Ridiculous Right Wing Nontroversy of the Day

Blogosphere • Views: 4,516

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government blog is having a cow about some ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, touching all the right wing hot buttons — commies, gays, and Obama’s “arrogance” — and evoking the desired Pavlovian response: EXCLUSIVE: Transvestites, Mao And Obama Ornaments Decorate White House Christmas Tree.

The facts: the Obamas sent over 800 ornaments left over from previous administrations to local community groups, and asked them to decorate the ornaments to pay tribute to a favorite local landmark.

The most horrific of these Christmas ornaments, according to Big Government:

Gahh! It’s a commie on the White House Christmas tree! Gahhh! [run around screaming]

Well, actually, it’s an Andy Warhol print, but if you really want to run around screaming, don’t let me stop you.

UPDATE at 12/23/09 12:06:36 pm:

Last week Jon Stewart had a segment on the Obama administration’s evil indoctrination of schoolchildren into mindless commie Christmas ornament worker units. But not even Stewart could foresee the true horror that was to come. And now a Warhol print is hanging on the White House Christmas tree, to America’s everlasting shame.

media.mtvnservices.com

UPDATE at 12/23/09 1:12:24 pm:

For the commenters at Hot Air, this is cause for a Christmas ornament revolution, or for Obama to be thrown in prison in leg irons, whichever comes first. You can’t make up silliness like this:

I am waaaaaay past tired of this Il Duce wannabe pissing on EVERYTHING American.

FUCK Obama.

At the moment I do NOT have a President.

2010 we need to take back the country through the ballot box…otherwise in 2011 we just need to take back the country.

Justrand on December 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM

[…]

Keep pushing Obama. I hope to see you in an orange jumpsuit and leggings by Christmas 2010.

journeyintothewhirlwind on December 22, 2009 at 10:58 PM

UPDATE at 12/23/09 1:16:04 pm:

And in the comments at Big Government, they’re calling for Barack Obama to be executed:

Raul · 14 minutes ago

We can’t wait until 2012 to get rid of this comunist bastard of Hussain Obama. The people of the United States must revolt, and demand that this low life, President be impeached and tried for treason agaisnt this great nation of ours. Mao Tse Tung would have allready placed him before a firing squad. A fate he deserves, but that we are too civilized to impose upon this bastard.

Jump to bottom

767 comments
1 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:02:35pm

Lee Atwater must be pleased.

2 philosophus invidius  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:02:59pm

How do we even know that these pictures are from the White House Xmas tree?

3 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:03:10pm
over 800 of these ornaments were created by local community groups


Aacooooorn!

4 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:04:33pm

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a Maos

5 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:05:58pm

re: #3 Killgore Trout

Aacooorn!

no thats oak trees...

6 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:06:20pm

Mao is wearing blue eyeshadow. Hedda Lettuce is a transvestite. The conspiracy is even thicker than they think. /

7 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:07:01pm

New Bedford woman charged with threatening First Lady

Youtube Video
8 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:07:32pm

Strange.

But nothing to get all Beckian over.

9 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:07:58pm

If you go hanging ornaments of Chairman Mao You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow...

(from the previous thread... but it belongs here.)

10 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:08:11pm

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history (whose body count is probably above 70 million), and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities to turn Mao into "art", followed by the idiocy of the community group that thought including Mao on their ornament was a good idea (even if it was Warhol's print).

11 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:09:07pm

Look who's on the ornament near Michelle's shoulder.

12 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:09:08pm

BTW, the posting of the Christmas tree with the Obama's in front of it was quite nice - the First Lady's dress was very tasteful and flattering. /blackwell's ghost

13 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:09:28pm

What?

The left is totally outraged over the Ronald Reagan ornament next to Michelle's right shoulder.

/ and this is a really nice picture of the president and first lady.

14 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:10:07pm

re: #11 SixDegrees

Look who's on the ornament near Michelle's shoulder.

Confirmed! Obama is a sekrit Reagan conservative!

15 researchok  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:10:27pm

It never fails to astonish me the lengths some people will go to distract millions from what really matters and engage in what is really constructive.

16 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:10:32pm

re: #10 lawhawk

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history (whose body count is probably above 70 million), and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities to turn Mao into "art", followed by the idiocy of the community group that thought including Mao on their ornament was a good idea (even if it was Warhol's print).

Agreed.

But it's long shot to assume that Obama himself examined over 800 ornaments, no?

It was a staff project I gather. And a mistake.

17 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:10:57pm

/I still wanna know what is under the tree...

18 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:11:10pm

re: #13 Racer X

Her skin! Lahk Buttah!

19 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:11:26pm

re: #16 Ben Hur

Agreed.

But it's long shot to assume that Obama himself examined over 800 ornaments, no?

It was a staff project I gather. And a mistake.

What a staff, eh?

20 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:11:27pm

re: #10 lawhawk

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history (whose body count is probably above 70 million), and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities to turn Mao into "art", followed by the idiocy of the community group that thought including Mao on their ornament was a good idea (even if it was Warhol's print).

