[subego]

Here's Cthulhu. It's gory. If you're squeamish, this thread is not for you:

 

Here's Jesus. I'm linking to it to preserve the annotations:

McNaughton Fine Art


I saw the Cthulhu one first, but I'll be, ahem... damned if I don't find the Jesus one waaay more disturbing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I saw the Cthulhu one first, but I'll be, ahem... damned if I don't find the Jesus one waaay more disturbing.

Why?

[placebo1969]

This is going to be a fun thread.

[placebo1969]

And by fun, I mean aggravating.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why?

The Jesus portrayed is petty, and the artist so willingly finds such a petty man to be his savior.

[lpkmckenna]

Paul Revere? Why not Israel Bissell?

Paine? Why not Ayn Rand?

Where's MLK?

[hyteckit]

Dude. They are the same person.

It's just seen through different eyes.

It's like a portrait of Pres. Obama.

Some see him as Jesus.

Some see him as Cthulhu.

[Shaddim]

Neither is disturbing, but I'd rather have the Cthulhu. It would look great in my study next to my A. Crowley original.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Paul Revere? Why not Israel Bissell?

Paine? Why not Ayn Rand?

Where's MLK?

This is a man who thinks that religion needs to be taught in the science classroom. He also portrays Jesus as a white man instead of a Jew. Also, mouse over the immigrant for a good laugh.

[Shaddim]

That was my first thought, "who is that white guy?".

[LegendaryPinkOx]

I'd be very interested in a higher resolution Cthulhu for my desktop.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

This is a man who thinks that religion needs to be taught in the science classroom. He also portrays Jesus as a white man instead of a Jew. Also, mouse over the immigrant for a good laugh.

He explains his use of an immediately-identifiable figure as Jesus. He mentions that evolution should be taught as curriculum, but that religion should be discussed. He wanted to use MLK, but couldn't. Instead, substituted a black soldier in the position he'd reserved for MLK.

Besides, the Cthulhu removed all ethnicities it would appear.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Jesus portrayed is petty, and the artist so willingly finds such a petty man to be his savior.

Is it that Jesus is portrayed as some US Nationalist or his ideals in general or... what? I'm curious as to your usage of the word "petty" in describing it.

What aspects of it do you find disturbing?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

He also portrays Jesus as a white man instead of a Jew.

What do you mean by that? He didn't paint Jesus' horns?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is it that Jesus is portrayed as some US Nationalist or his ideals in general or... what? I'm curious as to your usage of the word "petty" in describing it.

What aspects of it do you find disturbing?

It's that Jesus is a nationalist on judgement day. I find judgement day a disturbing enough concept on its own, sans jingoism. This is exacerbated by the twisted means in which nationalism appears to get you marching papers with Jesus' legion of the dead. Legislating black people as subhuman can be forgiven, but trying to describe the world by natural means, or, being a part of the liberal media, is a wickedness that puts you shoulder to shoulder with Satan.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Besides, the Cthulhu removed all ethnicities it would appear.

Well, he integrated the army with guppies.

Originally Posted by LegendaryPinkOx 

I'd be very interested in a higher resolution Cthulhu for my desktop.

Ask and ye shall receive

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's that Jesus is a nationalist on judgement day.

Maybe Jesus goes to all the countries on judgement day. He's probably not confined by the same physical limitations that we are.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe Jesus goes to all the countries on judgement day. He's probably not confined by the same physical limitations that we are.

What's on the paper in other countries?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That was my first thought, "who is that white guy?".

Teddy Roosevelt.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's that Jesus is a nationalist on judgement day. I find judgement day a disturbing enough concept on its own, sans jingoism.

Interesting you would imply that adherence to a "Judgement day" principle necessitates jingoism with disregard for the fact that human nature has transcended the authority of its creed throughout all recorded history.

Maybe I missed something though, is "Judgment day" implied here? Jesus is holding the US Constitution, not the Book of Life or something.

