A liberal acquaintance in Santa Fe beats all:
Lisa Law was the main photographer at Woodstock. Perhaps she's trying to divert attention from the fact that she's driving an SUV.
Posted on 11/24/2013 2:30:43 PM PST by ReformationFan
I went to a lecture recently presented by the Smithsonian. The subject of the talk was Jack Kerouac’s Francophone roots, and I was expecting lots of intellectual wanna-be Beatniks. Instead I was surrounded by a roomful of typical old lib academics.
It felt as though I were living inside of NPR. You know the type: the women are skeletal from not eating meat and from biking too much and have salt and pepper hair which they cut when they decided they hated men and also decided to look like one. They prefer the unkempt, “natural” look to actually bothering to maintain the frizz. The men are not noticeably thin, but are noticeably lacking in bulk. Both sexes (it’s difficult sometimes to distinguish them) dress in neutral earth tones, the organic fiber of their clothes having been manufactured ethically. They dress for comfort and for hiking simultaneously, even in the city, and sip water constantly, as if they don’t know where their next sustainable bottle of H2O is coming from. Many of them wear glasses (it adds to the intellectual mystique), little artsy specs with thick frames that sit on the end of the nose. This positioning accentuates the elitist, I know better than you look.
I had a beer and observed. I was the only one under 50, I think, and definitely the only one who read On the Road without trying to dissect it for profound insight. I found it mostly a practical guide to how to be wild and still survive, with the occasional thoughtful reflection thrown in between breaths. The people attending this lecture seemed as opposite Jack Kerouac, a noted conservative, as they could get.
This type of liberal shows up everywhere: at book stores, coffee shops, farmers’ markets, lectures, concerts, museums. And why, thought I, is it that liberals seem to own the arts and everything aesthetic?
Two thoughts:
Libs don’t actually own the arts, they just make it look that way.
Liberals are great showmen and women – I don’t want to discriminate here. (Ever wonder, by the way, why liberals are so gung-ho about gender neutrality but then have a conniption when you don’t write he/she his/her? Anywaaay…
Everything liberals do is about appearance and how their behavior is perceived. This is why their lifestyles are so contradictory. And since they generally reject God and the eternal, the glories of this world are all that matter. They want to feel good without having to do good. They want to look good in the eyes of others without having to sacrifice. And when they do something, they don’t do it quietly simply for the enjoyment of themselves or of others. They make a spectacle of it so you can’t help but notice.
This is why it seems that liberals own the arts. They want to appear to everyone else in the world to be cultured, non-discriminatory, interested, and intellectual. I’m sure there were other non-liberals at the lecture I attended (actually, being D.C., there is no guarantee of this), but I didn’t notice them in the sea of exaggerated progressives aggressively flaunting their open minds. Conservatives tend to enjoy things passively, absorbing art and culture for their own sakes, because they enjoy them. This contrast may also be why the liberal media is liberal. Leftists are much more about showing and telling. (It’s why they also rule the bumper sticker world.)
The arts are another way they can force ideologies on you and control you.
The arts, when acknowledged at all, are associated with poverty. Especially in these terrible democratic I mean economic times, the arts take a hit. They are a low priority, and rather than let the market do its thing, the liberals do theirs: they force the arts to stay afloat by taking money people could better spend on subsisting and spend it on artists’ salaries, supplies, and marketing for asinine projects. If there’s one thing liberals love more than spending money on fluff no one cares about, it’s spending other people’s money on fluff no one cares about. And where government money goes, a government message goes with it. (Hello, Sesame Street)
Of course they are. That doesn’t diminish them at all.
A liberal acquaintance in Santa Fe beats all:
Lisa Law was the main photographer at Woodstock. Perhaps she's trying to divert attention from the fact that she's driving an SUV.
God forbid that you should be able to study their brush stroke technique or look at their use of light and shadow up close.
Please do not post to me. I will not be having a conversation with you.
Bullseye. No net.
Liberal Arts is a generic term that encompasses everything from music to studying the Constitution.
I don,t quite know how things get sorted out into different categories but i sure never had anything to do with it.
I recommend Tom Wolfe's, “The Painted Word”. He does an excellent job of explaining how certain artists become the “rock stars” of the art world. Fundamentally, which “artists” make it into the lofty world of wealthy fame is controlled by a handful of powerful critics and museum directors. People like Maplethorpe are literally “anointed” by the art world priesthood.
Two recent disappointments in our travels have been the University of Texas museum in Austin, and the Mesa, Arizona, city museum. Yes, it is possible for insulting to become trite, common, and unimaginative.
That’s okay sir I don’t mind if you can’t defend your comments, they are not defensible anyway.
Now post #107 Two recent disappointments in our travels have been the University of Texas museum in Austin, and the Mesa, Arizona, city museum.
Does anyone else see a contradiction?
This is a second request to cease posting to me. I will not be conversing with you on this topic. Any more posts to me and I will concluded that you are bullying and stalking.
It is polite netiquete to include the original poster when making a comment. No one is forcing you to reply. You converse with me of your own free will. Here in America we have freedom of speech and to not speak as well.
The term ‘Liberal Arts’ has its roots in Ancient Greece.
The term ‘Liberal Arts’ has its roots in Ancient Greece.
But don't let your distaste for that remark distract you from my actual point, that liberals by definition will thrive only in subjectively judged fields. They don't believe in reality, they fight it at every turn, how can they use it as a tool? Do you disagree?
That doesn’t imply the converse, that everyone in a subjectively defined field must therefore be a liberal. There might, though, be an effect where non-liberals flee a field because they can’t stand working with the liberal morons who’ve infested it, so it could end up working out that way.
Sheesh, I must have looked at that picture for 15-20 seconds, and it never even occurred to me that the person wasn’t a guy (and I was even thinking that “he” was unusually ugly!) Then I see it’s name is “Lisa” — holy crap!
And especially the gays took refuge there, to the point where now they are running the show.
He got sort of miffed when I suggested that art is what the patron buying it says it is rather than what the artist says it is.
The things he sells are obviously the real art.
People will generally rave about some ones work because that is the exceptable thing do.
I don’t know what they think. I was responding only to your generalized comment (which you now amend). A large part of why libs have taken over the Arts is because of generalized disdain of that sort which comes from conservatives far too often.
I GUESS you could say I’m amending it, but only because you lack the ability to boil the statement down to its essential point without assistance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.