Worst painting ever (political)

[Pulp Hero]

I just have one question: Why is the WW1 soldier a midget?

[irishmick79]

So I guess firefighters and police don't deserve a spot in America's Pantheon of Heroes. Their absence is conspicuous. Maybe I guess the police are left out because they're symbols of law and order for 'de eeeevil gubmint?'

[Ilya Muromets]

This has already been answered:

First, we (=the racist painter) can't have too many black people in the picture.
Second, it actually perverts the personal goals of Dr. King, since he was anti-war - it's like letting Hitler stand in for Ghandi.

In fact, if you actually read the commentary, he says that he originally painted Dr. King but he had copyright problems with the King Foundation. I think this is more a case of cluelessness than racism. There's no real evidence that the guy is actually a racist.

So a single foundation hold a copyright to a historical figure's image? Man, all those impromtu murals, t-shirts, and misguided rap CD covers portraying King are doing copyright violations then! Arrest them all!

And, well, is "King Foundation" even the right name? I can't find a King Foundation on Google. The closest thing I can find is the King Center.

[irishmick79]

When I searched I came up with an opinion piece in the LA Times which discusses the King family's Intellectual Properties Management, INC. I guess King's kids are fairly aggressive with protecting this kind of stuff, drawing fees from the US memorial organization trying to build a national monument to King.

So who knows, the artist might have actually run into issues with these folks.

[Ilya Muromets]

Huh... well, I guess I'll retract my eye-rolling. Still, if they are that aggressive, I wonder how the hell they can go around and enforce that when MLK Jr's image is so iconic and so reproduced.

[irishmick79]

Huh... well, I guess I'll retract my eye-rolling. Still, if they are that aggressive, I wonder how the hell they can go around and enforce that when MLK Jr's image is so iconic and so reproduced.

You win a circuit court case here and there, and you're in business.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Yes, and there's nothing but human decency and irony stopping someone from creating "Chez Guevarra" resterant chain....

[Metatwaddle]

Huh... well, I guess I'll retract my eye-rolling. Still, if they are that aggressive, I wonder how the hell they can go around and enforce that when MLK Jr's image is so iconic and so reproduced.

You win a circuit court case here and there, and you're in business.

Or you don't even do that, and you just intimidate people who don't really know copyright law with Cease and Desist letters or something. I can't imagine that painting a public figure is a violation of anything at all, but maybe this painter guy just didn't know or didn't want to deal with the hassle from a lawsuit.

Or maybe I'm wrong about the law--this is all conjecture. Anybody know if painting a public figure is always legal, or if Dr. King's heirs have a leg to stand on?

[Shroom Man 777]

For a second, I thought that the astronaut lady in the portrait was that same lady who went crazy, wore a space diaper, and went halfway across America to kidnap the girlfriend of a dude she fancied.


Also, I wish I knew a famous historic relative who died, so I could take profit from his noble actions by mooching and making money out of people using paying tribute to his image, words and deeds.

[Darth Holbytlan]

OK, first thing: the painting is pretty. Yes, it depicts lies and every right-wing self-delusion that is possible, even more. That doesn't mean that as a painting it can't stand on its own merits. Or if you think that its awful as a painting, then say why. I believe that as a painting, its nice. It's message however... well, little could be added that everyone else didn't.

The composition is pedestrian, with many figures holding unnatural postures. It's especially weird how all of the famous people are facing forward, like the artist was limited by his reference images. (Especially note John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.) Many of the supplication poses are particularly strange, such as Lincoln's and the WWI and WWII/Korean/Vietnam soldiers. The buildings, steps, and flag are thrown in with no sense of space or location. The artist sort of gave up drawing many background details, most noticeably feet. (Who does the artist think he is, Rob Leifeld?)

Technically, as a painter he is perfectly competent, but as an artist he shows little talent.

[open_sketchbook]

Indeed. Nice brushstrokes can't save shitty execution. To add to the above, his lighting is rather inconsistent (the upper right in particular seems to be generating it's own lighting.) and the perspective breaks down quite a bit. (His horizon line seems to change abruptly at the top steps) People are also terribly, terribly scaled, as we can see from WW1 midget and super-Reagan, who looks like he could tear down any wall he wanted with his bare hands. This is of course ignoring the Vietnam vet, who if he stood up would toward over Ubermensh Jesus. Seriously, look at his legs. If the US had soldiers like that in Vietnam, they would have won hands down.

[Emerson33260]

Posters may realize with horror that they are on the same side as Pat Robertson with regard to the painting. The artist is a member of the Latter-day Saints. (Googled all over, though, and can't find what the hell the tree on Joshua's robe has to do with anything.) This automatically makes Mr. McNaughton a blasphemer, heretic, or at best non-Christian in the eyes of those who do not accept the Book of Mormon. Glenn Beck, on the other hand, converted to the LDS a couple of years back.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Posters may realize with horror that they are on the same side as Pat Robertson with regard to the painting. The artist is a member of the Latter-day Saints. (Googled all over, though, and can't find what the hell the tree on Joshua's robe has to do with anything.)

The tree is the Tree of Life, as he actually says in the annotation. It appears in several different places in the Bible, but this is probably the most well-known:

Genesis 3:22 (New International Version)

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

The usual interpretation among Christians is that it is the symbol for Jesus, and the LDS are probably close enough that they hold the same interpretation.

As for the Latter-day Saints: most, if not all protestant churches consider them a non-Christian religion, since they don't recognize the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed. From a Catholic point of view they are certainly heretic, but then again so are all protestant Churches. Even so, to Catholics LDS are probably "more heretic" (if there is such a thing) than say Anglicans or Lutherans. Scientifically speaking they are an off-shoot group from mainstream protestant Christianity with a lot of common, but also some unique traits (the Book of Mormon being the most obvious of course).