[SpaceMonkey]

Isn't the "immigrant" in the picture supposed to be Asian?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Isn't the "immigrant" in the picture supposed to be Asian?

I thought all immigrants were Mexican?

I think I found an Asian.

He is disguised as Satan on the middle far right.

As Glenn Beck would say:

Asian => Saian => Satan!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You just hate our freedoms.

Heh.

[SpaceMonkey]

Is it bad that I didn't even notice the Satan figure in the picture before hyteckit specifically mentioned it?

My new favorite WTF line:

"Everything in this painting is symbolic....I believe in the reality of the Adversary..."

[osiris]

Holy crap, Han Solo is in it! He's to the left of GW, above Lincoln, next to Kennedy

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

I don't see how including a vast range of material is exclusive from portraying judgement day.

My statement still stands unchallenged: if he didn't want people to think he was painting judgement day, he shouldn't have thematically represented judgement day.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

And the group behind him aren't, regardless of whether they should be.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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 take issue because one's own sins aren't absolved by the good works of others.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't see a problem in celebrating how those sacrifices have manifest.

Absolutely. I'm stating that pointing to people who owned slaves is the exact opposite of celebrating the manifestation of those sacrifices.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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?

Firstly, how disturbed I am by this is relativistic. I made the thread because I found the Jesus painting to be more disturbing than a painting that overtly attempted to be disturbing, but which ultimately didn't succeed in being particularly disturbing to begin with. Part of it is that these ideas have been churned around for 80 years or so, and just don't pack the punch they used to:



Secondly, WRT your Margaret Sanger example, I'm a little confused. Are you talking about Sanger being represented with Jesus, or Sanger standing front and center with Jesus for armageddon?

[olePigeon]

As far as Cthulhu is concerned, Jesus is basically a free desert on your birthday.

[BadKosh]

What is disturbing is this thread. I've never seen so many people without lives.

[The Final Dakar]

Don't you mean "with0ut lives"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't see how including a vast range of material is exclusive from portraying judgement day.

I see a vast range of material being covered in that piece. I did not see judgement day portrayed in that picture. Those two points are certainly exclusive.

My statement still stands unchallenged: if he didn't want people to think he was painting judgement day, he shouldn't have thematically represented judgement day.

I don't think he was portraying judgment day. I think there are specific reasons why he couldn't possibly be referring to judgement day thematically or otherwise. Your statement still stands unchallenged because... well because it's your opinion. Out of curiosity, do you believe in the doctrine of a judgement day?

And the group behind him aren't, regardless of whether they should be.

The piece suggests to me the notion that our government was founded on Christian principles and that we are inviting God out of the system through the outlets pictured near the Satan-figure. The people shown behind the Christ-figure are those that have drafted and/or died in shaping and serving this system of government. Those pictured near Satan appear to be serving primarily themselves and causes that seek to perpetuate ideals in direct conflict with god. Now, there are many figures pictured behind Jesus and some of them owned slaves, some of them were likely unfaithful to their spouses, some of them may have gossiped, or lied, etc... the artist seems to be illustrating a more general ideal than simply sinners and judgement.

For example, Martin Luther King is noteworthy for his sacrifice in the civil rights movement. Did he also cheat on his wife? Yes. Can we not celebrate his achievement regardless? Shall we no longer teach children the merits of King's civil rights movement because he also did some unsavory things or is the collective take-away one of a positive image as a Reverend and a brilliant civil rights leader?

I take issue because one's own sins aren't absolved by the good works of others.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they are. Do you suppose the artist truly believes there are no proponents of evolution serving in the military or is it more likely that if he had included like-occupations under all "sides" of the Jesus-figure, this would simply muddy the message he was trying to send? You seem awfully focused on "sin" and "judgement" when IMO the artist is talking more about doctrines, ideals, and behaviors that invite God out of the system he feels was crafted on Christian principles.

