Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Pseudo Sane, Feb 13, 2018.
There was a bit of a scandal with that one supposedly...
And Yahoo comments on these portraits going to Yahoo comments. Just your typical anti Obamas invective.
Anyways, the paintings are meh. Anyone catch Michelle's? Looks absolutely nothing like her.
Shit artist. Probably traced Barry's and freehanded Michelle's.
I know it's not relevant today, but John Sinclair - who was the manager of the protopunk bands MC5, Iggy Pop and the Stooges, my dad's band the Up and a self proclaimed communist revolutionary in the late 60's - was busted with two joints, and was sentenced to 10 years.
John Lennon, Stevie Wonder, my dad's band and some others organized a concert/event called "Ten for Two", and Sinclair was eventually released due to national coverage.
(my dad's band is in the beginning, he's on drums )
Just gonna point out that the first set of responses (and a number of others) you got were the kind of shit the original thread was deliberately trying to stir up.
Anyways, I like Ruprecht's idea.
Conservative tears flowing hard in this thread. It's a painting of a guy sitting in a chair. Chill.
Yes the per-capita Black on White crime is higher than vice versa, but the vast majority of crimes against Whites is by other Whites and the vast majority of crimes against Blacks is by other Blacks. The Black-on-White crime isn't a deliberate concerted organized effort to target Whites, unlike slavery was a deliberate institutional effort against Blacks. There is also no religious ideology within Blacks that instructs them to target Whites. Individual Black criminals target people who happen to be White at rates higher than Whites criminals targeting people who happen to be Black because there are far more Whites, so the odds of a criminal targeting a White person is just higher. And they (Whites) are much wealthier than Blacks.
Going back to the issue of Christianity being a White religion: Western society never consciously / overtly acknowledges their religion implicitly states god and his messenger are White. Which wouldn't be an issue since most cultures tend to make up religions that represent themselves, but Christianity came from the MidEast, not Europe. If it had come from China or Sub-Saharan Africa or MesoAmerica, it would not be something White people would believe in because the central figures in the religion would be very racially alien. Near Eastern people, while being different to Europeans, are still racially Caucasoid, so White people do not have a problem with the religion. But White people also demanded Blacks and Native Americans accept this religion. Since the contentious issue with this painter is his metaphorical depiction of a Biblical narrative, I thought I would point out how Christianity is, for all intents and purposes, a White or Caucasoid religion by origin; and one that was forcefully imposed on Black people. This painter is just giving it a counter-cultural spin.
I like the paintings and understand that artists often create controversy intentionally, as that can add impact to the work. None of the paintings offends me, or makes me uncomfortable, and the depiction of violence wouldn't even stand out to me in a gallery or museum. The response here seems to be more stance seeking a topic than an honest response to the work itself.
Is that the controversy that you gathered from reading the OP? That people are upset that Obama is in a chair?
Did you read any other part of the thread? Because he said "thread"
They're attacking the artist, which is fine. Accusing the Obama's of racism is retarded because of the artist chosen. This is what people find important?
I did. I guess I missed the posts where people were upset that Obama was painted sitting in a chair.
It's painting and u talking about crime and religion..
Man you bitches are sooooo triggered... lol
I'm not a Professional but look at his hands, his right hand is elongated and bigger then his left. Looks horrible and awkward .
Taking a dump in poison ivy?
Poor Michele look white
I thought they were doing performance art piece.called "impotent rage in purple" I was misinformed , I'm gonna collect the tears and bathe publicly in front of the louvre
I was responding to a poster who brought up race and how it applies to this situation. I didn't innitiate the 'triggered' response.
The weird or problematic part of Barack's portrait is his left hand seems to indicate he has 6 fingers. Don't know what that is about.
I prefer Obama's although the edge of the seat posture is a bit weird, and not how I've seen him sit usually (either leant forwards with his legs wide and hands clasped between them, or leaning back, relaxed with his legs crossed). The most striking thing by far is the surreal ivy background.
Michelle's painting doesn't look anything like her.
I like Obama's.
I also like the two in the OP.
I just like art, and a lot of my tastes in the art world would be crtiqued as amateurish. I like raw, gritty, unfinished looking pieces.
Refinement and an aesthetic that screams technical mastery is awesome, for sure. But I like raw emotion laid out on a canvas more, even in the absence of mastery of the craft.
Separate names with a comma.