Comments on: Unveiling canceled for Obama painting

By: DJ

DJ — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:07:10 +0000

#1 Sawgunner,
I don’t know whether to laugh because it’s funny, or cry because it’s true.

By: Make it Man

Make it Man — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:40:46 +0000

“…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

By: Make it Man

Make it Man — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:33:54 +0000

“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

By: kimberly

kimberly — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:19:59 +0000

#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

By: mynock

mynock — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:20:36 +0000

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

By: mynock

mynock — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:16:37 +0000

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

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:54:43 +0000

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

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:08:55 +0000

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

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:54:16 +0000

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

By: Scott Robinson

Scott Robinson — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:52:53 +0000

Sawgunner,
Your response #1 should come with a spew alert!

Report comment to moderator