I know I'm not the first to draw the connection between crappy aesthetics and crappy political philosophy. (I'd even scare up a link or two, but my head is throbbing from sinus congestion; this is the best I can do.) Conservatives, for example, eat up schmaltz--Thomas Kinkade, e.g.. He's a darling of the Religious Right, and for obvious reasons: his paintings, in their utopian, warm and saccharine way, hearken back to old times, the days of theocracy and roses.
Further evidence: for some reason I'm on the NRA mailing list. Don't know why. I've never owned a gun, and never wanted to own a gun. I tried shooting a 30.06 about ten years ago, but couldn't steady my aim. (That was before I discovered caffeine.) Out of their cold, dead hands to my mailbox came this bizarro collection of Christmas cards with sugary winter scenes. They were uninteresting, mostly, except a couple by Jesse Barnes, "The Light Painter."
Unsurprisingly, his work shares the same hazy, sap-infused quality of that of "The Painter of Light." But I started wondering: has one ever sued the other for trademark infringement? Both slogans are registered. It'd be like Burger King suing some hamburger stand called "King of Burgers."
Or maybe they're both cool with it. I can't find any evidence of internecine hostility. Letcha know if I do.
1 comment:
I'm hardly an apologist for postmodern crap either; in fact, I found a visit to the Seattle Art Museum disappointing because its largest collection was omphaloskeptic, talentless "art."
Thankfully, the choice isn't just between Kinkade and piles of elephant dung. I'd probably pick schmaltz over scheiss, too.
De gustibus no es disputandum, eh?
Post a Comment