This is exacerbated by the twisted means in which nationalism appears to get you marching papers with Jesus' legion of the dead.

I can understand your distaste for this notion, but it seems to me the artist addressed this himself. He clarifies; "just because they stand behind Christ, does not mean they are devout Christians evoking all to come unto Jesus and be baptized." i.e. this doesn't mean that he believes they are 'saved'. These are simply figures that stand out in his mind as having contributed something positive to the country. I don't know that he intended to craft a mural the size of a football field where he could include all facets of a character, good and bad, of all figures just to make sure everyone was happy.

Legislating black people as subhuman can be forgiven...

... of course it can. Legislating black people as 3/5ths a person was a compromise fought for by those who opposed slavery in order to have a more equitable representation in the House. On the contrary, a great many would say; "thank God they did".

but trying to describe the world by natural means, or, being a part of the liberal media, is a wickedness that puts you shoulder to shoulder with Satan.

You have a point here. He is surely suggesting that those who hold tightly to their academia, control academia and he feels it is increasingly hostile toward religion. I understand the potential disturbance.

Well, he integrated the army with guppies.

• one image had ideals, both agreeable and disagreeable. Some of them inspirational, some of them questionable, but all of them well-done regardless of philosophical differences.
• the other is merely a bastardization of the other. It is not original, it is not creative nor is it even particularly well done. There is nothing inspirational or redeeming within it at all.

Truth be told, neither are particularly "disturbing", but a choice between the two was frankly a no-brainer IMO. I mean, what's most disturbing is the notion of "anti-art". I mean there's no shortage of material for those this lacking in originality right?

Personally, I'm much more offended by Han Solo just to the right of George Washington. I mean... Yoda?!?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

He also portrays Jesus as a white man instead of a Jew.

I had a best friend in junior high who was a jew. People said we could have been twins. I'm not a jew, BTW. I come from germanic roots.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting you would imply that adherence to a "Judgement day" principle necessitates jingoism

He didn't say that; just that this painting features both and they make for a disturbing pair.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting you would imply that adherence to a "Judgement day" principle necessitates jingoism

I don't. The idea of one combined with the other (as the artist presents) is disturbing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Maybe I missed something though, is "Judgment day" implied here?

To me, that the dead have arisen, and Jesus walks the earth, is more than an implication.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He clarifies;

If this is what he intended to represent, by having these people march with Jesus, he has in fact painted the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... of course it can. Legislating black people as 3/5ths a person was a compromise fought for by those who opposed slavery in order to have a more equitable representation in the House. On the contrary, a great many would say; "thank God they did".

I'll be more explicit. At least two of the people with Jesus in this painting, owned other people as property.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You have a point here. He is surely suggesting that those who hold tightly to their academia, control academia and he feels it is increasingly hostile toward religion. I understand the potential disturbance.

Can you rephrase this? I'm having trouble taking your meaning in the context of what you quoted from me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I mean, what's most disturbing is the notion of "anti-art". I mean there's no shortage of material for those this lacking in originality right?

Not an unreasonable response, by any stretch. AFAIK, this isn't even the first reworking of the original painting.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Personally, I'm much more offended by Han Solo just to the right of George Washington. I mean... Yoda?!?

You're right!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

What's on the paper in other countries?

Whatever he thinks will hold the most weight there? I don't think it's beyond Jesus' wherewithal to carry more than one prop when he goes on tour.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Whatever he thinks will hold the most weight there? I don't think it's beyond Jesus' wherewithal to carry more than one prop when he goes on tour.

I don't get the impression Jesus has chosen the Constitution because of the weight it carries with his audience, he's carrying it because of its righteousness.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't. The idea of one combined with the other (as the artist presents) is disturbing.

I apologize for misinterpreting this statement. I still don't see "jingoism" in the picture.

To me, that the dead have arisen, and Jesus walks the earth, is more than an implication.

