I've seen a lot of ridicule of this painting by Jon McNaughton and my first instinct was to jump on the bandwagon and start slamming away.
But after some reflection, I decided that wouldn't be appropriate. It would be like challenging a retarded person to a Sudoku match. It just wouldn't be fair.
Subject matter and intended meaning aside,
McNaughton's painting is actually quite good from a technical standpoint. I find it quite easy to dismiss the political leanings of Rage Against the Machine and Ted Nugent long enough to enjoy listening to
People of the Sun or
Cat Scratch Fever, so I should be able to do the same with a painting.
But one thing I will say about McNaughton's ideology, as opposed to his composition technique (which is spot-on), is that it's incredibly naive. And not in a "Kids say the darnedest things" kind of way.
On the extreme right side of the painting, there is the image of Satan and huddled around him, all the no-good nefarious America-ruiners under the influence of evil.
They are, by McNaughton's own description, the following:
The Lawyer who "is lovingly counting his hundred dollar bills."
Liberal New Reporter, "biased towards the left and try to shape the thinking and actions of Americans in that direction."
Mr. Hollywood, with his "liberal slant" and hatred of conflicted judges and pregnant women. (Whuh?)
The Professor, who "represents the liberal left's control of our educational system."
The Politician, who's "more concerned about his political ambitions than what is in the best interests of the country."
You know, the usual suspects: greedy lawyers, liberal reporters, liberal Hollywood types, liberal professors, self-interested politicians.
But here's the thing that I don't get. Isn't it obvious to this guy that these things are only a problem for a very small, very insular segment of our population?
I mean, the folks who are concerned about the liberal media? Do they not have remote controls? Are they forced to read the New York Times? Did anyone pin their eyes open and make them watch a Michael Moore double feature?
Of course not!
These days, the "liberal media" complaint just has no merit. What, you never heard of Fox News? You can't go to Drudge Report and get a helping of a more palatable bias?
Yes, there are left-wing reporters. Just like there are right-wing reporters. Pick one and shut the fuck up. Not only do you have the Freedom of Choice, bucko, but the rest of us have Freedom of Speech. Deal with it.
And the evil liberal Hollywood types? Give me a break. I'd buy this complaint more if the folks making it weren't such big consumers of the product they supposedly find so inferior.
Watch fewer films!
I'm serious! You think leftist liberals are the only ones who watch movies? Bullshit.
Hollywood believes in one thing: Making money.
Hollywood appeals to one thing: As wide an audience as possible.
As for the Professor and his leftist bent? I'm from the state that Ward Churchill calls home, so I know this is possible. But I'm also pretty sure there are other professors who are as equally biased to the right. Ever hear of Victor Davis Hanson?
He's as right wing as they come, and until recently, he was a professor of Classics at Fresno State. (Which is in the liberal oasis of California, in case you were wondering.)
Besides...If America's colleges churn out nothing but assembly-line liberals, where do all these college-educated conservatives come from? Fresno State?