What about being the first president to fly on AF1 to meet with Mao who killed 70 million people. That is, Nixon. Should that have been avoided? Shaking the hand of Mao as opposed to, an ornament with a postage stamp sized iconic art piece?

21 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:11:51pm

re: #10 lawhawk

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history (whose body count is probably above 70 million), and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities to turn Mao into "art", followed by the idiocy of the community group that thought including Mao on their ornament was a good idea (even if it was Warhol's print).

I'd be in favor of removing it, actually, except that now that the crazies have gotten ahold of it, I perversely feel like supporting it. Can we compromise and replace Mao with another drag queen?

22 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:11:54pm

Do-wop music is a communist plot.

Ooo-mao mao Ooo-ma moo -mao mao /

23 Ericus58  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:12:09pm

I personally find having the photo/likeness of a Dictator placed on the WH tree - a symbol of Peace and Love and Celebration. Yes, even a secular guy like me see this as a problem.

Some of us find it at best a conflict with what we aspire to be as a nation, and at worse a poke in our eye out of spite.

As another previous thread poster noted, it's not a problem with the President I have with this issue, I'm not calling him out - that's idiotic. But I would have thought the WH staff in charge would have perhaps had a better grasp.

24 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:12:26pm

I mean, Obama wouldn't put himself on Mt Rushmore.

25 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:12:56pm

re: #23 Ericus58

I personally find having the photo/likeness of a Dictator placed on the WH tree - a symbol of Peace and Love and Celebration. Yes, even a secular guy like me see this as a problem.

Some of us find it at best a conflict with what we aspire to be as a nation, and at worse a poke in our eye out of spite.

As another previous thread poster noted, it's not a problem with the President I have with this issue, I'm not calling him out - that's idiotic. But I would have thought the WH staff in charge would have perhaps had a better grasp.

Agreed.

26 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:12:59pm

Does anyone know the provenance of the photos in question? I scanned through the official White House photograph and noticed the Reagan ornament, but I didn't see the others in that shot. Then again, I really, really hated Where's Waldo? and didn't spend a whole lot of time looking. Are they there? Or did someone else provide them?

27 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:13:19pm

Hundreds of community groups donated these ornaments -- you can't tell from that tiny image, but I suggest it's quite possible the Warhol Mao ornament was donated by a Chinese community group.

28 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:13:47pm
29 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:13:58pm

re: #27 Charles

Hundreds of community groups donated these ornaments -- you can't tell from that tiny image, but I suggest it's quite possible the Warhol Mao ornament was donated by a Chinese community group.

The Party, perhaps?

'Cause Mao himself is persona non grata.

30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:14:00pm

re: #20 Gus 802

Ever thought of how many lives Nixon's visit may have saved?

The killing probably slowed down for a few days anyway.

31 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:14:29pm

re: #24 Ben Hur

I mean, Obama wouldn't put himself on Mt Rushmore.

there's no room...he'd have to replace Washington, no problem

32 general sherman  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:14:42pm

The logic is faulty. Mao was a mass murderer. If a "community group" had submitted a ornament with an Andy Warhol print of Stalin, Hitler, etc. would the White House's (or Charles') explanation/excuse be the same . . . of course not. Just because the ornaments were submitted by "community groups" does absolve or provide some type of procedural immunity to those who decorated the tree. It's at the at least offensive, particularly to those Chinese-Americans who escaped Mao's revolutionary guard during the Great Leap Forward.

33 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:15:00pm

re: #27 Charles

Hundreds of community groups donated these ornaments -- you can't tell from that tiny image, but I suggest it's quite possible the Warhol Mao ornament was donated by a Chinese community group.

I say 7th grade social studies class at Friends.

34 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:15:06pm

re: #19 Guanxi88

What a staff, eh?


Yup. The Obama White House may want to recall some of the protocal officers from previous administrations. Little gaffes and giggles like this have dogged them since the start. It is not uncommon for campaign volunteers and advisers to get staff positions in executive administrations and they aren't always the most qualified in their appointed position.

However- to make a big deal of a Christmas ornament as though it is a secret message to Obama's commie minions?! Duh.

35 sagehen  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:15:46pm

re: #7 Killgore Trout

New Bedford woman charged with threatening First Lady

[Video]


I really like the outfit Michelle's wearing in the footage shown there....

36 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:15:55pm

I think I see his birth certificate up there!

37 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:16:15pm

re: #34 DaddyG

Yup. The Obama White House may want to recall some of the protocal officers from previous administrations. Little gaffes and giggles like this have dogged them since the start. It is not uncommon for campaign volunteers and advisers to get staff positions in executive administrations and they aren't always the most qualified in their appointed position.

However- to make a big deal of a Christmas ornament as though it is a secret message to Obama's commie minions?! Duh.

Well, obviously, it's not a message FROM the White House to the nation or any group in it. Rather it is a message FROM a community group to the White House. Odd, though, that such a group might find anything sympathetic in the current administration.

