From an NEA director who thinks art is the same as propaganda, and then is fired when his abuse of office comes to light, encouraging Obama enabling creations, to a White House art collection that includes a plagiarized Matisse, to an illustrator who does a heavy handed copy of a photograph for an Obama poster, and then lies about the source material, Obama is really giving art a shot in the arm. Republicans want to restrict art, Democrats want to use it.
To many on the Left, art is nothing more than another vehicle for advocacy. This is particularly embarrassing given the affectation on the Left that they are more sophisticated than, as they see it, the money-grubbing Right. Republicans seem to like photorealistic, sentimentalized work, with lots of shiny things, and the Left seems to like ideologically-heavy poster-like images, or, just advocacy with any image, or none at all — typefaces are fine. This may be something of an exaggeration, but not much. If you want to engage with art, you have to be, as a predicate, an independent thinker.
It is revealing the way some of the more clueless in the art establishment are attempting to enable the Matisse plagiarism with claims of postmodernist meta-commentary. The argument, in other words: the work is too cool for the room. This line of reasoning is paradigmatic of the insubstantial, value-challenged nature of much of theoretical postmodernism. There is a clear distinction between influence and copying — it just takes the most basic aesthetic understanding.
It is also revealing the way Republican critics are dissing not only the copied Matisse, but exploiting the occasion to disparage works by Diebenkorn, Ruscha, and the original Matisse itself (?!) — serious works, worthy of respect. There is a discomfort about art in America — people don't know what to make of it, from either end of the political spectrum.
About the ghastly Obama poster, which Obama "liked" — it is a portrait of Obama, so what's not to like? — here are the details,
The AP intends to vigorously pursue its countersuit alleging that Fairey willfully infringed the AP’s copyright in the close-up photo of then-Sen. Obama by using it without permission to create the Hope and Progress posters and related products, including T-shirts and sweatshirts that have led to substantial revenue. According to the AP’s in-house counsel, Laura Malone, “Fairey has licensed AP photos in the past for similar uses and should have done so in this case. As a not-for-profit news organization, the AP depends on licensing revenue to stay in business.” Proceeds received for past use of the photo will be contributed by the AP to The AP Emergency Relief Fund, which assists staffers and their families around the world who are victims of natural disasters and conflicts.
