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Question: should he have withdrawn the painting from exhibition?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?