I guess this is where art becomes subjective. It is also implied that there is hope; an opportunity for those to make what is in his opinion a move in the proper direction. Per the artist, the watch on the Supreme Court Judge's wrist is supposed to imply there is little time left. Judgment day on the other hand, is final. Given his explanation that these figures behind Jesus are behind him only in the sense that they've contributed something positive to the country and not that they are eternally saved, Judgment day might be as unfortunate for them as anyone else pictured.

If this is what he intended to represent, by having these people march with Jesus, he has in fact painted the exact opposite.

Well... first off, I don't see anyone "marching". There are also what in his opinion are "good" people, before the Jesus figure. Not all meeting his criteria of "positive" are "marching" behind Jesus.

I'll be more explicit. At least two of the people with Jesus in this painting, owned other people as property.

Of course slavery was introduced to America prior to the founding figures in the image and that in fact it was their collective efforts that would see its end. Again, I'm not sure the artist's intention was a football-field sized mural in order to ensure all facets of all figures were represented to everyone's liking.

So... was Abraham Lincoln a questionable figure who contributed some positive things to society or was he merely a bloodthirsty man ripping colons from people?

Can you rephrase this? I'm having trouble taking your meaning in the context of what you quoted from me.

He pictured an elite educator, one who places himself and his knowledge on equal footing with God. The artist seems to have a particular distaste for educators that believe there is no place for God in education. I can understand your opposition to this notion. You disagree with his premise.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't get the impression Jesus has chosen the Constitution because of the weight it carries with his audience, he's carrying it because of its righteousness.

That's because you're part of his audience. So is the guy who painted it. You're from America, and from your perspective the constitution holds so much weight that it made you start this thread about it (or put another way, it helps give his message a more personalized feel). My theory is that Jesus appears to everyone in the manner that (he thinks?) best grabs that person. Your actions support my theory. What I'm saying is, just for a minute stop thinking about this as "what's the implication of Jesus doing that" and instead ask "If I were Jesus what would my strategy be."

[nonhuman]

The Cthulhu version has been my Desktop picture for a couple days now. It's pretty awesome.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My theory is that Jesus appears to everyone in the manner that (he thinks?) best grabs that person. Your actions support my theory. What I'm saying is, just for a minute stop thinking about this as "what's the implication of Jesus doing that" and instead ask "If I were Jesus what would my strategy be."

Where is he supposed to be grabbing me? By the short hairs?

I feel like you have this somewhat reversed. The fact he's Jesus grabs me. He doesn't need to be Carrot Top as a strategy.

If he held the Communist Manifesto, that would grab me too.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm not following you here. You said that a major part of what spurred you to start this discussion was the jingoism represented (a large part of which is the presence of the constitution). You said that he's holding the constitution because of its righteousness. Those statements led me to believe that the presence of the constitution in the painting is significant (to you). Am I wrong about that? All I'm saying is that significance may well be by design (Jesus', in addition to and independent of the artist's).

Also, the question isn't what other document is "just as good" as the constitution (for his purpose), it should be what would be "better?" If he can help win over most with the constitution (including the artist, which I think you'll agree), and doing so doesn't hurt his case with most others (such as you), and no other document would be any better (as you said, the communist manifesto would be just as good), it still seems like the logical choice to bring it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I apologize for misinterpreting this statement. I still don't see "jingoism" in the picture.

I don't feel misrepresented, just normal internet back and forth until we understand each other. No apology needed.

Perhaps we're using different definitions. I'm using it to mean "extreme patriotism".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I guess this is where art becomes subjective. It is also implied that there is hope; an opportunity for those to make what is in his opinion a move in the proper direction. Per the artist, the watch on the Supreme Court Judge's wrist is supposed to imply there is little time left. Judgment day on the other hand, is final. Given his explanation that these figures behind Jesus are behind him only in the sense that they've contributed something positive to the country and not that they are eternally saved, Judgment day might be as unfortunate for them as anyone else pictured.

