At any rate, I wholeheartedly support the concept. I just thought the discussion on the side was doubly laughable. For one thing, that community tended to exaggerate the extent upon which a revolution could be aided through art or literature (or simultaneously stopped with the two). Secondly, there is this expectation that the intellectual be some sort of distant moral observer and critic; untainted by government or establishment power structures.
Last edited by Fiddytree; 09-01-14 at 07:20 PM.
"No religion is true, but some religion, any religion, is politically necessary. Law and morality are insufficient for the large majority of men. Obedience to the law and to the morals are insufficient for making men happy. […]Law and morality are therefore in need of being supplemented by divine rewards and punishments."
Perhaps painters art was what was used from the CIA in the 1950's and 60's. But later the CIA might have switched artists from painters to Hollywood actors and movies.
"I would say that getting into a good gallery or museum requires a successful argument that your work is modern and relevant. Skill level is near the bottom of prerequisites."
In other words, you can paint a turd, but as long as you're really, really good at rationalizing it after the fact you don't really have to have a lot of craftsmanship.
A really good work of art, in my opinion, is multi-layered. There should be an immediate positive or powerful initial reaction followed by greater appreciation when more information is unveiled after the fact.