(Posted to my MySpace Weblog on December 30, 2007)
Well, fine, there's another reason why I created that Nietzsche group. I thought I was--paradoxically in the light of my take on the Nietzschean project--filling a void on MySpace. Last night I was searching for a Nietzsche MySpace group and came up with nihil. Damn, I thought. There are several such groups on Facebook, but Facebook has always been more literate and intellectual than the teenybopper-driven MySpace (although the blogging capacities on Facebook really suck). So, I thought I'd create the very first Nietzsche group on MySpace. Then after I created the group, I plugged in "Nietzsche" into the MySpace Groups search engine, expecting to see my newly created group all by its overmanly lonesome.
Well, that did not happen. No, several groups devoted to Nietzsche and existentialism popped up. When I searched last night, I must have encountered some kind of a bug that Tom had not eradicated yet, some anti-Nietzsche bug put into the MySpace Search Engine by zealous Evangelical bookburners. Tom, you Murdoch fluffer, once again you suck. Or it could be that Tom, himself a fan of Nietzsche, programmed the search engine to allow only creators of their own Nietzsche groups to find like ones. After all, only those that have the will to power sufficient for their own creation should be worthy to discuss Nietzsche on MySpace, or some such bullshit. Tom, you still suck.
Needless to say, my group is superfluous now. Nevertheless, from the other Nietzsche groups I have seen, I can say that mine has a much more interesting default picture. I took it from this site filled with cool, freaky paintings depicting various scenes and philosophical concepts in Also Sprach Zarathustra. Yeah, I like modern art, well enough of it anyway to make traditionalist Catholics have the uneasy feeling that I should be burned at the stake. This modern art is quite tame, though. It is still representational, so I cannot be accused of gnosticism for liking it. But I do like abstract art, and this is indeed flirting with gnosticism because the essence of gnosticism is nothing else than the abstraction of the soul from the material world. So, yes, the trad Catholics are right to be uneasy around me.
My fondness for beautiful young women is another thing that makes them uneasy, to be sure, but I have a reply: I would be guilty of the gnostic heresy if I did not at the very least look.
Anyway, back to abstract art. When I say I like it, I pretty much mean Kadinsky and not much else, and I like Kadinsky only because his use of color makes me happy. I am sure he thought that his paintings had some profound spiritual meaning. Fine. I don't care. I like his colors. That's it. If I want profound meaning, I'll go look at stuff by Anselm Kiefer. If I want to see a freaky, zany collection of cheery colors to give myself an approximate idea of what an LSD trip would be like, I'll look at Kadinsky.
Outside of Kadinsky, I don't like much abstract art at all. I think Rothko is an idiot. I once thumbed through his entire corpus from the beginning of his career to the end, and from a cursory overview, it seems that this is the story of Rothko in nuce He started out with psychological expressionism after the manner of Schiele, but Schiele did it better. So, Rothko tried his hand at stick-figure surrealism, but Miro did that better. So, Rothko stepped back from his canvas one day and thought, "Well, hell, what should I do that I can do somewhat competently but which no one else would do (other than Kindergarteners armed with crayons, perhaps)?" And then the eureka moment: "I know! I'll paint parallelograms! No one else is doing that! No one else (other than Kindergarteners armed with crayons, perhaps) would even think of doing that!" And so he painted rectangles and squares for the last two decades of his huckstering life.
And Jackson Pollack or the notorious Jack the Dripper is simply anathema. His paintings depict the puerile dream of mastubatory license of ejaculation ad nauseum. Now many of my socially conservative subscribers who consider themselves patriotic lovers of these United States would wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. These patriots consider the U.S.A. to be a beacon of freedom to the world, but not of the freedom that Pollack depicted. Oh, no. That was not true freedom at all, but the degenerate license of a pervert. The freedom that the U.S. promotes is actually true freedom, the freedom to be good and brave and wholesome and to like homemade apple pie and the like.
Well, then, it may interest these patriots to know that during the Eisenhower Years (and, remember, that Eisenhower was a Republican, not a liberal, sodomite, latté-drinking, elitist Democrat) when we were playing brinkmanship with the Commies, the CIA actually funded Jackson Pollack and other so-called abstract expressionists precisely because these painters depicted the very notion of freedom that U.S. Policy Makers wanted to promote in their ideological war with the Soviet Union. So, when these Red State socially conservative patriots try to claim that the U.S. notion of freedom is somehow different from the license of Jackson Pollack, they are either lying or are historically ignorant.
Or just plain ignorant, because any country where baby murder and pornography are legal cannot have anything other than a warped and perverted notion of human freedom, which is indeed indistinguishable from license, and I will say what I have said on previous posts once again, this freedom is not worth dying for. If you want to die for the chaotic ejaculations of Jackson Pollack, the freedom to whore yourself in porn, the right to kill the unborn, you are free to do so, but I am also free to call you stupid.