Absolutely. I'm stating that pointing to people who owned slaves is the exact opposite of celebrating the manifestation of those sacrifices.

I disagree. I think you are simply disturbed by opinions you don't agree with.

Firstly, how disturbed I am by this is relativistic. I made the thread because I found the Jesus painting to be more disturbing than a painting that overtly attempted to be disturbing, but which ultimately didn't succeed in being particularly disturbing to begin with. Part of it is that these ideas have been churned around for 80 years or so, and just don't pack the punch they used to

My perception was that you appear more disturbed by the dissenting opinion of a Christian guy than the notion of faceless, horrific, murderous figures created under a system that stands over you in tyranny, fire, pools of flowing blood, and human innards. I thought this odd.

Secondly, WRT your Margaret Sanger example, I'm a little confused. Are you talking about Sanger being represented with Jesus, or Sanger standing front and center with Jesus for armageddon?

Ironically, I see "armageddon" in the Cthulhu image, not the Jesus image quite frankly. Anyway, what I said was; If Margaret Sanger was pictured behind Jesus I'd simply disagree. ("marching" with Jesus, on Jesus' side, one with Jesus, cool with Jesus, etc... however you want to parse it) This doesn't mean Margaret Sanger has contributed nothing to society. I would disagree because my overall take-away from Margaret Sanger is a negative image; at the risk of disturbing you of course.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The piece suggests to me the notion that our government was founded on Christian principles ......

That is the subject of this book:
Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States- Google Books

[sek929]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't you mean "with0ut lives"?

Looks like he finally sprung for a new keyboard.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your statement still stands unchallenged because... well because it's your opinion

The image portrays Jesus walking the Earth again. The painting is on Earth, well past the time he was killed. The image portrays the dead having arisen. Most of the people in the image are dead. They are walking. On Earth. This isn't an opinion, they're in the painting.

We can have a differing opinion on what that means, which we do. That wasn't my point. My point is that's what he put in there. If he didn't want people to interpret those themes, it was his mistake for putting them in there.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You seem awfully focused on "sin" and "judgement"

If you find it a curiosity this far in that I would be focused on sin and judgment in a painting which I have repeatedly stated I think is a representation of Judgement Day, it strikes me you aren't accepting my premise, even for the sake of argument. If that's the case, I don't really see the point of the discussion.

Asking for a premise, and then demonstrating an unwillingness to consider it at face value is generally an indication of "bad faith".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think you are simply disturbed by opinions you don't agree with.

As is hurling accusations.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What is disturbing is this thread. I've never seen so many people without lives.

You've never been to a Renaissance Faire?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The image portrays Jesus walking the Earth again.

No. It pictures him standing on a flight of steps in front of the Capital building and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Is this how the whole Judgement day story goes subego? Jesus, holding the US Constitution in his hand with all the prior saints like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln returning to the United States of America to rapture God's elect?

The painting is on Earth, well past the time he was killed.

The painting is on Earth insofar as it must be to be focused on the condition of the United States of America.

The image portrays the dead having arisen. Most of the people in the image are dead. They are walking. On Earth. This isn't an opinion, they're in the painting.

I think you've gotten the Jesus work confused with the Cthulhu image when you say; "portrays the dead having arisen." and I also think you're being awfully hard on art here. Can an artist not express the "spirit" of a founding document he believes was divinely inspired by using their authors' likeness? Now they're somehow; "... having arisen from the dead to rapture up their elect on Judgement day."? [my words in summary]

A most peculiar Judgement day I might add that seems to imply a little time left, but only in the USA and while none of the more noteworthy followers of Christ such as... I don't know... a disciple or something are pictured with Jesus, I'm supposed to believe this is God's chosen "ilk" on Judgement day. I just don't subego. I don't see it. I see it as the artist's illustration of the spiritual condition of the United States of America. Period. I don't know what he's saying of the earth or of God's elect, he seems to be implying that the US has little time left. He's featuring the people who drafted our founding documents and sacrificed for the betterment of our country. A country he believes was founded on Christian principles. He's also featuring people he believes are either not paying attention or those who've unwittingly or deliberately contributed to Godlessness.

