "liberals can't be patriotic". I AM saying "I almost never see liberals being patriotic - have you ever seen it?"

I don't really know anything about President Eisenhower, but as he's been dead for over 40 years, I wouldn't really consider him an example of modern American liberal, patriotic or not...

And again, consider the given dictionary definition of liberal:

One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

...

one whose ruling passion is the love of his country

...

a person who regards himself or herself as a defender

In other words, you're not being patriotic if you're pointing out flaws and recommending fixes. You can't be a patriot if you're attacking. You can only be patriotic if you're defending from attacks.

I'd love to hear examples of liberal patriotism. Anyone got any?

LM