Someone with a Chicago area ISP stopped by and left an angry comment on my post about the “Axis of Evil: The Secret History Of Sin” art exhibit at Columbia College. He or she has stopped back by a couple of times… I suppose to see if I’d respond. I do so hate to disappoint, so here we go:

First, I’ll note… as I’ve pointed out before… that a liberal almost always resorts to three ways of arguing when he realizes his arguments don’t hold water:

Rely on the hypothetical. If you have no real evidence to back up your beliefs, go with “Yeah, but what if” arguments.

Get personal… attack the person you are arguing with if you can’t make a valid case against their actual position.

The liberal panic button: proclaim that the other person isn’t worth arguing with… because they’re too stupid, uneducated, etc. That's the liberal way out of an argument he or she can’t win. It's their way of saving face.

To his or her credit, Chicago didn’t rely on the hypothetical. He or she did, however, rely pretty heavily on crutches two and three. I’ll get to that later. First, I’ll respond to the meat of the comment:

Freedom of speech and expression, isn't that our first amendment right?

Yes, yes, and nobody is trying to take that right away from you. Just for the record, I rely on that freedom, too. You have the right to create all the propaganda you want in the name of art, and I have the right to call it what it is.


Saying that it is not art is completely ridiculous.

Wrong. Anything that proposes to be art is, by that proposition, interactive and open to subjective interpretation. The opinion of the viewer is as important as the piece itself. The piece is just a product until the presence of art in it is confirmed by the viewer. That doesn’t always mean that the viewer will be drawn to or agree with the piece. Joel Peter Witkin’s photographs, for example, are repellant… but they are clearly artful in expression. My opinion is that the drivel produced by Al Brandtner and his ilk isn’t art. Brandtner is expressing nothing. He's only trying to incite. He wants the viewer to do all the work. He’s lazy and uncreative. Now, I know that by stating that opinion, I reveal something of myself… just as you do a little later with your hypocritical comment about Thomas Kincade….


The number one goal of all of the artists who exhibited was to create art that expressed their views or opinions …

Al Brandtner's piece "Patriot Act" is titled as such because it is commenting on the Patriot Act…

A postage stamp deplicting a gun held to the president’s head is a comment on the patriot act? Right. Tell me again how stupid I am.


Ruffling the feathers of conservatives like you is just an added bonus.

Nope, it’s not a bonus. It’s the goal. Anyone capable of common sense sees that.


I'm sure you're the kind of person that thinks that Thomas Kincade's landscape paintings are real art.

Well, since you brought it up, I think Kincade's work is boring. It doesn’t do it for me. Nonetheless, I think it’s interesting that someone like you, who defends the rights of the artist to express himself, would mock Kincade. In fact, with that comment about Kincade, you really played your whole hand. Could it be that you don’t consider Kincade’s work to be artful because it doesn’t express something you agree with or are drawn to? Could it be that your high-minded defense of Brandtner has more to do with your political beliefs than any understanding you might have of art? I think so. And I think you know it, too... which is why you then resorted to the typical liberal defense mechanisms I noted above:


It's obvious that you've had no educational background in this subject

OK, good, a personal attack. Since that’s how liberals concede that their arguments don’t hold water, I accept your concession.


I'm not going to waste any more of my time on someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Concession number two. Check and mate. Thanks for playing, come back again any time.