We can have a differing opinion on what that means, which we do. That wasn't my point. My point is that's what he put in there. If he didn't want people to interpret those themes, it was his mistake for putting them in there.

If you felt that our country was conceived in document form, founded on Godly principles, authored and supported by men and women of all walks of life, but is in jeopardy to men and women from specific walks of life; how would you illustrate it? What would your painting look like? Remember, you can use no likeness of God, no people, and no reference to any specific place on earth.

If you find it a curiosity this far in that I would be focused on sin and judgment in a painting which I have repeatedly stated I think is a representation of Judgement Day, it strikes me you aren't accepting my premise, even for the sake of argument. If that's the case, I don't really see the point of the discussion.

Do you believe in the Christian concept of a Judgement day?

Asking for a premise, and then demonstrating an unwillingness to consider it at face value is generally an indication of "bad faith".

I thought it was "bad faith" or at the least, facetious to post your disagreement with an artist's world view by putting his work against a blatantly self-indulgent work of gratuitous gore for "which is more disturbing?". You're welcome to your opinion of course, but I asked for a premise to challenge you on exactly what was waaay more disturbing about it. The opinion I've developed is that you are disturbed by views that are different from yours.

Look, it's hard to sound diplomatic in the written word. We simply disagree.

As is hurling accusations.

They're not accusations, they're perceptions. Hence my use of "I think... "

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you believe in the Christian concept of a Judgement day?

I don't want you to think I'm being cagey here.

I am pretty doubtful, but ultimately undecided. I think it's safe to say I've been affected by the imagery.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I thought it was "bad faith" or at the least, facetious to post your disagreement with an artist's world view by putting his work against a blatantly self-indulgent work of gratuitous gore for "which is more disturbing?". You're welcome to your opinion of course, but I asked for a premise to challenge you on exactly what was waaay more disturbing about it. The opinion I've developed is that you are disturbed by views that are different from yours.

Let me try and explain what I'm finding frustrating about your perception.

This is the basic shape I've seen in our conversation (exaggerated for effect).

Pretend we're looking at a blade of grass.

subego: That grass is red, red grass freaks me out.
ebuddy: No it isn't, that grass is blue.
subego: Red.
ebuddy: Blue.
subego: Red.
ebuddy: This shows me you don't like grass.
subego:

Are you talking about me not liking red grass? Blue grass?

It seems like you're talking about blue grass, because you've only referred to the red grass by way of saying I'm mistaken about its color.

The problem with that is, I'm not disturbed by blue grass, so I'm going to take issue with the claim that I am.

None of the interpretations you've brought up disturb me, because I don't get a freaky nationalistic apocalypse cult vibe from them.

Similarly, I didn't make the thread to slag off blue grass, which your counterclaim of "bad faith" implies.

Does that make sense?

[hyteckit]

subego: That grass is red, red grass freaks me out.
ebuddy: No it isn't, that grass is blue.
subego: Red.
ebuddy: Blue.
subego: Red.
ebuddy: This shows me you don't like grass.
subego:
ebuddy: You are an atheist who doesn't believe the grass is blue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't want you to think I'm being cagey here.

I am pretty doubtful, but ultimately undecided. I think it's safe to say I've been affected by the imagery.

So... if it had been Zeus pictured in the image as the central figure with a bolt of lightening or something; would you have been equally as offended? Myth is myth right? I guess I don't understand why you're disturbed by something you don't believe in.

Let me try and explain what I'm finding frustrating about your perception.

This is the basic shape I've seen in our conversation (exaggerated for effect).

