»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Commemorating the Messiah's 100th Day!
| The Alley |
|
Commemorating the Messiah's 100th Day! |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
It's okay, I suppose, to insult Christians in our current cultural climate. Nothing is viewed as beyond the pale by some. I wonder if Obama will denounce this, good Christian that he is, or will he silently bask in the adulation? http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=2358318 |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Does he know you've given him only two choices, Denise? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He might, ya never know!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, If your source is to be believed, the presentation of the picture on the web site as it was presented was an immediate distortion of the piece. The piece, according to YOUR source was supposed to be presented to people one at a time in a voting booth style display. The size and the distance from the viewer was therefore controlled, as well as the context. So then, I've gotta ask you, Denise, what did you think of the artist's brush strokes and his draughtsmanship? It was a representational canvas: What did you think of the artist's use of convention and irony in the context of the presentation? Did the artist's use of irony underline one side or another of his presentation? Do you think that the artist's use of Obama might have anything to say about the peaceful co-existence or lack thereof of religion and social justice in the everyday world of the folks who live in the United States today? What did you think of the artist's palette, and the use he made of color and texture in the painting. I for one thought that this would have been an impossible judgement to make without actually having seen the painting itself, having had the experience of seeing paintings and reproductions of painting and seeing the sometimes unbelievable differences that show up in the actual works. It's like night and day, sometimes. My impression, you see, is that your concern isn't for the art itself at all. I am willing to be disabused of this notion of mine. My impression is that you are extremely upset at the notion that something you loathe — and my impression is that you loathe President Obama from the variety of unpleasant things you've said about him, his family, his party and his policies — might have some streak of the divine running through it. I confess that I don't like the idea either. It's too much like a conjunction of church and state, and of making the leader into a God or — as we've been trying to do recently — make God into our leader. But there the thought is. Die Gedenken sint Frei. Pardon my spelling and my poor German, but folks will think pretty much what they want. Thought ranges freely, and art even more freely. I recall the Mel Gibson crucifixion movie whose title I now forget. Many folks were saying it was anti-Semitic because of its depiction of what they felt was a biased view of the Jews and their role in the crucifixion. Not being particularly fond of this particular view of the crucifixion for reasons I won't go into here, I was inclined to be upset at the movie. I was not able to judge it as art because I hadn't seen it; and because I hadn't seen it the way it was supposed to be seen (in a theater or on a DVD in the Director's cut) I wasn't about to suggest that it was anti-semitic. It was one of those cases where I felt that I needed to withhold judgement. I don't need to have an opinion on everything. And I need to be aware of what the requirements are in a given situation for me to have one. I don't have the requirements to have an opinion on the painting of Obama, despite the the reproduction you thoughtfully included. My reasons for feeling this way should be clear from the questions I was asking earlier, and the comments I was making about the need for the appropriate context. I don't think I'm asking too much of myself here if I can ask the same of myself in a motion picture about the crucifixion where I feel that I'm on the other side. This is a question that really does ask for this sort of consideration. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Monsters will be slaying my sleep tonight. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
She. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Pure and simple for me, Bob. I consider Obama being depicted in a manner reminiscent of Christ's suffering and death, blasphemy. It wouldn't matter who the subject matter was. And I don't loathe him. I disagree with his policies, and I think he is dishonest, the most dishonest President I've seen in my lifetime, and one who has absolutely no regard for the Constitution. I've never disparaged his family. I don't know where that came from. