The Truth (painting) (live in, place, pictures)

[fp1978]

I am not offended, but I am extremely disturbed that there are apparently a large number of people who view another person, a politician (professional liar) no less, as some sort of societal savior. Regardless of whether or not you like the guy (I personally cannot stand him) people need to remember that he is just a man, not some sort of deity who is infallible and worthy of blind worship. It's scary to think that there are so many who put someone up on such a high pedestal like that.

[orangeapple]

Originally Posted by fp1978

I am not offended, but I am extremely disturbed that there are apparently a large number of people who view another person, a politician (professional liar) no less, as some sort of societal savior. Regardless of whether or not you like the guy (I personally cannot stand him) people need to remember that he is just a man, not some sort of deity who is infallible and worthy of blind worship. It's scary to think that there are so many who put someone up on such a high pedestal like that.

This is it right here. It's disturbing and ridiculous to me, and not in an artistic wat. It's pretty ugly too

[moonshadow]

Originally Posted by Audrey Ann

Wasn't sure where to post this thread and figured, since I am looking for a wide range of thoughts, I'd come to the World!

Was anyone here offended by this painting? Do you feel the artist's work should have been censored by Wikipedia? Not displayed?

I, as a Christian, was not offended at all. This painting has a lot going on and says many things, but it does not say to me that he is Christ - just what individuals today are pinning their hopes on ... and yet so much more.

PHOTO: Obama The Messiah? D'Antuono's "The Truth" Painting Celebrates 100 Days

I was completely unaware of the controversy or the painting so I'm really glad you posted it here.
I'm an atheist, so I find it difficult to understand the perspective of people who get offended when it comes to the use of religious symbolism in art. It is certainly an interesting perspective the artist has taken and I consider it a valid comparison. I like the painting and I don't feel it should be banned or censored. I would find the censorship far more offensive than the picture itself. I agree with you that the artist doesn't appear to be saying Obama is Christ. It seems to say more to me about the level of exultation that surrounds Obama and the inevitable outcome when the fervour dies down. Most certainly I see parallels between how that will play out and the story of Christ.

Originally Posted by bale002

A person confident in his faith will not be offended.

Among two of the best works of Christian art are: one, from late antiquity, a painting, or carving or graffiti scratched out on a wall, depicting a donkey on a cross, expressing criticism by someone who thought Christians were dumb, however, it can also be taken to represent Christian humility; the other, from contemporary times, a sculpture by a late homosexual artist Maplethorpe, I believe, depicting Christ in urine, again interpretable as the tender struggle for faith and humility, worthy of compassion.

However, the depiction referred to here appears to have no more useful interpretation than that the adulation, by some, of Obama has been over the top. In that case, in my view, the artist chose the wrong image of Christ; instead of choosing Christ on the Cross, it may have been more meaningful if he had chosen a pose like Christ Pantocrator.

Alternatively, one may view Obama as some kind of sacrificial figure, a sheepish victim of the powers that be, the scapegoat for a failed attempt to stem the decline, possible disintegration, of US society, relatively short-lived, sort of like Gorbaciov and the Soviet Union.

We'll see come November 2012.

I'm pleased to read your interpretation of it bale. It makes a lot of sense to me. Also your reference to Maplethorpe's sculpture depicting Christ in urine reminded me of another similar piece by Andres Serrano which caused huge controversy when it was exhibited here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_Christ

In terms of the artist using the image of Christ on the Cross vs Christ the Pantocrator the artist seems to be speaking more to what is happening AND predicting how it will turn out by using the image. Not being religious I was not familiar with Christ Pantocrator in terms of knowing the story but now, having looked it up it, seems to me using Christ Pantocrator would only have told the story up to a point and not included the artist's projected outcome that using the Christ on The Cross image would provoke.

