The Academy Award goes to…Oh, who the hell cares!

Last night was the Academy Awards. The Oscar for best insignificant narcissist goes to…some insignificant narcissistic. Who the hell cares. Not me.

I spent the weekend in Sacramento at the California State Republican Party Convention. There were no Hollywood celebrities present. It was excellent. I got to meet politicians that make decisions that affect many people. In other words, I prefer to talk to people that actually matter.

My flight did get home in time to watch some of the Oscars, which of course I did not do. It was bade enough that “Desperate Housewives” was preempted. Fox News had reruns. Thankfully the NFL Network had the NFL Combine. Normally I do not watch that, but it was not the Oscars.

I was debating whether or not to put on the last 10-15 minutes of the broadcast with no sound on, like I do with the ninth inning of the seventh game of the World Series when there are two outs.

I am sure tomorrow I will read whether or not Bill Clinton showed up to play the saxophone while John Kerry gushes about the heart and soul of America in a building filled with people that have neither.

Some say it is unfair to indict every person in Hollywood. After all, like Palestinians and liberals, why blame the 20% of entertainment industry that are not drenched in toxicity? After all, 80% is not a majority. Oh, wait. Yes, it is.

The reason why the industry is so disgusting is because left wing politics long ago replaced quality.

The first thing that all Academy voters should be required to do is sign an oath that they watched every movie that they voted on. If they are caught paying their relatives or others to watch the movies and report back to them, their voting privileges should be permanently revoked.

The Oscars are boring, predictable, and disgusting. Voters have a formula for what they like.

One way to get nominated is to play a homosexual. In fact, it cannot be any homosexual. It must be a homosexual activist, and the activist must be a hero. If it is played by a left-wing activist, all the better. Personally I would like to see a movie made about Sean Penn. A conservative actor would play him, and make sure to show the part where he engages in domestic violence against his wife and assaults cameramen. For “dramatic effect,” he can be shown praising Alec Baldwin while a tape runs of Baldwin verbally abusing his daughter. I personally thought “Milk,” was a movie about lactation. After all, the same people that praise the “Vagina Monologues” as “groundbreaking” must have thought that a movie about breast milk would be “courageous.”

Another way to get nominated is to play somebody that is dying from a politically correct disease. AIDS is a good choice. Cancer is not. After all, many homosexuals and drug users get AIDS. In fact, to really stir the emotional pot, the person has to suffer from discrimination, either from an evil corporation, vile Republican, or both.

Another option is to play a retard or a “handicapable” person. It works. After all, they are politically correct. Whether overcoming a physical or mental illness, provided that the story tilts leftward, it will do fine. Anti-war activists injured in battle make great Oscar nominees.

When the academy runs out of generic movies of leftists as heroes, the next option is to find an evil conservative villain. The actor playing the lead role should have a hostile attitude in real life towards Republicans. Barring that, anything that attacks Republicans works. I mean, “Frost-Nixon” is a movie that takes place three years after Nixon resigns in disgrace. Talk about kicking the dog while he is down. Listening to a conservative bellow, “I told you I didn’t want to take any questions on Watergate!” makes Academy voters cream their undies.

The last step is to ignore the movie altogether and find somebody that died “tragically” and “way too young.”

Look, the “Batman” movie was outstanding. It should have gotten nominations in every major category. Yet the movie was politically conservative. That is a non-starter for the Academy. Also, the snobs at the Academy would not think of deigning to let a “comic book” movie win where it counts.

Why should that matter? “The Dark Knight” was a stunningly brilliant movie that should have given Oscar nominations to Morgan Freeman (Lucius), Michael Caine (Alfred the Butler), Christian Bale (Batman), and especially Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Two-Face). Another almost certainty behind Eckhart should have been Gary Oldman (Commissioner Gordon). Michael Caine has been praised in the past by the Academy, but that was for playing the lead role in a movie that pushed a pro-choice activism on abortion. The movie was marketed as a sweet movie about children in an orphanage, but the agenda was clear.

Yes, Heath Ledger deserved a nomination. He was excellent as well, although not as brilliant as Oldman or Eckhart. Yet he got the nomination because he died too young, and tragically. The Academy said this loudly.