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"I wonder if Obama will denounce this, good Christian that he is, or will he silently bask in the adulation?" The irony of that statement in regards to the “crucifixion” of Obama painting...does not go unnoticed by me. “It's okay, I suppose, to insult Christians in our current cultural climate” The irony of that statement made me scratch my head. Denise, I am sure you are a nice person and all that…but ah, you have insulted me (I can only speak for myself) on several occasions by voicing your beliefs and disbeliefs, and I never said a word because it’s your right to do so, however, that statement you made seems to indicate you don’t like it one bit when what you believe is perceived (by you) to be insulted… I don’t look down on anyone for their beliefs (at least I don’t think I do). But here is what I do have a issue with: fanatic –noun 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. –adjective 2. FANATICAL. ________________________________________ Synonyms: 1. enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. FANATIC, ZEALOT, MILITANT, DEVOTEE refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. FANATIC and ZEALOT both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. FANATIC further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. ZEALOT, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than FANATIC, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. MILITANT stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. DEVOTEE is a milder term than any of the foregoing, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view: a jazz devotee. With all that said, I think there are many ways to interrupt the art. That, in my mind, is what makes it art. For now, I am going to interrupt it as, “will he be crucified for someone else’s sins?” "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I actually understand, Denise. Your argument, however, is with the artist, not with the subject the artist chose. It could just as easily have been you or me wearing that symbolic crown of thorns in his painting. Maybe you would have denounced the artist? I'm fairly certain I would have just ignored him, unwilling to give him any more press than he's already getting. In neither case, do I believe you or I would have been culpable for another's poor taste. That you chose to target Obama instead of the artist probably says something, Denise. You might want to think about what? And why? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Susan, do you do consulting work with the Department of Homeland Security? You're right, Ron, my problem is with the artist. I commented on Obama because this isn't the first messianic depiction of him, which we first saw during his campaign, of which I am sure he must be aware, and I think that he should denounce such depictions as inappropriate, given that he professes to be a Christian. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Just because Homeland Security may have taken the meaning a bit far doesn't mean everyone feels that way. Look at the word "Christian" for example. And, just because I feel conservative about one thing doesn't mean I feel conservative about everything and visa versa. To me, a fanatic has tunnel vision. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: While I think that would be a mistake. Giving the artist the attention he obviously wants would only be rewarding him. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
"D'Antuono insists that this piece is a mirror; reflecting the personal opinions and emotions of the viewer; that "The Truth" like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. D'Antuono expects that individual interpretations will vary as widely as they do in the political arena." I think it worked perfectly. The artist should be congratulated. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess I don't understand your implications regarding the word "Christian", Susan. You'll have to spell it out for me. As far as people's opinions that are expressed, I wouldn't say that anything "insults" me. I can handle a wide range of opinions without being insulted. These messianic depictions of Obama, though, do insult me, because to me, they are blasphemous. I'm a conservative, politically and socially. In that I am consistent. If you label me as a fanatic because of that, then so be it. You're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps there is some sort of sliding scale upon which fanaticism is determined of which I am unaware that you would care to share? Normally I would agree, Ron, but it's happened too many times now, the attention is already on them, and I think if he even hinted that he thought they were inappropriate, "artists" might focus their creative energies into something a little less offensive to so many people. I don't think the artist deserves to be congratulated, Grinch. He suceeded in offending a large segment of the population, which I'm sure was part of the "emotional" response he was seeking. He doesn't deserve accolades for that, in my opinion. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: In my opinion he does. You see it as offensive, I see it as a very clever, well thought out and executed piece of art. If it was a poem, and I were a poet, I’d be extremely jealous of the skill level required to produce something that could elicit such diametrically opposed opinions. Which of course is exactly what the artist intended. He succeeded spectacularly and deserves to be congratulated on that success. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Do you really think there's a shortage of polarizing subjects, Grinch? Picking such a subject, it seems to me, is by and large the extent of the artist's skill. He could have depicted any human being as a caricature of Christ and received virtually the same reaction. I don't think this is much different than the Islamic cartoons from a few years back. Less explosive, I would hope, but no less insulting to a great many people. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Fifty years ago, my peers would have been satisfied with, "Your momma wears combat boots." Different targets, same affronts. