I’m an American, and I’m not insulted by it.
Ah, but she did with Albert.
When told by her Physician that she should abstain for a period of time, she complained, “But I can’t have any fun?”
If I may digress, do you think guys painted breasts like that in the eighteenth century because they had never seen one in the light of day?
We’re talking about French people!
And I’m pretty sure that the artist had a couple of her own.
Magazine recalls in the U.S.:
In early 1970’s, Volkswagen ran a series of ads showing a VW Bug floating on water – to show how well-sealed they are.
In 1972 or 1973, National Lampoon ran a mock ad showing a floating VW Bug with the caption: “If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen, he’d be President today.” (Scroll down about 3 pages to see it, along with some explanatory text.)
IIRC, the outrage was such that they pulled that off the shelves real quick, like within a day or two. (The lawsuit from Volkswagen might also have been a motivating factor.)
According to this link, they also ran an apology that said: “Even if Ted Kennedy had driven a Volkswagen he wouldn’t be president today.”
Ah yes, the Champagne people.
So why did even women artists paint them conical instead of sloped?
That’s pretty much how she looks in my dreams. How did they know?
I vote not offensive.
Its not Michelle Obama as a slave, its Michelle Obama as an emancipated slave. I actually like the message, though the execution looks like crap. They could’ve spent a little more time making it actually look like the original painting.
The original painting is more attractive, though. 
Because that’s how some women’s breasts are shaped, and an artist can paint any shape s/he likes.
I’m sorry, but I can’t comprehend the usage of said painting without an intent to offend. Nava’s characterization shows this magazine as a type that uses covers to offend to sell more magazines. They get an even wider audience.
And, honestly, I find it more offensive that they were obviously trolling.
Would they (or anybody) depict lawyers streaming out of Auschwitz? (I can just see the ties flapping away from emaciated chests.) Just to show the rags to riches story, don’tcha know.
Some things may be legal to do but that doesn’t make it right. We all come from somewhere. Go back far enough and all our families propelled themselves from Here to There.
Miller, you’re a Mod. Your statement disappoints me and reminds me that all men are fallible.
But, Becky, there is no shame in slavery for Michelle Obama, or her ancestors or black people. (And I get that technically, the subject of the painting is post slavery, but come on…clearly folks were seeing that image and thinking ‘slave’).
It is not the shame of the enslaved or their descendants that that whole thing happened. The artist didn’t depict the first lady in a shameful position at all. And the whole nudity thing is simple prudishness. That isn’t a Hustler spread, it’s a tasteful artsy fartsy breast.
Also, I think you cheated a bit in your analogy. The whole “Jews are all rich lawyers” thing is offensive to a great many Jewish people, and the stereotype is born out of the accusation that Jewish people are greedy and wicked. So someone portraying them that way, (coming out of a concentration camp, ties flapping their sunken chests) would be trying to shame them about something ‘shameful’ (greed and wickedness). Not a good comparison.
If an artist portrayed the descendant of a concentration camp survivor as bald headed and emaciated but now the wife of a German high ranking official in a Germany that condemns the whole Nazi movement, then I would trust that the artist isn’t trying to offend. (although I would think this would be much harder to pull off, left to only a brilliant freaking artist! Even then, I don’t know if it would be tasteful, but I would still trust the intent wouldn’t be to offend).
Eeeeh? The magazine I mentioned that got a fine was a different one and I said so. LTR, seriously: confusing el Magazine (the Sunday supplement of a serious newspaper which used to be one of Spain’s biggest two) with El Jueves (a satiric magazine) counts as pretty epic in the fail scale.
El Magazine weren’t trolling* at all,* I have no idea which posts did you read but they sure weren’t mine. Were you still recovering from the shocking sight of a badly-painted BOOB?
It’s racist and totally disrespectful of the first lady of our country.
If they know what’s good for them, they’ll hand over Cuba right now.
How so? There are other people saying it’s not, and offering explanations. Care to offer one yourself?