Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Pseudo Sane, Feb 13, 2018.
It's a Near Eastern religion, mostly Jewish. Jews are considered White.
I have to agree it's not presidential, he was the first black president, he needed something iconic and epic not something that looks like it was made by some graphic designer. And Michelle's painting doesn't even look like her! JFK's is an amazing work of art that dared to be different from what is the norm and it worked wonderfully. Obamas didn't.
A Jewish-American painter that was arrested for protesting the KKK and depicted them as obviously evil bastards?
Of course people would question Trump's motives if he hung this painting up, because they wouldn't trust that he understood it was criticism.
Ok, seriously, that’s sperm on Obama’s head.
I actually feel bad for him.
The guy who “painted” the portrait has a history of adding semen into his works of art.....so yeah
Now there’s a dick too hahahaha
Have you seen these things called films? There's this young guy named Edison......
smh lol what a fail
Well, the Obama's continue to be racial divisive even out of office. That's to be expected.
Mountains out of mole hills people.
Now the right is outraged by a little bit of sperm. Unbelievable. First ever black artist painting the first ever black president and the right just has to find something wrong with it.
This is modern art and nothing else. In my opinion it's great that the LGBT community and other minorities are no longer afraid to put their artwork out on the market
thats why trump gets a pass from the right for letting all kinds of controversial figures in his administration.
"nothing to see here folks move along.."
There is a difference here. These paintings aren't racist but the Trump administration clearly is.
Before Sherdog and the internet , Artists including painters used to troll the world.
The blood looks rushed. I'm feeling a decent 9.5/10. /Pubtony Ventano.
With today's current racial tensions, I think we all can agree if a white artist created multiple paintings of white women swinging around the decapitated heads of black women, it would have been accepted as 'not racist' with the same praise to the artist as this fine gentlemen.
Said a Danish cartoonist once upon a time.....
The first black president has cum on his face bro. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the cum, on his face, in his presidential portrait. That’s not ok.
Does Obama legit have bro-batter on his forehead?
Maybe this is more your speed? Pick your fave.
Gentileschi (a female painter, incidentally, for those who care. circa 1614-1620)
Rubens (circa 1616)
Caravaggio (again! maybe. circa 1600-1610)
Valentin de Boulogne (circa 1626)
PS I know that there may be some nip showing on one, but I figure it should get a pass on account of it being a goddamn Rubens. If not, I humbly request that a mod just remove it and show clemency.
Anyway, I post these just to give a view of how the subject was treated in some of the best works by the greatest artists of the 1600s. Bear in mind that Wiley explicitly states that he was inspired by the works of Caravaggio and Gentileschi, so it is not unfair to compare him to them; Wiley himself invites the comparison.
Honestly, I would respect Wiley more if he had made Judith a black woman and kept Holofernes as a white man; if he did that, he would at least have been engaging with the story itself on a more than superficial level.
Instead, we got this:
I can't look at either of those two paintings now without picturing it as a white chick poking her head through an old lady's curtains and getting her hair tugged by a black woman, especially given the awkward neck angle on the first painting; there isn't even any blood. The women are posed like clothing models, because that is what they are, because they are there to make Givenchy dresses look good.
I remain convinced that Wiley, on a fundamental level, isn't saying anything with these pieces, beyond what a viewer projects onto it. He does almost exactly the same thing in every composition: black model, ambiguous expression, pose from a more famous painting, colourful patterned background, part of the pattern obscures the figure in the foreground. The message is the same, his work is constantly rehashed, and it is fundamentally boring and safe, because the message is that you should buy his shit because he puts black people in art, and they weren't (!) in art before.
Separate names with a comma.