Forgive me, but Heath Ledger was a dumb (redacted) who killed himself, either accidentally or in a suicide. That must not have any impact on the voters. If anything, it cheapens his nomination because had he lived, he would have been worthy of a nomination anyway.

I am tired of people who die this way being glorified, whether it be Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, Curt Cobain, or Heath Ledger. This should have no bearing on Emmys, Grammys, or Oscars.

When all else fails, foreign love stories are the answer. In fact, anything foreign appeals to the Academy.

Whether it be Asians Crouching about tigers and dragons, or some people from India falling in love, foreign lovers are all the rage. If there is no love story, political activists are a global sensation. One year it is Irish revolutionaries. The next year it is Tibet.The less the story matters in the real world, and the fewer the number of people that watch it, the greater the chances for a nomination.

The worst part of this fiasco is the self-congratulatory left-wing blather. Yet in very tough economic times, the Academy tries to scale things down. They then congratulate themselves on how spectacular they are at scaling things down.

For those that want a recap from the California State Republican Party Convention, that will occur this week.

For those that need a recap of events at the NFL Scouting Combine, there is a fabulous website.

For those that truly care about the self-indulgent spoiled brats that make up the Academy, just walk outside. There will be people bent over just enough to treasury the aroma of their own rumpuses. If that does not work, follow the trail of cocaine powder.

At least the event is over with. Now the industry can get back to its day job, putting out left-wing crap and calling it art.


28 Responses to “The Academy Award goes to…Oh, who the hell cares!”

  1. thepoliticaltipster says:

    Hope you are ok. IMO, The Dark Knight was ok, but Jack Nicholson should have won the Oscar for the 1989 original.

  2. Micky 2 says:

    Yea, as soon as whatever the hell his name was started ranting about being brought up in a conservative Mormon household and how the movie freed him and all that crap I turned of the TV.
    I propose that from now on these idiots remain seated and have someone just run down the aisle and give em their bobblehead while showing a few clips of their accomplishments.
    Ya know, stand up, take a bow, show us your costume,sit down, shut up

  3. I’m no big fan of Holywood either. They rarely put out anything I like. The fare is mostly sappy, melodramatic, lowbrow, corny, boring, or some combincation of all of the above. Unfortunately, these days (as in my adult life), if you want quality entertainment, you have to look at indies and abroad.

    But I do like some comedy and I do like fun action movies. Not everything has to be a feast for the brain.

    The Dark Knight was AWEFUL. WAAAAAAY too long. What a snoozer! Nothing against whatever message it was trying to convey, it was just too long, too boring and too poorly lit for my taste. To me, when a movie is filmed all in dark, that’s a sign of poor visual effects. Iron Man and the new Hulk were both much better. The Dark Knight wouldn’t have even been considered were it not for the iconic status of it’s late Joker (Ledger was the only good part of the movie).

    There have been so few good comedies out these days, I’ve just been watching TV, if anything. Screw the movies. The Zuckers have disappeared. Mel Brooks is getting too old.

  4. Oops!

    I posted without finishing!

    Oh well. It’s a depressing subject. On the other hand, conservatives make even lousier movies, so I don;t know what you’re complaining about. Conservatives are not artsy people. They don;t go to film schools or become comedians or actors. They get MBAs and steal from governments and corporations. They have other things to do. So why does it nother you that some careers are full of liberals? Of course they are! Conservatives don’t line up to become social service purveyors, or artists, or comedians. If that bothers you, then blame them. It’s not liberals’ fault.


  5. Micky 2 says:

    “Conservatives don’t line up to become social service purveyors”

    (Steal from governments and cons who acually make a product)

    ” or artists,”

    (Create nothing of value)

    ” or comedians.”

    Thats really BS Jersey, there was an era in our society where these talents were mostly applied by conservatives, theres just no base to sell it to anymore.
    John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Bogart, Roy Rogers, Reagan etc…

    The classics that you say you miss above were all made by conservatives

    (Whos best material is to bash cons)

  6. Micky 2 says:

    Ooops, that last line in parentheses belongs under “or comedians”

  7. There are always exceptions to the rule, Micky, but in general, what I said is true. The arts and Conservatism are like oil and water. And you just proved it! Art has no value? That’s a conservative sentiment.


