Unveiling canceled for Obama painting
Public outrage forced an artist to cancel the April 29 unveiling of his latest painting “The Truth,” which depicts President Obama posing like Jesus did on the cross with a crown of thorns on his head. Painter Michael D’Antuono, who had planned to show the work at New York’s Union Square Park on Obama’s 100th day in office, told National Review Online that he was surprised by the number of people who complained about the religious symbolism because he had intended it as only a political piece.
The idea of the piece, or the reaction that I’d hoped for, was to highlight our nation’s deep partisan divide and how our interpretation of the truth is really prejudiced by our political perspective and I think that to a large degree we are being manipulated by the media. I miss the old day when we just have the facts. Now we have pundits and spin and strategists.
I just thought that through that painting people would see different things. The right and the left would have different interpretations of it based on their political lens. But I have to admit I was very surprised that instead of that I got thousands of email complaining on the religious front. And that was not my intent at all. I wanted to create a dialog politically but not religiously. I didn’t mean to make fun of anybody’s religion; maybe I did so naively but I didn’t mean it that way. In the bible Jesus is The Truth and comparing Obama that way isn’t something I meant to do at all.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top13 Comments to “Unveiling canceled for Obama painting”
Now if he’d sculpted an Obama crucifixion and then immersed it in a large jar of urine.. THAT would qualify as art and presumably appease OBama fans and detractors all at once.
Report comment to moderator
“The old days when we just got the facts. Now we have pundits and spin and stratagists.”
Obviously the writer never heard of Walter Winchell, Gabriel Heater and even Paul Harvey. They gave news and comment. But he’s right in a sense. You knew where the commentators stood. They did not appear to be neutral, as an editor from Newsweek did on Bill O’Rilley last night.
“Newsweek does not have a political agenda.”
Report comment to moderator
“I didn’t mean to make fun of anybody’s religion; maybe I did so naively but I didn’t mean it that way. In the bible Jesus is The Truth and comparing Obama that way isn’t something I meant to do at all.”
Naively? Really? I think this guy is like so many others, even those who post here. They’re so used to dissing on Christianity, they don’t give it a first thought, much less a second one.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
Your response #1 should come with a spew alert!
Report comment to moderator
I hope Douthat will do better for his side than offer half-baked thought experiments. His premise is attention-grabbing, but his discussion of torture is thin and unconvincing. We have no reason to think that election rhetoric would have (or should have) sorted out the factual and legal issues of torture.
On the other hand, he comes across as less defensive and compulsive than David Brooks, and that’s all to the good. I enjoyed this:
“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions . . .
That’s the alpha and omega of Douthat’s challenge.
Report comment to moderator
If you’re not in principle offended by a painting of the crucifixion, then it doesn’t matter who’s on the cross. Without the benefit of a beatific vision, nobody knows the accurate likeness of the Savior. Further, He did for all, so any model serves as well as another. That’s the point. The artist just as legitimately could have painted Sarah Palin on the cross, nailed at the elbows so that she could continue waving.
What I want to know is, was the painting worth unveiling?
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, Jesus didn’t look like Obama. And if you can’t understand why this would be offensive, one can only feel sorry you.
Report comment to moderator
I’d call it “low art” from the perspective that it really just a lazy execution of his though process. Or his thought process came after the painting (which in this view would have been more about creating a graphic image than testing truth). For me “pop art” has to be more profound or more iconic than this, which looks like a political cartoon. And unlike a political cartoon, it’s heady and over explained.
If I had to tell the artist one thing to make me like the piece more, I’d say, “Lose the crown of thorns. What did you think we wouldn’t ‘get it’?” It’s a case of more being WAY TOO MUCH.
On the other hand, conservative outrage and moral indignation to it is disingenuous. Some of you risk becoming parodies of yourselves. Conservatives calling Obama “the One” and and the Messiah have been channeling up this exact same imagery since August.
My question for conservatives is: Does this offend your faith? Or are you just upset that someone has painted your own bitterness and sarcasm?
Report comment to moderator
Or perhaps a better explanation of why this piece doesn’t rise high enough for me, to channel Tim Gunn, I think it’s high reminiscent of “student work”! Or, every art school student has already painted it!
Report comment to moderator
#3 … I don’t believe he’s so much “dissing” the Christian belief as illustrating his own unbelief & ignorance of the actual biblical truths: when he sees the biblical event as a mere piece of symbolism to be deployed & redeployed to illustrate political themes, he’s assuming that it has no real spiritual reality but that it’s just a cool event that we can refer to to make points (sort of like Washington crossing the Delaware is).
He’s not actually making fun … he’s showing he doesn’t believe, in demeaning (however unintentionally & ignorantly) the crucifixion to suit merely political themes.
Report comment to moderator
“Newsweek does not have a political agenda.”
I wish liberals would retire the boring and trite, old MO, that the news outlets are objective, and not biased (except of course, according to them, Faux News).
Add to that, the assertion that because an outlet “covered” the news, they are certainly not biased, because they did cover it, you see, so therefore they are not biased, and you have a recipe for a left wing echo chamber that won’t relent.
Would you guys please admit for ONCE in your entire lives that there aren’t any objective news sources? After the shameless, slobbering affair the media had with Obama during the election, we should finally put to rest the “objective news” fallacy. But NO, liberals continue their lying cheating old ways, and expect us to believe they aren’t unfaithful…
Report comment to moderator
“…nobody knows the accurate likeness of the Savior.”
Well, we do know a few things. He was an itinerant middle-eastern preacher, certainly semitic, and not of other extraction…
So his features would probably be distinctly similar to other folks of that ancestry. In other words it’s safe to say he probably didn’t look say, African or Latino…
Report comment to moderator
#1 Sawgunner,
I don’t know whether to laugh because it’s funny, or cry because it’s true.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!