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Your comments on his place of birth versus the place where his birth was registered reflect on the honesty of his parents, don't they? Apparently you haven't reflected on the meaning of your accusations about his place of birth, and his religion and the silence of his parents about these things, have you? Have you been more concerned with what raising these issues might do to his candidacy than with what they meant about his family? My dear Denise, can you be telling me this never occurred to you? If this is what you say, then I find I must believe you, but I will say that I'm stunned to find out that this is the case. Your charges of blasphemy are a bit on the breathtaking side as well. You may not be aware that in its original meaning blasphemy was a word used to describe making charges against people or things with reputation. You would qualify for a good portion of your postings. In the more modern use of the word, it puts you in the company of those who issue fatwas. Blasphemy was the reason for fatwas issued against danish cartoonists and Salman Rushdi, among others. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-27-2009 06:41 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No, but is there a better subject that’s as universally dividing? Picking the subject though is easy, the skill is playing to both sides of the polar division as the artist has done with the crown of thorns, the opening curtain\crucifix motif and even the planned setting – a replication of a poll booth. You look at the candidate and your predefined perception colours your interpretation, he’s either a saint or a sinner. The artist hasn’t created the offence felt by Denise or the awe felt by an Obama groupie – they create their own “truth” - the artist is simply saying that awe and offence are in the eye of the beholder when looking at the same thing. It’s nothing like the Islamic cartoons in my opinion Ron, they were one-dimensional blatant attacks for cheap laughs. The perception of them wasn’t polarised it was asymmetrically weighted towards condemnation. This painting however is a very carefully constructed work, designed specifically to walk a perfect line between two extremes with multiple symbols that emphasise and enforce both interpretations. The artist has, in my opinion, given equal weight to both possible interpretations and would necessarily have had to remain an impartial observer divorced from both for it to work. Then again he might just be a Democratic Atheist.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I again point out that nobody has actually seen the work in question. We are quarreling about the idea of a picture of an image of part of a piece of installation art taken out of context. That would be at how many removes from the thing itself? We are not even talking about the art itself, we are wavering between talking about this removed abstraction that may have something to do with the art and may not, and the potential flaws of President Obama for NOT reacting to it. Any reaction he gives will inflate the response of those who wish to pick a fight about the President, even no reaction at all. As you can see, they can get upset about something he didn't do and blame him for it. I suppose it is refreshing after the last administration, when there were so very many things that were happening that were assaults on our personal liberties and on the safety and peace of the nation, that getting upset about nothing is a relief. Is the artist getting Federal funds? Does the artist have Freedom of Speech? Is the artist likely to be able to sell the work, should he wish to do so? As a Republican, do you really want to be in the business of censoring privately produced works of art or is that not the Business of Government, even if you don't like the religious stance that you believe the artist is taking without having seen the piece in question. The man is asking a religious question, at least potentially. Are you sure you want to get in the way of somebody doing that, knowing that that leaves your religion open to the same governmental sanction and interference? Is that really in your own enlightened self interest? Is it in the interest of your religion? Is it in the interest of the country? You might also note that the Artist's stated intention of supplying a mirror for the viewers seems to have been accomplished, even at this many removes; as such, you might well think of it as a successful piece of art, if you think of memesis as one of the functions of art. Yours, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-28-2009 03:13 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It wasn’t necessary for the thought to cross my mind, Bob. The issuance of a “Certification of Live Birth” (which is what was posted on the internet on Obama’s site, MoveOn’s site and FactCheck’s site) in Hawaii for those born in foreign countries to parents who were Hawaiian Residents was not illegal, but actually something that Hawaii allowed, so I don’t see how I am disparaging his parents. A “Certificate of Birth” could only be issued for those actually born in Hawaii. THAT is what he can’t or won’t produce, and has lawyers fighting the release of the Long Form Birth Certificate in the vault in Hawaii, which would list the actual place of birth (hospital, location and doctor's name), as well as his school records, passport records, etc. His parents have no choice but to be silent as they are both deceased, to the best of my knowledge. I think you can safely assume that I am using the present common understanding of the word blasphemy. If you want to describe my expression as a fatwa, be my guest. I have no problem with a fatwa as long as there is no violence or threat of violence attached to it, unlike the two references you provided. I’m not calling for censorship. I’m am just voicing my displeasure with it. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