  8. Micky 2 says:

    Art has no value.
    Can you eat it ?
    Live under it ?
    Does it keep you warm ?
    Or cool ?

    Just cuz you put a price tag on a turd doesnt mean its worth that much, but only in the eye of the beholder.

    I am a culinary artist.
    Ice carving, tallow sculpture, confections, sugar works, vegetable carving, buffet prep and presentation, table side cooking, cakes and pastries, and the whole spectrum of Garde` mange.
    My art feeds people.
    I’m a percussionist since I was 12 and have have sold my charcoal sketchs at galleries in SF.
    Right now, in this economic environment art is not a priority as much as necessities are.
    Get real.
    Everything has some value but in your typical dishonest and disengenuous fashion you elude to the ridiculous comparisons.

    Yea, while you guys pick your nose, carve it into a sculpture and then try to sell it as art we republicans are out fighting to protect your right to be so arrogantly stupid and useless.

  9. Micky, you just prove my point. The arts have value for some people. They feed the brain, the same way food feed the tummy. And it’s funny, the arts actually tend to do better during hard times than during good. It is when times are bad that people turn to the arts for spiritual, emotional, and cerebral satisfaction. Some of the greatest periods of artistic development in the history of man took place during tumultuous times. But as a rule, as I said, people who are conservatively minded tend to take less interest in the arts than do people who are more progressive and liberal. This has always been true. It is inarguable. That’s why performers, writers, artists, musicians, actors, comedicans, teachers, scholars, and such tend to be liberal. That’s why these disiplines are called the LIBERAL ARTS. It’s not that there’s some consserted effort to keep the arts liberal, or to keep conservatives out, as you paranoids tend to believe. It’s simply that people who are intested in these sorts of things tend to be liberal people.


  10. Micky 2 says:

    Yea, what a bunch of crap.
    Your point was that conservatives cant be artists, not really its value in any repect. but the conversation got sidetracked and eluded to when you realized that golden hollywood era proved that stupid point wrong.

    In hard times people dont go to concerts, movies, or galleries, they eat, but clothes and worry about actual products that support life, they turn to their families and their church, not hollywood or your moonbat snotty a$$ elite artist friends.
    Thats why I went into the food business, people have to eat first and foremost before anything.
    I can fish, I can hunt, I can fight like a pack of wolves, I can roll out a budget and a menu for a homeless food pantry, or cook for kings, or make candy for poor kids out the simplest ingredients.
    I will be what determines survival when the crap hits one of your wind turbines and people will come see me before going to watch Sean Penn talk about how bad America is on human rights and then go and kiss Hugo Chavez on the rear or enroll in one of your American hating liberal arts courses at UCLA

    Try to stay on topic just for once in your life.
    We were talking about hollywood, not college level elective liberal arts.

    Conservatives carry just as much interest in art as anyone, you just wont see it because you’re drawn to your ilk and none of us really want to hang in hollywood anymore.
    Art is simply the perfection of a personal concept applied to any endeavor.
    Conservative art forms have benefited the world far more than the fluffy useless crap you guys put out and then arrogantly and like narcissist call it art.
    You’re the morons who pi$$ in cups, toss a crucifix in it , and call it art.
    Thats sign language for idiots, its not art.
    Nuff said.

  11. “Your point was that conservatives cant be artists…”

