Weeping angel

An archeologist slogging through piles of refuse from our time will likely come to a few conclusions: we were sexual anarchists, and willing to sacrifice millions to expand our cult. They would find vast, black-robed priesthoods ruled over the culture. Art and education was forbidden to make or show images of our 24/7 child sacrifice – with shunning and fury following exposure of the secrets.

Most contemporary artists are remarkably docile about this, and many are in collusion. It’s much easier than fighting it. So they trumpet “courageous” installations of stained panties or rows of empty rooms, insisting these are remarkably “transgressive” to the culture. Not only are most irrelevant, but if it weren’t for the crowds and cocktails at openings, they would be terrifically dull.

"In the Belly of the Beast" by Jack Larson – acrylic 24"X36" – no date – from DeviantArt.com

“In the Belly of the Beast” by Jack Larson – acrylic 24″X36″ – no date – from DeviantArt.com

Abortion is real, raw, bloody and painful – and it’s happening on a massive scale. Yet as a social and moral issue, abortion has gone almost untouched in the arts since it was unleashed in 1973. Only the truly zealous bother with it at all. From that small lot, pro-aborts alone receive funding, publicity and encouragement from institutions and the state. Bloody acolytes and Planned Parenthood proxies, they essentially advertise for abortion using the arts.

Passionately anti-abortion artists are tough to find. Not because they don’t exist, but because they are deliberately made invisible. Most Americans are comfortable with the status quo, and are making good money off it. Pro-life artists exist privately, caught in a parallel reality. Their work may be tolerated in churches, religious publishing and select websites, but that isn’t enough. This limitation even extends to cyber-space, with Google and other data control-freaks punishing pro-lifers and censoring their images.

"Not Viable" by Jack Larson – posted digitally 2009Acrylic on 18" X 48" board

“Not Viable” by Jack Larson – posted digitally 2009
Acrylic on 18″ X 48″ board

DeviantArt is a website for art that may not be otherwise shown to the world. Posters range from professional artists to teen doodlers, and cover every subject and style. Because patrons use tags instead of real names, it’s one of a few places hosting anti-abortion themes and art. This is where American artist Jack Larson posted his work several years back.

On this site, a series of stricken infants with empty eye-sockets tumble across Larson’s canvases. Their bodies (and parts) spell out the slogans endlessly employed in the “reproductive rights” campaign. His “Not Viable” is loosely painted in acrylics. Larson uses a representational, primitive style, but the viewer immediately recognizes infants, and knows something gruesome is happening.

Perhaps it was just the subject matter, but I thought of Francesco Goya’s paintings when I first found this: his muted, greyed colors and spectral faces. In his later years, Goya focused on matters of good and evil in his canvases, in what was called his “black paintings.” Creating violent, demonic entities, experts believed Goya either feared madness or he was expressing what he saw in the human race. Certainly “Saturn Devouring his Children” is no worse than routine business at abortion clinics now (see Comparison below).

Comparison of details: Francesco Goya's "Witches' Sabbath" (left) 1821-23 and Jack Larson (right), (2009)

Comparison of details: Francesco Goya’s “Witches’ Sabbath” (left) 1821-23 and Jack Larson (right), (2009)

Larson considers himself an “abortion critic” and makes statements about his stand. One such statement accompanies his “Not Viable” painting, and deals with definitions of “personhood” being limited and determined by changing human technology. Another comment from Larson, or an admirer, noted that abortion is a form of modern day Moloch worship: “As a culture and as the human race, we worship at the altars of humanism, in putting ourselves as the final determinator of what is correct or wrong. To this ‘Moloch,’ we sacrifice our children, for our own god’s benefit (which is ourselves).”

In the same vein is a piece by a woman calling herself “Porcelain Requiem” or Genevieve. A young American artist in her 20s, she is one of many from that age-group to unapologetically detest abortion. It’s a hopeful sign. Genevieve posted an anime-type image in Oct. 2012, in honor of “Respect Life Month.” The scene, she claims, should be obvious: “It’s a woman, who now regrets the abortion she had many years back, and the spirit of her unborn son, embracing her and kissing her … because he has forgiven her. But she will never forgive herself, or forget. …”

"Respect Life" 2012, digital art by Genevieve; from Deviantart.com

“Respect Life” 2012, digital art by Genevieve; from Deviantart.com

In Japan, where anime originated, their missing children are a serious problem. They legalized abortion in 1949 to deal with poverty after the war; but decades later, the island nation is aging rapidly. There are relatively few children to replace the elderly, and they are beginning to suffer serious effects now.

What will America’s future be if we keep this up? Our yearly heap of 800,000 aborted babies equals the entire population of San Francisco, and they aren’t something we can just replace. There comes a point of no return with injustice, which seems to be what drove Goya mad. About half of America seems firmly dedicated to lunacy, but things can change.

Artists have a chance to prove we truly are the significant and powerful change agents that we’ve convinced ourselves we are. Will there be an opera made about abortion? Films and plays make a potent stage for the private tragedies of abortion. Novels and galleries stand waiting for someone to pick up their pen or paint brush, and to take on something that matters.

Who?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.