When I was a kid, my mom picked up, in the "discount" record album bin -- "Sweet America", an album by Buffy Sainte-Marie, who later co-wrote "Love Lift Us Up Where We Belong."

While it clearly wasn't top forty material, it was definitely interesting stuff. I learned what a "tack piano" was. Some of the songs were based around traditional Indian music and art forms. Some were wonderful schlocky "Love never works out for me" numbers. Some were cries that America was "dying" (in the mid-70s, no less -- funny to hear that now). If I had more time, I'd post some snippets here for you to enjoy (or not).

Though no song was a mega-hit, overall, the album was definitely interesting, and grew on me over time.

When another album came out by the same artist, Mom bought it. I can't remember the details, except that she started to play it, and then abruptly took it off. Later, she listened to it alone, deemed it inappropriate, and threw it in the trash.

Mom was a Democrat, but the old-fashioned kind.

These days, many people seem to have a reflexive response to reject or deprecate any possible moral criticism of artwork. For example, there's the "Patriot Act" painting which shows a gun pointed a the sitting president's head, finger on the trigger. Yes, it's art, but ... well ... so what? Does that mean it should be immune from criticism?

Of course, people who say such things don't mean it anyway. If another artist positively depicted racism, or depicted hatred towards gays in a positive light, I have the strong impression most people who defend stuff like this would suddenly reveal that they do believe art can be subject to moral criticism -- and would immediately subject it to such.

But there's another point I want to make here:

If you look at a piece of art -- say, "Patriot Act", and say: "That's despicable!" or "That's unpatriotic!" or "That's hateful and small-minded!", many people will rush to it's defense: "You can't judge it! That's art! You can't say that's bad! You're closed-minded!"

Okay, good enough. You can only say nice things about artwork. Artwork can say bad things about anything -- or anyone -- but we must treat it nicely, kindly, like the dead, or a challenged person who is unable to defend himself. Lest we be uncouth. Or hurtful.

Gimme a break.

Let's face it. Much artwork is stupid. A lot of it requires no talent whatsoever. How many painting of blue do we need? I mean, the first few thousand times, perhaps it was interesting or innovative. But after a while, well, one-color paintings only go so far. Two bricks and a lightbulb? Oh yes: Expand my mind, please. Broken glass piled on floor? Again???

Sometimes, I suggest that my life is performance art. I don't see any reason I shouldn't get a nice NEArts grant for doing it. Why should we be so limited as to think an artist needs any professional training? I mean, talent is clearly optional. Public interest is not required. So why not jettison training as well?

I want my grant now.