    Well, for starters, it’s pretty rude and stupid to tell me what my point was, but that aside, yes, it is probably very hard for conservatives to be artists, of any art. Conservatives, by definition, are people who abhor the new, change, the different, the strange. Art is all about the new, change, the different, the strange. For example, I was reading the paper in “the office” a few minutes ago and while perusing the letters section I caught a letter that basically said, ‘the stimulus package won’t work, we need to go back to the tries and true cutting taxes and regulation.’ Now, reading this, I’m thinking, “You moron, THAT’S what precluded this whole mess in the first place!” But to this writer, I’m sure, that’s as far as his imagination takes him. He just can’t fathom another way of looking at something. Take a couple of friends of mine. One is a self-identified “conservative” and one is a self-identified “Republican.” Though to look at them, you couldn’t imagine two more different people, to know them is to know their sameness. Both these guys eat the same foods – over and opver and over. Both eat over-cooked beef, a culinary cardinal sin, and really just stupid (I mean, if you don’t like properly cooked beef, you probably shouldn’t eat it at all – what’s the point?). Both believe there is always only one way to do anything – to drive anywhere, to prepare any food, to set music volumes or equalization, to watch a movie, to decorate a home. Both of these guys – grown men – will shout, “EWWWWW!,” aloud when someone orders a meal they don’t like, or decorates a home in a way they don;t care for, or listens to music they don’t like. These are people who believe there is one and only one way of looking at everything, and neither one of them has or will ever change in anyway. Oh, and neither is a least bit artistic, though they fancy themselves to be. THAT is conservatism. And THAT is why so few of them are artistic.


  12. OOPS!

    I meant, ““You moron, THAT’S what preceded this whole mess in the first place!”


  13. Dav Lev says:

    There is a simple way to express one’s hatred for the entire movie industry, Academy Awards, and all related businesses..don’t go to movies, don’t rent DVDs, don’t buy movies at Blockbuster and Net Flix.

    Why all the acrimony over the Awards anyway? Considering it’s one of
    several ways of the industry patting itself on the back, who takes it
    seriously? I don’t. There are some good movies produced ( I especially like
    seeing my people beaten up by the Germans or gassed, hung and thrown into ovens for thrills..or read to by an illerate NAZI SS guard with heart).

    I do enjoy however seeing the pictures of movie stars past, brings back
    nice memories, Clark Gable, Tyrone Power, Jerry Lewis, Rhonda Flemming,
    Elizabeth Taylor, etc., etc.

    I watch dozens of movies a year….it’s better than drinking alcohol,
    taking drugs, raping my children and beating up my wife. They keep my
    mind alert, impedes dementia, and keeps me youthful and add to
    the thrills of going to blog sites and commenting in space.

    I also admit to watching news programs (when in the mood), and the Lakers. I like the NY Yankees and Mets., cannot stand the business
    antics of the local teams. I watch the leftist documentaries about the Iraqi
    involvement to learn who our real enemies are. I also watch
    the many cops and robbers dramas, mainly on channel 2..and
    the unusual murder documentaries on channel 4.

    This entire recent blog and comments reminds me of the controvery
    over Wal-Mart, Target and other large supercenter stores going up
    all over the US of A. There is substantial opposition to the box store
    concept. Their owners (corp) are considered predatory, ruining local
    businesses, destroying local jobs and skimming money away from the
    communities they serve.

    Now everyone knows it’s impossible to compete with Wal-Mart, it’s prices ususally cheap (er) than the competition in small and big towns.
    But to my knowledge, the company hasn’t asked for a bail-out.

    Sooooo, my attitude always has been, don’t shop there,, and invent another
    model to compete successfully.

    Let’s be honest with ourselves, our entire society has been living too high
    (on credit) for 20 years. I’ve seen it creep in gradually with dismay. I pay my bills and owe nothing on my credit card.

    Freedom is not free my friends.

    Regarding the Awards…some people get a thrill over seeing movie
    stars, the glitz and glammor and all that nonsense. Some people like
    MJanes, beer, brandy stingers, killng deer and elk…..

    Bottom line: turn your TV set to another channel and let the rest of
    US decide what is good and bad.

    I say, the hello with the entertainment industry..we don’t need more government
    intervention in our economy to keep it afloat. I am against giving
    any US tax dollars to the arts. Let Mozart, Chopan and Beethoven fend for themselves. Their works are boring anyway.

  14. Micky 2 says:

    “Well, for starters, it’s pretty rude and stupid to tell me what my point was, but that aside, yes, it is probably very hard for conservatives to be artists, ”

    Good god just sit down and shut up, would you ?

    You made my point by saying I was right about what your point was.
    Please please tell me whats so rude about telling someone what their point of discussion was ? HUH ???

    You’ve truly astoundingly cornered the market on idiocy and ignorance if you seem to think that only what you qualify as art constitutes as art.