[Audrey Ann]

Originally Posted by moonshadow

I was completely unaware of the controversy or the painting so I'm really glad you posted it here.
I'm an atheist, so I find it difficult to understand the perspective of people who get offended when it comes to the use of religious symbolism in art. It is certainly an interesting perspective the artist has taken and I consider it a valid comparison. I like the painting and I don't feel it should be banned or censored. I would find the censorship far more offensive than the picture itself. I agree with you that the artist doesn't appear to be saying Obama is Christ. It seems to say more to me about the level of exultation that surrounds Obama and the inevitable outcome when the fervour dies down. Most certainly I see parallels between how that will play out and the story of Christ.



I'm pleased to read your interpretation of it bale. It makes a lot of sense to me. Also your reference to Maplethorpe's sculpture depicting Christ in urine reminded me of another similar piece by Andres Serrano which caused huge controversy when it was exhibited here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_Christ

In terms of the artist using the image of Christ on the Cross vs Christ the Pantocrator the artist seems to be speaking more to what is happening AND predicting how it will turn out by using the image. Not being religious I was not familiar with Christ Pantocrator in terms of knowing the story but now, having looked it up it, seems to me using Christ Pantocrator would only have told the story up to a point and not included the artist's projected outcome that using the Christ on The Cross image would provoke.

Thanks for your thoughts. I also feel it speaks more about what is happening in the now, but eluding to how it could turn out and/or change direction. In any event, what bothered me most was the censorship. Also, how does one define what is and is not art ..

For me, if 'something' evokes some sort of strong emotion ... then it is good, the artist/author/director etc. has done their job - whether it be positive or not.

Thanks again for all the responses.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by Audrey Ann

what bothered me most was the censorship.

I believe that only children are in need of the protection of censorship (as determined by law and by their own parents), not mature adults.

Any ruling class that subjects the population to censorship is treating it like children, or slaves.

Again, a mature person, confident in his faith, does not need censorship and will not be offended.

[Audrey Ann]

Originally Posted by bale002

I believe that only children are in need of the protection of censorship (as determined by law and by their own parents), not mature adults.

Any ruling class that subjects the population to censorship is treating it like children, or slaves.

Again, a mature person, confident in his faith, does not need censorship and will not be offended.

I agree.

After viewing the painting, I just did not see any reason not to display it in a public place.

[moonshadow]

Originally Posted by Audrey Ann

Thanks for your thoughts. I also feel it speaks more about what is happening in the now, but eluding to how it could turn out and/or change direction. In any event, what bothered me most was the censorship. Also, how does one define what is and is not art ..

For me, if 'something' evokes some sort of strong emotion ... then it is good, the artist/author/director etc. has done their job - whether it be positive or not.

Thanks again for all the responses.

Yes! Censorship is always what would bother me too! Obviously there is as many definitions of art as there are people to define it, for myself I prefer work that is clever and speaks to me, connects with me on an emotional level, whether that be positive or negative. In short if it makes me think, or expands my point of view, then I consider it to be good art. Also if I can admire the artist their craft, that helps. I often see huge, expensive paintings in galleries that seem to be no more than the artist standing back and throwing paint at the canvas, which I figure is something I could do to great effect myself so I guess that's not really my kind of art but I cannot deny that others find it very compelling.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by Audrey Ann

I agree.

After viewing the painting, I just did not see any reason not to display it in a public place.

That depends on what you mean by public place and who is paying for it.

Censorship and freely available to those interested is one thing, but "displaying in a public place" may be another. At that point, you may be infringing on the rights of others.

[Audrey Ann]

Originally Posted by bale002

That depends on what you mean by public place and who is paying for it.

Censorship and freely available to those interested is one thing, but "displaying in a public place" may be another. At that point, you may be infringing on the rights of others.

Well then that is happening everyday, to me at least. There are plenty of ads on billboards I'd rather not see. So I don't look. But there they still are.

[ozzie679]

I think it's a vile, tacky, and disgusting work of art. It's just plain ugly!