[QUOTE=elucidator]
Read more carefully, John, you’re embarassing yourself. “When…conceived the idea of photographing crying children back in 2004…” Where is the political reference? From whence your intuitive leap that she was anticipating an anti-Bush project? She took the photo and when she got back the “contacts” she thought of a caption.
[/quote]
OK, let’s walk thru the sequence of events slowly:
Artist takes picture of cute little girl
Artist all shoots little girl’s brother, who happens to cry during the photo
Artist develops photo and thinks : Looks like the kid is crying about “Four More Years” of Bush
Artist entitles that picture “Four More Years”
Artist decides to take more pitcures along the same lines (ie, snipe at Bush) and often makes the kids cry on purpose.
Really, it’s you who is grasping at straws to claim this isn’t about Bush. Is this the crime of the century? No. Is the woman a creep for making kids cry? Yes. Were the pictures meant as an anti-Bush political statement? Yes.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
While some of the anti-Bush flameouts on this board have been pitiful, it’s sad to see Bricker and John Mace going similarly nuts over this silliness.
[/QUOTE]
I’m only “going nuts” over the fact that people are so blindingly partisan that they can’t read plain text in an article to see that these pictures are a slam at Bush. Had I not been challenged as to my reading of the article, I would never have posted more than once in this thread.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m only “going nuts” over the fact that people are so blindingly partisan that they can’t read plain text in an article to see that these pictures are a slam at Bush.
[/QUOTE]
Or, some people are so blindly partisan in favor of Bush that they can’t understand why the rest of us can’t get all worked up over something so stupid?
Anyone still wants to say this isn’t about Bush?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
I already said that she eventually bashed Bush, but that is not why the OP is stupid.
The OP was saying that the children were made to cry before she got the idea. Not the straight dope. However, I’m willing to criticize her for making children cry, that goes beyond partisanship.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m only “going nuts” over the fact that people are so blindingly partisan that they can’t read plain text in an article to see that these pictures are a slam at Bush. Had I not been challenged as to my reading of the article, I would never have posted more than once in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
I am amazed that people could be so **blindingly partisan ** that they could read that article and get worked up over it.
[QUOTE=Chefguy]
I disagree with bashing the woman because she’s anti-Bush. I’d rather bash her for having so little creative talent that she tries to make a living off of bad, schlocky art. Kids cry all the fuckin’ time; it’s what they do for the first two years (or the first 16 years, in the case of my youngest). Get over yourselves. As for the theme, her titles make no sense and the photography is just over-corrected crap.
[/QUOTE]
No one is bashing her because she is anti-Bush. Hell, I’m “anti-Bush”. She’s being bashed because she made kids cry for her own political purpose.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Or, some people are so blindly partisan in favor of Bush that they can’t understand why the rest of us can’t get all worked up over something so stupid?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t actually think it’s stupid at all. It would bother me that she is deliberately making babies cry, even if it wasn’t for the “protest” angle…I actually couldn’t care less about that (if it bothered me all that much, I certainly wouldn’t spend so much time on the SDMB). But for people to claim that this isn’t what she is doing seems pretty silly to me. She clearly says this is the point of the project. She took the idea of the crying babies…put it together with her own feelings of sadness about the current leadership…and there you go…she has a project.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Or, some people are so blindly partisan in favor of Bush that they can’t understand why the rest of us can’t get all worked up over something so stupid?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, go fuck yourself. I am not in favor of Bush any more than you are.
Look. I always get “worked up” when someone challenges my interpretation of something. I couldn’t care less if someone makes an anti-Bush statement. More power to her. But when someone comes along and says Oh, she’s not making a political statement when she clear is making one, I’m going to call them on it.
In which post were you lying? The one *before * you decided to read the article, or the one afterward?
Remember the First Rule of Holes, which the since-slunk-away Bricker apparently does. Unfortunately his lying thread title remains, right above his OP. Your *own * continued partisan lying, only intensified upon its disclosure, is your own problem.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
She’s being bashed because she made kids cry for her own political purpose.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, wait, I missed this one on preview. Can’t even keep your own lies straight, can you? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I am amazed that people could be so **blindingly partisan ** that they could read that article and get worked up over it.
[/QUOTE]
There’s not a lot of opportunities to make pro-Bush pit threads these days, they have to work with what they get.
Eh, I don’t think it’s that big a deal that they make kids cry. Kids at that age are always crying, and they have to figure what’s worth crying about and what’s not.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
No one is bashing her because she is anti-Bush. Hell, I’m “anti-Bush”. She’s being bashed because she made kids cry for her own political purpose.
[/QUOTE]
No one? OK, now it is clear you did not read the OP.
In any case, for some reason I have to repeat that even I do criticize her for making kids cry, but I also do think more evidence is needed before I demand police action.
[QUOTE=Revtim]
There’s not a lot of opportunities to make pro-Bush pit threads these days, they have to work with what they get.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing new at all about the GOP partisans’ personally demonizing those who are not, rather than engage in actual discussions with them about what’s best for the country and the world. But that is all they have to work with, and pretty much all they’ve ever had.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But when someone comes along and says Oh, she’s not making a political statement when she clear is making one, I’m going to call them on it.
[/QUOTE]
She’s making an artistic statement. Her politics do (secondarily) inform her art. But if you looked at the pictures without reading the article, you could just as easily assume she was making fun of the anti-Bush crowd. But either way, it’s not the main issue. This is not primarily political, it isn’t designed to further any cause, it’s art. And that seems pretty damn obvious to me.
