bytor2112 Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Some people are just warped??I am sure even Obama thinks this is just a bit much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Am I missing something or is there a point somewhere in here? As far as I can tell, that's just some random art you felt like posting here. Perhaps some context would help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Umm... I have to go with DigitalShadow here, bytor- what on earth is the context of this? Yes, the depiction is repugnant and vile, but... what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Artist Michael D'Antuono's painting "The Truth" – featuring Obama with his arms outstretched and wearing a crown of thorns upon his head – will be unveiled on April 29 at the Square's South Plaza. A bit more here..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwen Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 i hope obama is offended and that he takes action against the artist.... there has got to be something about using someone's likeness inappropriately..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Are you posting this because you are outraged? I think it is a very interesting piece, obviously it is meant to create a response in the viewer, but that response varies depending on your pre-existing views. Personally when I first saw it (colored by the fact that you posted it), I thought it was another Obama/dem criticism making fun of the fact that some people seem to think of him as a messiah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 i hope obama is offended and that he takes action against the artist.... there has got to be something about using someone's likeness inappropriately.....People get offended way too easily. When using vague Christian symbolism in art is enough to have someone take legal action against you, we will have truly lost our freedom in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) Are you posting this because you are outraged? I think it is a very interesting piece, obviously it is meant to create a response in the viewer, but that response varies depending on your pre-existing views. Personally when I first saw it (colored by the fact that you posted it), I thought it was another Obama/dem criticism making fun of the fact that some people seem to think of him as a messiah.DS,I post things that I find interesting...they are not necessarily endorsed as my opinion...just more of.....check it out and what do you think. That includes this post. I am not surprised by this painting....I find it disgusting and tend to think Obama would as well. It is not a criticism of Obama or Democrats....I could post much more serious indictments of the President and the Democrats than a sacreligious painting ....and the Republicans as well for that matter. Edited April 27, 2009 by bytor2112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (colored by the fact that you posted it)Now this really hurts..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) how is this different than the political cartoons of the early 1900's? I don't personally like the piece. I think it is rather ridiculous if it is meant literally.....or perhaps the artist is trying to say that Obama's fans have gone too far in their overblown evaluation of his character and his abilities. If that is the case, I just might have to agree with the sentiment. Edited April 27, 2009 by Misshalfway punctuation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I post things that I find interesting...they are not necessarily endorsed as my opinion...just more of.....check it out and what do you think. That includes this post. I am not surprised by this painting....I find it disgusting and tend to think Obama would as well. It is not a criticism of Obama or Democrats....I could post much more serious indictments of the President and the Democrats than a sacreligious painting ....and the Republicans as well for that matter. I would agree that Obama probably finds it distasteful or at least as a politician he would have to say something to placate the outraged Christians. I also think it is your right to find it disgusting and the artists right to express himself even though that expression might disgust some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Now this really hurts.....What? Didn't you know I come to the Current Events forum to get the latest anti-Obama news from you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwen Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 People get offended way too easily. When using vague Christian symbolism in art is enough to have someone take legal action against you, we will have truly lost our freedom in the US.i won't lose any sleep over it. i personally wouldn't take legal action and think no one but obama has that right. if someone painted my picture like that for any reason i would be offended and would consider legal action. they may have the right to paint an offensive picture they do not have the right to use my likeness (recognisably meant to be me) without my permission. and they do not have the right to use obama's without his permission. i understand my reaction is an over reaction and that's fine, i know nothing will be done, and no one will ever paint me as anyones savior so in the end it's just my opinion and meaningless. like i said i won't be losing any sleep over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elgama Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 surely its just intended to point out how the author see's Obama is he the saviour or destroyer of the US - most people seem to see him one way or the other, I never hear middle ground but maybe thats because of not living there -Charley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) i won't lose any sleep over it. i personally wouldn't take legal action and think no one but obama has that right. if someone painted my picture like that for any reason i would be offended and would consider legal action. they may have the right to paint an offensive picture they do not have the right to use my likeness (recognisably meant to be me) without my permission. and they do not have the right to use obama's without his permission. i understand my reaction is an over reaction and that's fine, i know nothing will be done, and no one will ever paint me as anyones savior so in the end it's just my opinion and meaningless. like i said i won't be losing any sleep over it.It's art and he's a public figure. Should politicians start suing political cartoonists for portraying them