Taken in isolation, this painting could be interpreted as an artistic depiction of the abuse the Governor Palin has received from multiple quarters. After looking at the site where this appears .. not so much. Perhaps the painting illustrates an aspiration of a lost soul who put color to canvas.
Same old shots, same old targets, and probably half of it done on government grants. I thought artists were supposed to have a little courage or imagination, but apparently that's not in the job description anymore. At least a few of them can draw.
And no one on the left - or in the White House - will bat an eye because artistically crucifying someone you disagree with on the right is First Amendment freedom of expression.
Seriously though, the other poster upthread is right. I wonder if someone here got a grant from Helecopter Ben and his band of Reichsmark Printers?
This is par for the course from the Left, however. After all, as Bush has left the scene, the Left needed a replacement for the role of Emmanuel Goldstein. Sarah fits the bill, apparently.
Give her props, however. At least Palin hasn't been awarded the kind of hagiographic garbage and Socialist Realist Posters that accorded the Assumption of Dear Leader in 2008.
I'd be real disappointed in Shephard Fairey had plagiarized someone's photo to do an art poster of Sarah, after all!
Actually, yes, that is what freedom of expression is about so I'm not sure what your point is or if you have one. No ideology, left or right, should impose restrictions on such freedom regardless of whether you disagree with their viewpoint or artistic talent. Perhaps you believe there should be some Taliban-like censorship?
I was compelled to create a visual commentary of her political rhetoric and its effects on my artist's blog at External Link Drop by and let me know what you think.
The painting is crude, sophomoric, despicable and lacking in any artistic merit.
At the same time, I wait for the predictable "this is emblematic of the entire left and the problem with any federal funding of the leftist arts" comments; they'll be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The caricatures of Obama and other Democrats gracing the cover of the National Review snd Tea Party posters aren't quite so distasteful, but they're close to being as offensive.
If I understand Ms. Lopez' comment, she's implying that Mrs. Palin's depicted sufferings are comparable to those of Jesus Christ. Really? Assuming the historical Christ existed and was crucified, he suffered more than being in a painting. Equating Mrs. Palin with Jesus Christ is ludicrous.
I should also add that Ms. Jean-Lopez should have better judgment than to label this post with a reference to a phrase historically associated (until very recently) with the murder of Jews for imagined crimes against Christians. Just because Mrs. Palin misused the phrase doesn't mean you should do the same.
@ Hughman: Yes, I do have a point, but if you didn't get it from what I posted, explaining it to you won't help. However, I will give you a hint. It didn't have anything to do with the First Amendment.
I'd be more impressed with the artist if he'd shown Mohammad having his palms pierced. But, hey, I'll bet the painter knows he'd then have to hide in a closet for the rest of his life or be assassinated.
*Sigh* "Artistic fearlessness" is always so much more fun when you know you won't get beheaded for displaying it.
Hi Hugh, Jenna is right, leftists will take propaganda assistance wherever they can get it, no matter how unfair or tasteless it might be. For me, I am glad for these types of attacks on Palin: they only make her supporters that much more determined.
Where are all the folks who made such a fuss about that Florida preacher who pondered burning the Koran, and in the end, I believe, thought better of it?
Even more importantly, where are all the liberals protesting the continuing murder of Christians in Muslim countries all around the world?
C.S. Lewis spoke of 'muscular Christianity' (and no, he did not mean 'violent.') The only place I see 'muscular Christianity' these days is among the African Anglican primates.
Not to mention that Christians run away from that sort of parallel like crazy. Peter asked to be crucified upside down because he didn't deem himself worthy to die like his Master.
Jesus may have seen worse, but after clicking on that link, I’m not sure that I have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRejoice and be glad for your reward in heaven is great.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTaken in isolation, this painting could be interpreted as an artistic depiction of the abuse the Governor Palin has received from multiple quarters. After looking at the site where this appears .. not so much. Perhaps the painting illustrates an aspiration of a lost soul who put color to canvas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSame old shots, same old targets, and probably half of it done on government grants. I thought artists were supposed to have a little courage or imagination, but apparently that's not in the job description anymore. At least a few of them can draw.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it slobbering obsession that's the sincerest form of flattery?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd no one on the left - or in the White House - will bat an eye because artistically crucifying someone you disagree with on the right is First Amendment freedom of expression.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI eagerly await the gallery's similar exhibt on Mohammed
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously though, the other poster upthread is right. I wonder if someone here got a grant from Helecopter Ben and his band of Reichsmark Printers?
This is par for the course from the Left, however. After all, as Bush has left the scene, the Left needed a replacement for the role of Emmanuel Goldstein. Sarah fits the bill, apparently.
Give her props, however. At least Palin hasn't been awarded the kind of hagiographic garbage and Socialist Realist Posters that accorded the Assumption of Dear Leader in 2008.
I'd be real disappointed in Shephard Fairey had plagiarized someone's photo to do an art poster of Sarah, after all!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jenna
Actually, yes, that is what freedom of expression is about so I'm not sure what your point is or if you have one. No ideology, left or right, should impose restrictions on such freedom regardless of whether you disagree with their viewpoint or artistic talent. Perhaps you believe there should be some Taliban-like censorship?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was compelled to create a visual commentary of her political rhetoric and its effects on my artist's blog at External Link
Drop by and let me know what you think.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI get the "artistic value" But is this exhibit federally funded?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe painting is crude, sophomoric, despicable and lacking in any artistic merit.
At the same time, I wait for the predictable "this is emblematic of the entire left and the problem with any federal funding of the leftist arts" comments; they'll be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The caricatures of Obama and other Democrats gracing the cover of the National Review snd Tea Party posters aren't quite so distasteful, but they're close to being as offensive.
If I understand Ms. Lopez' comment, she's implying that Mrs. Palin's depicted sufferings are comparable to those of Jesus Christ. Really? Assuming the historical Christ existed and was crucified, he suffered more than being in a painting. Equating Mrs. Palin with Jesus Christ is ludicrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI should also add that Ms. Jean-Lopez should have better judgment than to label this post with a reference to a phrase historically associated (until very recently) with the murder of Jews for imagined crimes against Christians. Just because Mrs. Palin misused the phrase doesn't mean you should do the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Hughman: Yes, I do have a point, but if you didn't get it from what I posted, explaining it to you won't help. However, I will give you a hint. It didn't have anything to do with the First Amendment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be more impressed with the artist if he'd shown Mohammad having his palms pierced. But, hey, I'll bet the painter knows he'd then have to hide in a closet for the rest of his life or be assassinated.
*Sigh* "Artistic fearlessness" is always so much more fun when you know you won't get beheaded for displaying it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHi Hugh, Jenna is right, leftists will take propaganda assistance wherever they can get it, no matter how unfair or tasteless it might be. For me, I am glad for these types of attacks on Palin: they only make her supporters that much more determined.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClassy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere are all the folks who made such a fuss about that Florida preacher who pondered burning the Koran, and in the end, I believe, thought better of it?
Even more importantly, where are all the liberals protesting the continuing murder of Christians in Muslim countries all around the world?
C.S. Lewis spoke of 'muscular Christianity' (and no, he did not mean 'violent.') The only place I see 'muscular Christianity' these days is among the African Anglican primates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSick. Just sick.
Not to mention that Christians run away from that sort of parallel like crazy. Peter asked to be crucified upside down because he didn't deem himself worthy to die like his Master.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse