[ottbmare]

Sir, there is a great difference in the way a talented person could choose to appeal to an identified market. If someone is (for instance) a very gifted movie director who identifies and decides to fill the economic niche for directors of torture-rape-snuff films, we do not, as conservatives, hail him or his innovative vision. It's of no difference at all how brilliant he is if his talent serves a vile purpose. The destruction of Western civilization's pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful, is inherently vile. I do not accept that Picasso's ability to generate an iconic cartoon or to do some good paintings and sketches in his youth means that we should accept the rest of his canon as anything other than a monstrous fraud. I refuse to accept the propaganda of the entrenched art establishment that there is value and meaning in his distortions, and that those of us who protest are benighted.

Scruton on Beauty Here the English conservative philosopher Roger Scruton of the American Enterprise Institute and (currently) Oxford describes the uproar that resulted when he dared to attack the prevailing liberal view that originality in art, such as that Picasso shoveled at us, is more important than achieving beauty. I wish that the stunning BBC video were still available, but it has been taken down after going viral, which annoyed the BBC socialists.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Sir, there is a great difference in the way a talented person could choose to appeal to an identified market. If someone is (for instance) a very gifted movie director who identifies and decides to fill the economic niche for directors of torture-rape-snuff films, we do not, as conservatives, hail him or his innovative vision."

You are comparing Picasso to a snuff-film director? Seriously? I would remind you that there are many, highly regarded artists from the Renaissance, Mannerist, Baroque, Romantic, etc. periods who created things of exquisite beauty who also dabbled in more obscure, and far more profane subject matter for very private patrons. You could argue that work served, "vile purposes," as well, but we are supposed to willingly ignore that based on their more conventional creations that appeal to our higher sensitivies.

If there is ugliness in Picasso's work (as there most assuredly is), I would argue it is a reflection of the consumer's tastes, and not the cause of it (although I do acknowledge that could rapidly devolve into a chicken-egg argument rather quickly). Similarly, there have been utterly vile people who have created works of intense beauty and spirituality (Caravaggio readily comes to mind, and in a modern context, you could probably throw Mel Gibson into the mix). Do we lessen their artistic accomplishments or deny the power and beauty of their creations because they had unsavory aspects to their personal lives?

For me sir, my moral underpinnings will not be forged, nor swayed by a drawing, a painting, a movie, a video game, a book, a website, etc. If I find them repugnant, I avoid them and decline to support them. If I find them uplifting and aesthetically pleasing I will engage them and enjoy the benefits of doing so.