Update on the painting of the Obamessiah:
from Michael D'Antuono, the painter of the piece:
"The idea of the piece, or the reaction that I'd hoped for, was to highlight our nation's deep partisan divide and how our interpretation of the truth is really prejudiced by our political perspective and I think that to a large degree we are being manipulated by the media. I miss the old day when we just have the facts. Now we have pundits and spin and strategists.
I just thought that through that painting people would see different things. The right and the left would have different interpretations of it based on their political lens. But I have to admit I was very surprised that instead of that I got thousands of email complaining on the religious front. And that was not my intent at all. I wanted to create a dialog politically but not religiously. I didn't mean to make fun of anybody's religion; maybe I did so naively but I didn't mean it that way. In the bible Jesus is The Truth and comparing Obama that way isn't something I meant to do at all.
Apparently, I've upset a lot of people. And I've decided that's not what I wanted to do and I'm not going to display it in the park on Wednesday ... art is meant to be somewhat provocative but the religious element went way farther than I had anticipated."
OK. . .first, I'm very glad that people let this guy know what they thought about his painting. Second, though I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that he didn't know what he was doing when he chose the crucifixion as his model. Third, I am amazed at his thoughtful response to the public's criticism. Normally, artists long for the sort of public ridicule that this sort of painting receives. Great for publicity. Great for the artist's self-delusion that they are "cutting-edge." Great for raising one's creds in the art world as a self-anointed martyr.
Question: should he have withdrawn the painting from exhibition?
from Michael D'Antuono, the painter of the piece:
"The idea of the piece, or the reaction that I'd hoped for, was to highlight our nation's deep partisan divide and how our interpretation of the truth is really prejudiced by our political perspective and I think that to a large degree we are being manipulated by the media. I miss the old day when we just have the facts. Now we have pundits and spin and strategists.
I just thought that through that painting people would see different things. The right and the left would have different interpretations of it based on their political lens. But I have to admit I was very surprised that instead of that I got thousands of email complaining on the religious front. And that was not my intent at all. I wanted to create a dialog politically but not religiously. I didn't mean to make fun of anybody's religion; maybe I did so naively but I didn't mean it that way. In the bible Jesus is The Truth and comparing Obama that way isn't something I meant to do at all.
Apparently, I've upset a lot of people. And I've decided that's not what I wanted to do and I'm not going to display it in the park on Wednesday ... art is meant to be somewhat provocative but the religious element went way farther than I had anticipated."
OK. . .first, I'm very glad that people let this guy know what they thought about his painting. Second, though I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that he didn't know what he was doing when he chose the crucifixion as his model. Third, I am amazed at his thoughtful response to the public's criticism. Normally, artists long for the sort of public ridicule that this sort of painting receives. Great for publicity. Great for the artist's self-delusion that they are "cutting-edge." Great for raising one's creds in the art world as a self-anointed martyr.
Question: should he have withdrawn the painting from exhibition?
Well I'm glad he's not displaying it. And I think that was the right thing to do in a polite and decent world. In the world of artists these days, it will certainly be judged as the wrong choice.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that he is either completely disingenuous or actual more likely so completely uninformed about Christianity that incredibly he didn't 'understand' that the crucifixion is the central symbol of Christianity.
uh, if he didn't mean it to have religious impact...uh...well....WHAT'S WITH THE CROWN OF THORNS?????????!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's nice that he's withdrawing the painting. But I think the "apology" is a crock of....poop. --they call it PR for if he ever wants to put his name on another painting again....
and Paul, you're entirely too nice. What rock do you propose this guy grew up under?? I mean it. remove the crown of thorns and yeah, I could go with the unintentional similarity crap.
But!
From the painter's website: Can you handle the truth? Michael D'Antuono will unveil his highly controversial painting "THE TRUTH" on President Obama's 100th day in office at NYC's Union Square South Plaza. More than a presidentail(sic) portrait, "The Truth" is a politically, religiously and socially- charged statement on our nation's current political climate and deep partisan divide that is sure to create a dialogue.As naïve as he makes out? Or did some of his clients complain?