I can agree with you up to a point, but you can't paint a desert and claim you mean to evoke a forest. If the artist didn't intend to portray judgement day, he shouldn't have made his key themes precursors to the apocalypse.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well... first off, I don't see anyone "marching". There are also what in his opinion are "good" people, before the Jesus figure. Not all meeting his criteria of "positive" are "marching" behind Jesus.

"Marching" was a turn of phrase. I'm sure Jesus' legion is mechanized.

As for the people before Jesus. I'm only talking about the group on the Satan half.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course slavery was introduced to America prior to the founding figures in the image and that in fact it was their collective efforts that would see its end.

I say this without snark. Wasn't it the Civil War which ended slavery, and wasn't that about as horrible a way as can be imagined in which to end it?

What efforts are you talking about?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, I'm not sure the artist's intention was a football-field sized mural in order to ensure all facets of all figures were represented to everyone's liking.

It's not a question of all facets being portrayed, it's a question of who stands with Jesus and who marches with Satan. If the artist is going to set up that dichotomy, I'm going to analyze the people portrayed in those terms.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He pictured an elite educator, one who places himself and his knowledge on equal footing with God. The artist seems to have a particular distaste for educators that believe there is no place for God in education. I can understand your opposition to this notion. You disagree with his premise.

Thank you for the restatement.

I don't have a problem with the artist showing distaste, I have a problem with the artist representing Jesus as having a distaste, on judgement day, while at the same time giving the people behind him a pass.

[SpaceMonkey]

People who annotate their own art = fail.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You said that he's holding the constitution because of its righteousness. Those statements led me to believe that the presence of the constitution in the painting is significant (to you). Am I wrong about that? All I'm saying is that significance may well be by design (Jesus', in addition to and independent of the artist's).

You are correct, but it still seems reversed to me. Jesus is the significant part. Any significance to what he's holding is based on the fact he's holding it, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If he can help win over most with the constitution (including the artist, which I think you'll agree), and doing so doesn't hurt his case with most others

I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but he's Jesus. By simply walking the earth again, he's made his case. I don't see why he needs to hold any document to support it.

As such, the idea of him doing so on judgement day, is like... gloating or something. This was another reason the painting gave me the shudders, and also contributed to my earlier use of the term "petty".

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He mentions that evolution should be taught as curriculum, but that religion should be discussed.

Religion has no place in the science classroom. There's nothing to discuss.

[Cthulhu]

Hmm. Needs more red.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

People who annotate their own art = fail.

Agreed.

I think ebuddy is right in that the Cthulhu artist doesn't win any points for originality, but the Jesus artist deserves to be (metaphorically) slapped around for being so unwilling to lose control of context.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu 

Hmm. Needs more red.

No comment on the teeny-weenie part?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't have a problem with the artist showing distaste, I have a problem with the artist representing Jesus as having a distaste, on judgement day, while at the same time giving the people behind him a pass.

Hmm, I think this is why I'm not following you. I don't see any distaste in Jesus' appearance. And by contrast, Cthulhu does look somewhat angry. But I didn't read all the annotations, so maybe it says somewhere that he's upset? To me he seems perfectly calm, and if the people on the stairs want to freak out, that's their problem (I notice the wicked professor seems ok with it

[LegendaryPinkOx]

Originally Posted by subego 

Ask and ye shall receive

Muchos gracias!

[olePigeon]

I find it ironic that the artist chose historical figures that were ideologically opposed to his political and/or religious point of view.

Edit: I like this version: http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu 

Hmm. Needs more red.

okay so this has got to be the funniest thing I've seen in... well, ever around here. Oh my gosh. Whoever you are, thank you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Perhaps we're using different definitions. I'm using it to mean "extreme patriotism".

I would add only warlike or aggressive for my understanding.

