"Defending" the Art of Jon McNaughton

Jon McNaughton's "The Empowered Man".  Acrylic/derp mixture on canvas.

The arts have long been considered a bastion for liberalism.  In recent history, this was readily apparent during the Bush years, when it seemed as if all an artist had to do to cling to, or in some cases regain relevancy was rail against Dubya in the most vociferous manner possible.  Yes, you can cite an exception with the Dixie Chicks having been dixie-chicked, but they do sing Country, and they're from Texas, so there was no way in hell their anti-Bush rant was going to go over well.  But, for the most part, it paid off artistically to express your dissent against our infamous 43rd President.

Look at Bright Eyes for instance: Connor Oberst spent the beginning of his career defining the archetype for broken-hearted emo dude narcissism, then he wrote a "political" record, started pontificating against Bush and voila!  He's the new Bob Dylan.

Or take Green Day, who got huge writing songs about masturbation and Oxycontin in the angst-ridden 90s, faded a bit, then came back big time after updating their look to a more emo friendly guyliner-and-skinny-ties getup, and releasing the quasi-political "American Idiot", scoring a massive hit. They went right back to being one of the biggest bands in the world.

Though their fourth member didn't fare so well.

Even ever-so-pensive Radiohead got a lot of mileage out of its Bush-bashing "Hail to the Thief" record.  So, with all of the pointedly leftist art that was released during the Bush years, color me surprised to see some liberal outrage over the paintings of ultra-conservative artist Jon McNaughton, mainly questioning the artistic merit of his work.

TRUE STORY - FOX News blowhard Sean Hannity bought this for six figures.

OK, so the guy is as subtle as a lead pipe in his art, his paintings being the canvased equivalent of the "fwd:fwd:fwd: OBAMA IS A SECRET MUSLIM" e-mails you might get from a redneck uncle, but there is inherent value in what he does, from an artistic point of view.  If art is essentially communication with enhanced significance, McNaughton's work undeniably fits that definition, even when it's impossible to agree with the message.   His creations are boorishly literal and uninformed - listening to his YouTube explanations of the paintings, it's pretty obvious you can back the dude into a logical corner within a second - but they spark debate, and being a reasonably talented painter, he is able to convey his sentiments and that of his subjects quite succinctly solely through his technique.  It's definitely much more interesting to look at, and more worthy of discussion than any of Damien Hirst's criminally overpriced turds frozen in formaldehyde.

"IDEA!"

Simply put, all of the criticism aimed at McNaughton reveals that there is a double standard when it comes to the appreciation of political art: if the message fits comfortably within the liberal mindset, it can wallow in pretension, stream-of-consciousness turgidity, even gimmickry, and still be considered "relevant" by the art world.  Use a direct approach with a conservative message, and it's considered "junk".

Here's what I mean - take for instance Chinese artist and political activist Ai Weiwei, one of the most celebrated figures in modern art, and his Sunflower Seeds exhibit at the Tate Modern Turbine Hall in London.  The exhibit was Ai's commentary on "mass consumption, Chinese industry, famine and collective work", and it consisted of one hundred million porcelain seeds, individually hand-painted by Chinese artisans, scattered on the ground of a large hall.  The artist intended for people to fully experience the exhibit by walking and rolling around on the "seeds" as a way to illustrate the way the world feeds off Chinese labor, which is a bit of an esoteric way to get your point across.  Was it an effective political message?  Hard to say.  A mere two weeks after opening, the museum had to stop people from walking on the seeds out of health concerns from the porcelain dust, pretty much nullifying the main point Ai was trying to convey.  It still made a buck though.  A 220-pound pile of the dust sold for $559,394 at Sotheby's, so basically someone paid over half a million dollars for a bag of the same shit that had been considered a "public health issue" just a few months prior.

Using similar logic, this should worth about $30

As for the critics? They fucking loved it.  I know you can easily make the case Ai's approach as more rational and sensible, but it also only seemed to have an impact inside the art world, and what is the point of a political statement if not to reach the widest possible audience?

I don't want to entirely wax poetic on McNaughton's "plight" because some of the criticism aimed at him is entirely valid.  Some of his detractors argue that his paintings have some racist undertones, and I do find a great deal of validity to that argument.  If you look at his work, the recurring heroic "everyman" figure is a white Christian male, that while not very symbolic in itself, it takes a different meaning when repeatedly pitted against the sinister image of an "evil" black President.  It definitely plays into the fears and deep-seated hatred of multiculturalism within the more racist elements of the Tea Party.  His paintings are also dreadfully inconsistent - why is the "everyman" trampled by money in one painting, then seemingly liberated by it in another?  Why does McNaughton single out Obama, Clinton, FDR and the rest of the "big government liberals" as nefarious, while portraying George W. Bush (the guy directly responsible for the Patriot Act and the financial bailouts) as some kind of unwilling participant?  Why the fuck is James Madison - famously skeptical of religion - praying?  Who the hell is this guy's history teacher?  David Barton?

"The FUCK OBAMA Collection.  Collect all 200"

And that's the beauty of McNaughton's art - it can be debated, and disproven.  That's why it works as political art; because it gets people talking.  Critics and supporters alike are judging it on its content alone and discussing its ideas, and that's its unintended simplistic brilliance.   The content of its message is not lost to interpretation and it doesn't collapse under the weight of lofty artistic expectations.  It's not a smart message - actually, it's downright moronic - but it is a message, and that's more than you can say about your hipster friends nailing pots to a goddamn wall and calling it "social commentary".

And hey, even if you find absolutely no redeemable in what Jon McNaughton does, at least his paintings make for awesome Photoshops.