Art for politics' sake.

Via Instapundit, the funniest thing that you’ll read all day.  From Patrick Courrielche:

I find it hard to believe that the Obama Joker creator is the only serious detractor (assuming that it is a critical commentary) within the art community. And I’m sure the incendiary criticism will keep others from creating similar images. But regardless of political affiliation, the art community must embrace all rational dissenters. Art must not exclusively serve the interests of any presidential administration.

(Bolding mine) Not because any of it’s actually wrong, of course.  Well, at least it’s not ‘wrong’ in the narrow, technical sense of ‘general ethical guidelines.’  In the more important sense of ‘elementary political reality,’ on the other hand I suppose he can’t be more wrong.  In that sense, art of the type that Mr. Courrielche apparently produces is expected to exclusively serve the interests of a Presidential administration, assuming that the President is a Democrat.  If the President is a Republican, then the art is expected to exclusively serve the interests of the Democratic party in general.  Quid pro quo.  The Democrats make sure thatMr. Courrielche – or at least his friends – have enough NEA grant money to survive; surely he doesn’t think that this largess was being given out for free?

Most artists would not want to be referred to as tools of the state, but in the case of Obama’s administration, that’s exactly what they’ve been so far.

Bless me, but I think that he very possibly did.  I don’t know whether to be disgusted, or envious.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.