I can agree with you up to a point, but you can't paint a desert and claim you mean to evoke a forest. If the artist didn't intend to portray judgement day, he shouldn't have made his key themes precursors to the apocalypse.

I just don't see it as the artist trying to portray any one thing or another. It seems to me he's trying to cover a vast range of material.

As for the people before Jesus. I'm only talking about the group on the Satan half.

The group on the Satan half is viewed by the artist as the outlet of ideals and movements that are hostile to God be it deliberate or distracted.

I say this without snark. Wasn't it the Civil War which ended slavery, and wasn't that about as horrible a way as can be imagined in which to end it?

Indeed, but it seemed odd to me that you'd take issue with "slavery" given that the artist went out of his way to include figures that fought against slavery specifically because they fought against slavery. I don't think it's disturbing to acknowledge the contribution of a founding father because he owned slaves. I think it's important to know their history, but in context of the painting I'm not sure it was necessary.

What efforts are you talking about?

Their work compiling a series of punitive efforts that led to unrest and war. I'm certainly not trying to suggest that freeing a large number of uneducated people into unemployment and poverty and brothers killing brothers were all flawless means of achieving our place today, but I don't see a problem in celebrating how those sacrifices have manifest.

It's not a question of all facets being portrayed, it's a question of who stands with Jesus and who marches with Satan. If the artist is going to set up that dichotomy, I'm going to analyze the people portrayed in those terms.

You're welcome to analyze them of course. In fact, the artist himself expressed his desire that this work would spur a great deal of discussion. He sets up a dichotomy between those outlets he feels are most susceptible to Satan/Godlessnesss and which ones he feels are most susceptible to God. He is clearly expressing his opinion in art.

I don't have a problem with the artist showing distaste, I have a problem with the artist representing Jesus as having a distaste, on judgement day, while at the same time giving the people behind him a pass.

I guess I take issue with the fact that you're disturbed by an image that simply expresses a world view you disagree with. If Margaret Sanger was pictured behind Jesus I'd simply disagree. This doesn't mean Margaret Sanger has contributed nothing to society. Personally, I don't see the image or the ideals expressed in it as particularly shocking, novel, or disturbing.

I mean, are you really surprised by the artist's depiction of good and evil?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Hmm, I think this is why I'm not following you. I don't see any distaste in Jesus' appearance. And by contrast, Cthulhu does look somewhat angry. But I didn't read all the annotations, so maybe it says somewhere that he's upset? To me he seems perfectly calm, and if the people on the stairs want to freak out, that's their problem (I notice the wicked professor seems ok with it

Distaste is probably the wrong word, and it isn't reflected in Jesus' face, it's implied by the scenario, which I think one can safely imagine he's supposed to be behind.

[lpkmckenna]

Ya know, the painting is growing on me. And it make sense, as Jesus is surrounded by tax collectors and prostitutes.

[hyteckit]

You know what's f*ck up about the painting?

Not one single Asian person.

Why can't he at least made the college student an Asian man.

God's a douche. God doesn't love Asian people.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You know what's f*ck up about the painting?

Uh, no. But I'm sure you're going to tell me. Oh wait, here it comes...

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Not one single Asian person.

And for a good reason - Asians have no souls.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why can't he at least made the college student an Asian man.

The only available Asians were busy in the library.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

God's a douche. God doesn't love Asian people.

Yep, He/She/It sure can be a major douche - especially when it comes to starving children, the diseased, and the poor.

And not only does God not love Asian people, Jesus absolutely hates them.

This has been a satirical post laced with sarcasm. Please direct all complaints/responses to your local member of the clergy or applicable demon.

[The Final Dakar]

God doesn't need math.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

God doesn't need math.

That too.

[Doofy]

It's official: American patriotism has just scared Doof.
Well, made him scared of blowing his tonsils out with all the copious quantities of laughter.

[Chuckit]

You just hate our freedoms.

[The Final Dakar]

zing.