    You’re whole post on what the generic qualities of an artist is, is just stoopid.
    Just because we dont light our a$$es on fire and run down the street screaming blood for oil doesnt mean we dont have imaginations either.

    Man, I thought you were the party of reckognition and tolerance but yet you seem to think that art has to go into the spectrum thats never been, it has to be change from the norm, or different ?
    You can change the thinking inside the box or think outside the box bro, either way it constitutes as originallity.
    You really display your one dimensional thought processes when it comes to the subject of art.
    I’ll bet you’ve taken great pride in that black velvet painting of Obama you picked up in TJ ? Huh ?
    Actually, that would be more a matter of taste, or lack of.

  15. Their works are boring, huh? Conservatism, anyone?

    Mozart and Beethoevn owed their careers to government sponsorship. Chopin, in directly. In fact, almost the great classical composers were funded by the governments of their time at one point or another. It is in the interest of a government to sponsor the arts just as it is interest of a family to encourage it’s children to pursue the arts. “Art is the signature of civilizations,” someone said. If you cons had your way, our civilization’s signature would look like the chicken scratch of toddler.


  16. Micky 2 says:

    “Art is all about the new, change, the different, the strange.”

    Not at all, art is about expression, whatever form it may come in and sometimes it ust be novel simply to grab attention.
    But the concept of expression will always be the timeless definition.
    Its actually the simple minded unimaginitive type that seem to think that art is only an outward expression of new and novel ideas.
    Art ca be just as effective on the basis of perfecting what already works.
    Such as a martial artists who always strive for the perfect chi knowing he will never achieve it makes it an art form in itself simply pursuing it.
    Wise up.

    “You moron, THAT’S what precluded this whole mess in the first place!”

    For once you’re right, thet CRA regulations put in place by Carter and Clinton are to blame for the majority of what we see today.

    “But to this writer, I’m sure, that’s as far as his imagination takes him. He just can’t fathom another way of looking at something.”

    Actually just because you and your party actually “think” you’re trying something new doesnt make it new.
    Your recipe for a solution has been tried and failed miserably in many instances over the decades.
    2+2 will always be 4 and so the need for this expansive imagination you say is needed is just a bunch of crap.

    “Both of these guys – grown men – will shout, “EWWWWW!,” aloud when someone orders a meal they don’t like, or decorates a home in a way they don;t care for, or listens to music they don’t like. These are people who believe there is one and only one way of looking at everything,”

    Much like the guy who wrote this peice ? Whos so ignorant that he confuses personal taste with art.

    Case closed.

  17. Laree says:


    A preview to the speech tonight expect something Clintonesque.

    The Game Plan

    Everything old is a new again:) Clinton redux – Obama isn’t winging it.

  18. Micky 2 says:

    “(I mean, if you don’t like properly cooked beef, you probably shouldn’t eat it at all – what’s the point?)”

    There are different spectrums of doneness to be appreciated.
    Liking your beef either well done or black and blues does not constitute any “cardinal sin” as you assert but simply gives opportunity to appreciate the flavors given by different results achieved by different cooking methods.
    In the case with well done meats you need to consider that all foods have some sugar content, the more heat applied the more “caramalization” you will get from that particular food and will determine its difference in flavor giving it more of a smokey, caramel, richer effect on the palate.
    In the case with rare to practically raw meats you are looking at entirely different flavoring that goes into a gamy aspect and one of a more carnivorous texture.
    Either method of preparation can be done as an art form catering to the individual taste of the customer.
    like my eggs over, very easy. But its not for me to say that those who prefer then boiled 7 minutes or over hard are less able to appreciate the qualities that come with such preparation.

    So you see Jersey, you make the point for me that its actually a very narrow concept to think that your concept alone is the champion of open mindedness.
    As a matter of fact, your whole espousal of the matter makes you out to be the one with the limited and unimaginative thought rendering the least capable of determining true art.
    One thing an artist must always conform to are the basic principles of dimension display and contrasts needed in the visual arts.
    If you chose to depict a road well traveled you may place whatever on the road you choose to propel your message, But the image of a vanishing point must always be displayed in order to give the sense of travel.
    So, as much as the message may be different or new, the old and tried principles must be used in order to convey that message.
    Its the artist that is truly disciplined and trained by true and tried techniques that will be able to get his message across more than the abstract renditions we see left up to chance and personal interpretation that many artists call art.
    Do I look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and see more art than a handful of crap tossed against the wall that someone claims is a masterpiece ?
    Of course I do as one is with definite intention and the other involves just too many elements of chance to be taken seriously no matter how narcissistic the artist may be I choose critical thought and intention far above abstract works of chance that fail unless left to the most outward and absurd renditions.
    If you want to give credit to the crucifix in the bottle of urine as art, so be it. That speaks from your own expression.
    And clearly defines your taste.