ReplyDeleteHis background is as a commercial artist and his current style cultivates a 40's noir-ish sensibility. Probbaly appeals to the sort of people who like Lempicka and Vettriano. Has been purchased by Arnold Schwarzenegger. 'Nuff said.
I may not find the right arrangement of words here to say what I mean, but - allowing him the dullness of thought he claims, combined with his talent and high profile, I suspect his is a designated role to further widen the 'divide,' by cementing individual and collective conviction. A puppet. Whether for or against him or his painting, or merely leaning one or the other direction or even if one is just plain lost in the 'divide,' thoughtful or reflexive reaction to something inane, is formative. His own strategy at any stage of this, is inconsequential in terms of the big picture.
ReplyDeleteWithdrawing the painting from exhibition shows someone got their weiner slapped good and hard. His CYA excuses ring kind of hollow. IMO the painter and whoever else is associated with this discovered a LOT of people are not amused.
ReplyDeleteMy question: Is this indicative of John Q. Public's sense of outrage awakening after a long slumber? After all, Serrano's "Piss Christ" was much more offensive and fairly recent yet was shown regardless of all objections. Did the fan overload on stinky brown material this time?
"The idea of the piece, or the reaction that I'd hoped for, was to highlight our nation's deep partisan divide and how our interpretation of the truth is really prejudiced by our political perspective...I just thought that through that painting people would see different things. The right and the left would have different interpretations of it based on their political lens. But I have to admit I was very surprised that instead of that I got thousands of email complaining on the religious front."Sounds like the typical "blah, blah, blah" of artists who try to make social statements. Just once I wish one of these guys (who always assume they're more open-minded than the common herd of men) who accuse other of looking through lenses would look in a mirror to see what color glasses they are wearing. He's surprised that he offend people of faith with a picture like that!
ReplyDeleteMy take on this, for what it's worth, is that the author's statement, "In the bible Jesus is The Truth and comparing Obama that way isn't something I meant to do at all.", is a bunch of hooey. However, I am inclined to believe this statement:
ReplyDelete"I wanted to create a dialog politically but not religiously. I didn't mean to make fun of anybody's religion"My first thought about the painting was that it focuses on the public's view of Obama, either on the Far Left as a 'secular messiah' or on the Far Right as an anti-Christ. I don't think the painting takes a stand either way, or at least, if it does, it leaves the viewer the option to interpret it either way. I see it as a juxtaposition of viewpoints, almost like that one drawing where if viewed from one angle it's an old woman, but viewed from a different one, it's a young woman. This may or may not have been the artist's intent, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It is clear he intended the association of Obama with Jesus . . . it is supposed to be, inter alia, a religiously charged image. I don't think he is surprised that people made a religious connection, but he is surprised that some people took the religious association seriously, i.e., religiously. I think he is honestly surprised that some people view images of Jesus as sacred and deserving of respect, or of public personalities in the likeness of Jesus as disrespectful. One might be equally dismayed at an outcry over depicting - I don't know - Ted Turner as Hermes or (forgive the mental image) Nancy Pelosi as Venus rising from the sea. One would be dismayed simply because there are no Olympianists any more. I think for the artist and his clique, Jesus and his images have migrated into the grab bag of cultural types of a post-Christian culture. Meaningful, but not meaningful.
ReplyDeleteI thought the painting should not have been withdrawn . . . let people react to real or imagined messianic ambitions of a politician; this would highlight a social background which does not consider the messianic to be alien to the political. Needless-to-say, this would not have been the artists intent, but an interesting statement nonetheless.
Once again, the "I'm just trying to start a dialog" excuse is offered. You can get away with just about anything with it. I anticipate a day when someone randomly shoots people on the quad and says he was just trying to start a dialog on violence in America.
ReplyDeleteBible is spelled with a capital "B". Let's not make God human and humans gods. Be more careful and honoring in the future.
ReplyDelete