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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