    Bottom line is this, just because art has reached the absurd does not make it any more worthy than the tried and true conforms we see in traditional arts such as Broadway musicals (my least favorite, but truly an art form) non abstract traditional paintings with nothing eclectic about them at all, not even Van Gogh.
    It only makes it more of a cry for attention and then becomes more a communication method pointing at a statement than it does art.

    Point and case, the classics are the ones that our society pays thru the nose for and are worth millions.
    People want impact in their art and not simple minded means of protest disguised as art which the left is so incredibly guilty of.

    In very many instances you schmucks only “think” you’re artists and self centerdly proclaim any expression as art, walking away with your nose in the air with some sense of achievement when all you’ve really done is put forth a vain attempt at disrespecting the true geniuses out there.

    Its the old fashioned tried and true variations that more than likely come from the mindset you accuse conservatives of having that sell the best and retain timeless and endless value.
    Even if the artist is a raving liberal he must still adhere to the traditional conformities in order to be truly successful.
    If he is a musician he may go into many many different abstract sound renditions but it all comes from and stems from the basic principles of sound manipulation and projection mastering the basic principles of his instrument first.
    Most successful new wave or unprincipled artist have all had to master the traditional methods first.
    Many Jazz and rock musicians are actually quite accomplished classical musicians first before moving on to their own personal displays.
    Many visual artists no matter how bizarre must still ac cell first in learning traditional color charts and spectrums, visual concepts, lighting renditions.

    So, your dumb portrayal that liberals are better artists because they are somehow more imaginative is just that, dumb.
    Because without these traditional concepts that must be applied they would not be able to convey their message.

    Without the stiff and traditional conformities you seem to deplore non of the newest renditions we see today would be possible.

    Before I was allowed to run off my own drum solos I had to be mastered at the basics of ratamacues, double and triple ratamacues, or simple marching rhythms and then go into developing the coordination it takes to operate a 38 piece trap set/percussion section.
    Only until then was I honestly able to call myself an artist as I had the developed skills to accurately convey my message.
    Before I was allowed to do in charcoal pastels an orchid that in other lighting looked like a vagina I first had to prove I could draw both separately in their original forms.
    It figures, that’s the one that sold in SF for 1600 dollars and actually was the least labor intensive of all.
    Sometimes you just get it right without much effort at all, giving due credit to the caliber of client also.
    It still doesn’t change the fact that with out conservative disciplinary applications and work ethic it never would of happened.

    The bottom line is that its incredibly arrogant for anyone, and even myself to think that they can tell the world what true art or who its most important carriers are.
    I mean really, I could say that conservatives have perfected the art of war which has both destroyed and built many civilizations including this country of ours.
    Is war an art ? without a doubt.
    Is political negotiation wheeling and dealing an art ? Of course it is.
    Can spreading the word of God be considered an art ?
    Sure, we see it in charity, theatre and music all the time.
    Can the application of ones patriotism be an art ?
    Sure, if you want to take it to that level, by all means I don’t see why not.
    Have conservatives contributed just as much to our country by means of artful expression as liberals ?
    Of course they have, its just the agendas and methods that are different that’s all.

    Dylan will write a song in protest of violence.
    Micky will artfully with passionate application execute the demise of a terrorist.

    I see little difference in the two art forms only that they project two different expressive positions.

    “Art is the signature of civilizations,”

    No, its wealth, health, stability and duration is the true signature of a civilization.
    Many very “uncivilized” countries have wonderful artists as its a fact that most of them have come from some the most oppresive regimes in our history

  19. hauk says:

    Hmmm…. Micky and Jersey- you both make interesting points.

