I thought Jesus was from Nazareth not Gondor.
As my professor used to say, “the image has to speak for itself”. If you have to explain the symbolism behind it, then you are either a lousy artist or your audience is stupid. Or both.
And I agree that this is awesome in its tackiness. If there was a Museum of the Tacky this could be one of their highlights.
Well, it depends on what version you have.
I’m guessing that the artist in question holds a belief that, if you’re not going to seminary to become clergy, education beyond high school is both wrong and unnecessary.
Upon first seeing the image, I thought it was a Thomas Kincaid, complete with lack of originality and light coming from surreal and unnatural places. Why on earth do people think that this is a good method to make your painting more interesting?
Maybe he has mixed feelings about the idea of a woman with a job outside the home, but acknowledges that many conservative families have businesswomen in them and doesn’t want to ignore that segment of the market completely.
This is one of the nuttiest paintings I’ve seen in a while, but I can see a big part of where he’s getting his inspiration; it reminds me of some of the propaganda-laden paintings of Napoleon’s reign, which he may or may not be familiar with. The difference, beyond the fact that he’s got some issues with his lighting technique, is that the things he references aren’t at all obvious to the average viewer without the explanations.
Hmm. As a working definition of 'Bad Art," that’s a pretty good start.
I love that he has to tell you that the American flag under the soldiers arm is a symbol.
And shouldn’t the flag be draped around Jesus’ shoulders? Because all us true believers KNOW that Jeezus was an american and spoke English (in red print).
Are you accusing Jesus of being a communist? You can go to hell, sir!
Handicap Child is obviously spawn of Palin.
Just saw this over at Wonkette. A great parody painting by David Durrett. Enjoy.
http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/threeeasypayments.jpg
I think I need this painting!
We have Black Mass daily in the conference room. That’s why tuition is rising so dramatically - we need new supplies. Goats aren’t cheap, you know.
The good news is that if you make a videorecording there’s a good chance you can get to meet the activist SCOTUS judge in the painting.
Why is the Pregnant Woman hanging out with the Evil Libruls in the lower right-hand corner? Is the artist suggesting that all pregnant women secretly resent their condition? Perhaps the painting could be revised to move her over to the other corner (she could replace the Business Woman, about whom the artist has nothing to say, anyway), and the empty spot could be filled in with a Perfidious Jew or Freedom-Hating Muslim.
I was wondering about that, too. Then I zoomed in on her left hand. No ring, so obviously she is a fornicator. Still pretty harsh considering even the heathen immigrant gets to sit at Jesus’s right hand.
Hey, I don’t see any guns in this painting either!
Oh God…The horror…
Yeah, I like that one much better.
I notice that in this most excellent version, Satan is the only one not demented or corrupted…
Nutbaggery aside, I wonder why each war gets its own soldier except WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, which have to share one?
Also, what exactly is the point of saying “Some stars (on the flag) shine brighter than others” while also saying he hopes there will never be another American civil war? If we’re all Americans in this together, why single out unnamed states as being unworthy?
Another thing that makes me wonder is why some people made the cut and others did not. Kennedy gets credit for civil rights, but there’s no LBJ. Random presidents like Grant make the cut but religious ones like Jimmy Carter don’t. At least I can guess why Richard Nixon wasn’t included, despite the artist’s evident nutball-conservative leanings: even painted versions of Richard Nixon cannot gaze directly upon the Constitution without bursting into oily black flames.
Just realised that each of those sheets of paper in front of the sobbing SCOTUS judge represents a particular case, evidently of particular infamy:
-
Marbury v. Madison
-
Martin v. Hunter Lessee [sic]
-
Gibbons v. Ogden
-
Kelo v. New London
-
Roe v. Wade
-
Everson v. Board of Education
It took me a while to get your post, but for me you win the thread.
You get to have Thanksgiving with JESUS?