Pretend we're looking at a blade of grass.

subego: That grass is red, red grass freaks me out.
ebuddy: No it isn't, that grass is blue.
subego: Red.
ebuddy: Blue.
subego: Red.
ebuddy: This shows me you don't like grass.
subego:

Let me summarize for you what the discussion looked like to me;

• subego: That grass is red, red grass freaks me out.
• ebuddy: but one picture has some blue grass and some red grass, the other has only red grass. Why are you more freaked out by the one that has some red grass, but less freaked out by the one that has all red grass?
• subego: I see only the red grass
• ebuddy: why not the red grass in the other picture then?
• subego: There's red grass in the picture
• ebuddy: But there's also blue grass in the picture yet you claim you're more disturbed by the picture with red grass and blue grass while finding the all red grass picture less disturbing. Why?
• subego:

Are you talking about me not liking red grass? Blue grass?

No. I'm saying one shows hopelessness, death, destruction, despair, blood, and gore for all under an obviously evil entity and one of our Presidents pictured as a minion of the beast holding what appears to be a colon with pools of blood all around. The other shows the image of a founding document, expressing one man's view that the United States of America is spiritually sick by picturing his God, a somber, stoic deity. In his image there may be hopelessness and despair for some or distasteful political rhetoric, but there are also images of inspirational figures and ideals within it.

I'm talking about you only seeing red grass in a picture that has both red and blue grass while the other picture has only red grass yet you somehow see less red grass in it.

It seems like you're talking about blue grass, because you've only referred to the red grass by way of saying I'm mistaken about its color.

It seems like you're trying to find red grass because red grass freaks you out. The problem is, you're doubtful red grass even exists.

So... you're freaked out by a myth. Both images feature a mythical deity. One mythical deity has wrought death and destruction upon all in the most merciless of ways with the help of a former President. That image displays no time left, all is destroyed, and all are dead. The other mythical being may bring conviction for some in your view, but the image itself implies there's still time for all. You're more freaked out by the image that has a political or worldview that indicts certain aspects of our system and its participants and you're less freaked out by the other one illustrating a peculiar disregard for all of our system and all its participants.

The problem with that is, I'm not disturbed by blue grass, so I'm going to take issue with the claim that I am.

I'm just going by what you're saying. You're saying Judgement day is pictured in the painting. I took issue with that because almost none of the images are consistent with any "Judgement day" scenario I'm familiar with.

Similarly, I didn't make the thread to slag off blue grass, which your counterclaim of "bad faith" implies. Does that make sense?

Yes, your words are making sense, but your logic in this thread still escapes me. Based on your OP and your subsequent explanations, it seems you're disturbed by opinions that are different from your own. You don't want to simply say this of course because this would imply a measure of intolerance for differing world views, but you've really left little else for someone to conclude IMO.

[subego]

Okay, I'm working up a fuller response, but I think I realize where things got twisted up.

Very simply, when you asked the question "why", I thought you were asking "why are you disturbed by the Jesus painting", not "why are you disturbed by the Jesus picture, and not the Cthulhu painting".

Seriously. Totally my mistake there. Looking back, I can see you were asking about both. I focused on the Jesus painting exclusively because that's what I (mistakenly) thought you were asking about.

The short form to the questions you pose above is that I see Jesus and God as less mythical figures than you think I do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Very simply, when you asked the question "why", I thought you were asking "why are you disturbed by the Jesus painting", not "why are you disturbed by the Jesus picture, and not the Cthulhu painting".

I was curious why you're "waaay more disturbed" about the Jesus image than the Cthulhu image.

Seriously. Totally my mistake there. Looking back, I can see you were asking about both. I focused on the Jesus painting exclusively because that's what I (mistakenly) thought you were asking about.

No problem subego.

The short form to the questions you pose above is that I see Jesus and God as less mythical figures than you think I do.

I'm guessing "less mythical" in the number of devoted adherents to one vs the other? I mean if there were something "militant" implied with the image, I might have a better understanding, but I just don't see anything other than a view that likely differs from your own. Again I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, just trying to understand the contest I guess.