unfavorably or do you think each cartoonist writes to get permission before making fun of someone? I'm no lawyer, but people use other people's likenesses for what could be considered offensive material all the time and nothing happens, so I doubt there is legal precedence for taking action in a situation like this. To me this is a free speech issue and while I understand that people (including Obama) might be offended, I don't think the artist did anything wrong or should be punished. Edited April 27, 2009 by DigitalShadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 To me this is a free speech issue and while I understand that people (including Obama) might be offended, I don't think the artist did anything wrong or should be punished.If he did something wrong, then he should be punished- by people boycotting his product. Leave the government out of it.I don't quite get what to make of it. It seems the artist has carefully crafted this painting to make the real meaning purposely ambiguous (if it has a 'real meaning' at all):The 30" x 54" acrylic painting on canvas depicts President Obama appearing much like Jesus Christ on the Cross; atop his head, a crown of thorns. Behind him, the dark veil being lifted (or lowered) on the Presidential Seal. But is he revealing or concealing and is he being crucified or glorified?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. The work will be seen by one viewer at a time behind a voting booth-inspired public installation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 If he did something wrong, then he should be punished- by people boycotting his product. Leave the government out of it.I agree completely.I don't quite get what to make of it. It seems the artist has carefully crafted this painting to make the real meaning purposely ambiguous (if it has a 'real meaning' at all):I think the point is that it doesn't have a 'real' meaning. It is not about the artist trying to convey a specific viewpoint to you, it is simply showing you your own pre-existing biases. That's just my take on it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I think the point is that it doesn't have a 'real' meaning. It is not about the artist trying to convey a specific viewpoint to you, it is simply showing you your own pre-existing biases. That's just my take on it though.Well, if that's his point, IMO he does a very shoddy job- using pre-existing theological symbolism will automatically initiate some sort of predisposed reaction to the painting. I think this shows just as much a person's reaction to Christianity- if they are familiar with the underlying symbolism- as much as a person's reaction to Obama (or a person's reaction to others' reactions to Obama). Of course, like the article points out, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"- I guess the painting's title is implicitly claiming that truth is, too.I never liked relativism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Well, if that's his point, IMO he does a very shoddy job- using pre-existing theological symbolism will automatically initiate some sort of predisposed reaction to the painting. I think this shows just as much a person's reaction to Christianity- if they are familiar with the underlying symbolism- as much as a person's reaction to Obama (or a person's reaction to others' reactions to Obama). Of course, like the article points out, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"- I guess the painting's title is implicitly claiming that truth is, too.I never liked relativism.Which part of the painting you react to may also intentionally be part of the 'mirror' effect the artist claimed he was going for. I don't know, I've always sucked at interpreting artistic things, maybe I'll ask my wife what she thinks later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwen Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 i understand he's a public figure and all that jazz. i did see a report, many yrs ago so my memory may be a bit foggy on it, but it was about a woman that trained pigs. she was in a pool swimming with one and someone driving past took a picture. the angle of the pic and the reflection on the water you could clearly see her face but not that she was wearing a swim suit. which wouldn't necessarily be a problem but a porn magazine got hold of it and printed it. due to the magazine it was in and the way the pic came out there was an underlying assumption that she was swimming nude with her pig. she only knew it was out there cause someone that subscribed to the magazine recognized her and commented about... when she was confused they showed her. she took legal action against the magazine. my only point is there are some situations where ppl do not have the right to use your likeness to misrepresent you. they have to have your permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I won't be buying a print any time soon, it is kinda interesting though. One could take it as a comment about various people's Messiah complex concerning him or it could be a comment on some people's (different ones) insistence to nail him to the wall so to speak. Or it could be neither. *Cue X-files theme* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 i understand he's a public figure and all that jazz. i did see a report, many yrs ago so my memory may be a bit foggy on it, but it was about a woman that trained pigs. she was in a pool swimming with one and someone driving past took a picture. the angle of the pic and the reflection on the water you could clearly see her face but not that she was wearing a swim suit. which wouldn't necessarily be a problem but a porn magazine got hold of it and printed it. due to the magazine it was in and the way the pic came out there was an underlying assumption that she was swimming nude with her pig. she only knew it was out there cause someone that subscribed to the magazine recognized her and commented about... when she was confused they showed her. she took legal action against the magazine. my only point is there are some situations where ppl do not have the right to use your likeness to misrepresent you. they have to have your permission.I get what you're saying, but I also think that a photo is far different from a painting or a drawing and using a photo without permission is MUCH different from a painting a picture of someone without permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Good artists always suffer. The best artists produce stuff that makes other people suffer. LM (not a fan of art) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.