    As a professional artists myself (musician/composer/songwriter)- my thoughts are that while Art does not sustain life, it does make it worth living.

    Ever see the movie Equilibrium? Fantastic Christian Bale flick about a futuristic society where all Art and Music is banned. Personally, I could not live in such a society.

    Oh hey- y’know where else we saw that type of lifestyle? The Taliban. They banned music, banned instruments, and dynamited ancient statues of the Buddha. Not good.

    Art is not just the new and exciting and boundary pushing- it’s all forms of painting, poetry, prose, performance, and the purely sonic. The NEA is a major bone of contention among liberals and conservatives- but remember, it funds the LA Chamber Orchestra performing Beethoven’s 9th Symphony as much as it funds Portraits of the Virgin Mary in Cowdung.

    New art and more traditional art. And it’s all Art.

    Which is funny, because when Beethoven’s 9th was premiered, it caused a major split in the music world. Everyone tried to be the “Heir” to Beethoven, and two schools emerged- the Brahms and Wagnerian schools. Brahms thought music should be “sound enlived form”, whereas Wagner focused on passion and emotion in the music, and essentially dismantled tonal form and progression (see Tristan und Isolde). Both are Art, both are beautiful, and both are extremely different views.

    As for the Oscars… what industry does NOT have an awards ceremony where they celebrate their own? Let them have their party- in the end it means nothing.

    And yes, “Hollywood” is dominated by liberals, as is the modern art world. I think I mentioned previously being one of the few conservatives in the orchestra world. There are plenty of conservatives out there in the art world- but we tend to be quiet and focus on our art, rather than engage in activism. You do get the occasional singer/actor showing up for political events (Dee Snider campaigned for Arnold, some country singers did campaign for McCain) but mostly we focus on our art.

    I do like to recall the footage of Al Gores hearings on music censorship back in the 80s when John Denver testified, and basically went off on Al Gore saying that this was the dumbest thing the government had ever come up with. Apparently his song “Rocky Mountain High” -a song that is blatantly about his love of nature was blacklisted because it used the word “High” in the chorus.

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again- the Government just doesn’t work.

  20. Micky 2 says:

    Dee Synder ? I love it.
    We need less REMs and MOBYs and more Ted Nugents and Gene Simmons out there showin conservatives and the world that you get your ya yas off and be pretty diabolical and eclectic without looking like some hypersensative twit druming up his own cause no matter how stupid.

  21. Micky, art that isn’t new or different is known as hackneyed and copy. Yes, art is expression, but so is any communication. What separates art from other expressions is the unique abstraction, the unique take on the expression. Anyone can sing “Row, Row Your Boat.” The special person created it. Yes, an artist can simply do what has already been done, in fact, in many arts that is a necessity. When an artist writes a new song, by the time he’s done playing it a thousand times, it isn’t so new anymore. But the song itself is still orginal, new, different.

    As for the Martial Arts, that’s more like dance or sports, where the technical disipline is an absolute requisite even if new styles, and moves, and plays are developed all the time. All arts can involve technical disiplines, but it is not requisite for all. Yngvie Malmstein is a great technical guitarist, but his music sucks. Neil Young is a lousy technical guitarist, but his music is great (not so much to me, but to plenty more people than Yngvie can claim, anyway). All arts are different that way. A lousy Martail artist is just lousy. But sometimes a lousy singer is fantastic. It depends on the art.

    You know, Hauk, you just made me think of a very inspirational art story. Do you remember a couple of years ago when they finally played Wagner in Israel? That was something. It just goes to show that great art is tranformative, and always temporally subjective. It can transcend even itself. That was really something, when they played Wagner there. It also goes to show how far we’ve all come as a people. If the Israelis can play Wagner, maybe there is no hill we can’t climb.

    As for the government not working, if you remember the PMRC was a flop. The government worked in the end. Why you guys hate our constitutional republic so much I’ll never know. Why don’t you guys just go out and burn some flags?


  22. Micky 2 says:

    “What separates art from other expressions is the unique abstraction, ”

    Yes, like the self centered full of gradiose liberals who claim that the fumes rising from their butt is art.
    I get it.
    The disciplined artist are the ones that make better connections or “communicate” as you say.
    Its the ones like liberals that leave us staring and scratching our heads as to what the hell it is they’re trying to say that need to hang it up and get a job.
    Martial arts are no different than any other art where there is a blank slate, ingot, or canvass to which one applies his feelings.
    You be suprised how one can apply the gentleness involved in the philosopies behind Bonsai or the temperment of a starving panther.
    How one can apply the balances and rationales he finds in martial arts to his life can determine how best the application is applied.
    It is a living art/statement as opposed to a stationary statement, but just as effective if you find the right mentor.

    A song, a painting, a poem as well as a martial art can teach you harmony.

  23. Micky 2 says:

    “Why you guys hate our constitutional republic so much I’ll never know. Why don’t you guys just go out and burn some flags?”

    Good God man, grow up.

  24. “The disciplined artist are the ones that make better connections or “communicate” as you say.”

    Sometimes. Mozart was about as disiplined an artist as Paris Hilton. He just had a natural gift (where Paris has a large inheritance). Neil Young is hardly a disiplined artist, but his art has more impact than people whith 100 times his msuical mastery. Disipline, like harmony can a part of art, but no means is art in and of itself. Dissonance and idsharmony can be as artistic as anything else. Jazz, for example, is the musical art of dissonace and the “accidental.” Improvizational art, while there is a certain disipline to that as well, casts aside many traditional disiplines in almost complete oppostion.

    As for your disdain of our government, I stand by what I said. No one hates America and it’s constitution more than Conservatives. Bobby Jindal said as much tonight. You guys believe the government is the problem, that no good comes of it, that is resolves nothing and only stands in the way of progress. You hate our constitutional republic.


  25. Micky 2 says:

    “Mozart was about as disiplined an artist as Paris Hilton. ”

    Mozart was very disciplined in his work ethic and applications.

    Neil Young is overated as a musician and an artist iof youy ask me. His concepts and renditions are just regurgitated rhythms and formats i’ve heard a million times.
    Plus, he just sounds like a whiney depressed old lady.

    Yea, jazz can be improvisational, but the true artist can give a uniform performance each and everytime.
    Ya know, that Picasso has better look the same way it did yesterday.
    A musician cant just tell his audience that they wont get what hes given them to expect.

    Jersey, its become quite evident in the course of this conversation that you’re a part of the arrogant self centerd cult mentallity that gives sloppy work and happenstance a pass as art.
    The elitest snobbery that throws a handful of crap against the wall and walks around with their noses in the air proclaiming they are an artist.

    “guys believe the government is the problem,”

    You’re lying again, he said no such thing.
    He said that the country is its people and that the government is not the solution to everything.

    Grow up, we all have TVs and ears.

    Really, drop the act/shtick already.
    You are consistantly blaming government but only at the hands of conservatism. When dems do something the government is great, when cons do somethin it sucks and we hate our republic.

    Pathetic, grow up.

  26. hauk says:

    Yes- it was a good day when they played Wagner. Never understood the ban myself, as he was dead long before the Nazi’s took power, but that’s just me.

    As for hating our “constitutional government” -frankly, I tend to dislike both parties. I’m pretty much against anyone telling me how I can live my life. I see government as a necessary evil- it should keep the roads in good condition, pay the fire department, pay school teachers, keep our borders safe, and then get the Hel out of my life.

    I don’t hate our constitution though. I believe it to be a great work of societal art- I just wish our government still used it.

  27. hauk says:

    And BTW- Micky- where do you cook at? Kinda curious to come try your food. :)

  28. Micky 2 says:

    Sorry Hauk, I’m independent going to private residences and catering private partys in Hawaii for no more than 20.
    Its not worth it unless you own your own place outright.
    I have extensive experience in the front as well stemming all the way back to my days as Maitre`D at Fraunces Tavern in NY.
    When all the food prep is as complete as can be I throw on a tux and serve away !
    Its working out pretty well as I have no properties, overhead or staffs to manage and dont have to answer to a bunch ofstate and health regulations because its never my kitchen I’m cooking in.

    However though, if I’ll share my recipes with Jersey you can bet I’ll sure as hell share em with you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.