38 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:16:40pm

I think we should ban all pictures or mentions of Mao from America. It's the only way to stop the commie takeover of our precious bodily fluids.

39 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:16:56pm

re: #36 Ben Hur

I think I see his birth certificate up there!

it's written in....Swahili!

40 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:17:21pm

re: #36 Ben Hur

I think I see his birth certificate up there!

WTH?

He was born at the North Pole!

41 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:17:28pm

re: #32 general sherman

I would agree that the ornament should have not been put on the tree. However, I wouldn't expect the White house staff or Secret service to waste their time vetting ornaments. The fact that this ornament appeared of the tree proves nothing about anything. It's simply not that important.

42 BruceKelly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:17:31pm

re: #38 Charles

I think we should ban all pictures or mentions of Mao from America. It's the only way to stop the commie takeover of our precious bodily fluids.

I resemble that remark.

43 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:17:51pm

re: #38 Charles

I think we should ban all pictures or mentions of Mao from America. It's the only way to stop the commie takeover of our precious bodily fluids.

Brilliant- preserve our freedom with censorship! Why didn't I think of that! /

44 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:17:52pm

re: #38 Charles

I think we should ban all pictures or mentions of Mao from America. It's the only way to stop the commie takeover of our precious bodily fluids.

I think we might want to be bit more careful about allowing iconic images of mass-murdering totalitarian thugs to be dismissed as kitschy nontroversies.

45 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:18:08pm

re: #38 Charles

I think we should ban all pictures or mentions of Mao from America. It's the only way to stop the commie takeover of our precious bodily fluids.

It's the White House.

46 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:18:09pm

Kind of goes to the same thought I had of The Empire State Building being lit up with China's colors.

There are many Chinese people in the United States who fled Chairman Mao. This to them would be disgusting.

Here's a simple idea. Take the ornament off the tree.

47 Bob Dillon  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:18:45pm

re: #23 Ericus58

But I would have thought the WH staff in charge would have perhaps had a better grasp.

Probably the same gal that had the Che poster behind her desk during the campaign.

/

48 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:19:03pm

re: #27 Charles

Hundreds of community groups donated these ornaments -- you can't tell from that tiny image, but I suggest it's quite possible the Warhol Mao ornament was donated by a Chinese community group.

Seriously - which Chinese community group in the US would think a Mao ornament was cute, tasteful, or anything other than flat-out ugly and wrong?

49 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:19:10pm

re: #10 lawhawk

Good grief, what a bunch of PC nonsense.

Art is a nifty thing. It can actually touch on controversial subjects. For you to say that Warhol was warped to make art out of Mao is either missing the forest for the trees, or burning down the forest in the name of political correctness.

50 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:19:17pm

re: #41 Killgore Trout

I would agree that the ornament should have not been put on the tree. However, I wouldn't expect the White house staff or Secret service to waste their time vetting ornaments. The fact that this ornament appeared of the tree proves nothing about anything. It's simply not that important.

good...I hope one of those ornaments doesn't explode Xmas morning

51 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:19:18pm

re: #41 Killgore Trout

I would agree that the ornament should have not been put on the tree. However, I wouldn't expect the White house staff or Secret service to waste their time vetting ornaments. The fact that this ornament appeared of the tree proves nothing about anything. It's simply not that important.


Gee you would think somewhere in the stimulus bill there would be a national holiday decoration vetting committee budget?
//

52 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:19:50pm

*Racer X runs into the other room to quickly check over all ornaments on the tree*

53 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:19:54pm

re: #20 Gus 802

I think we can differentiate between the need to engage in diplomacy and foreign policy, which was the point of the Nixon visit to China, and a piece of art that could be interpreted as Warhol trying to show communist propaganda akin to capitalist advertising.

Poor taste, but not something that would get my dander up.

54 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:20:20pm

re: #48 Guanxi88

Seriously - which Chinese community group in the US would think a Mao ornament was cute, tasteful, or anything other than flat-out ugly and wrong?

The Cameron Diaz Group?

[Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]

55 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:20:41pm

re: #40 Racer X

WTH?

He was born at the North Pole!

LOL!

56 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:20:43pm

re: #4 Gus 802

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a Maos

Are you sure it wasn't a moose? A moose once bit my sister.

57 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:20:45pm

re: #50 albusteve

good...I hope one of those ornaments doesn't explode Xmas morning

IEO?

58 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:20:56pm

I am fairly certain that when the President hears about this, he's gonna be some kind of pissed. And I don't mean false outrage. He's gonna be flat out, steam coming out of his ears furious.

59 KingKenrod  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:21:05pm

re: #41 Killgore Trout

I would agree that the ornament should have not been put on the tree. However, I wouldn't expect the White house staff or Secret service to waste their time vetting ornaments. The fact that this ornament appeared of the tree proves nothing about anything. It's simply not that important.

They should be vetting ornaments. Someone might slip in a holy hand grenade...

60 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:21:36pm

re: #53 lawhawk

Poor taste, but not something that would get my dander up.

A little Head and Shoulders will clear that right up. Along with mutating alient species bent on taking over Arizona... /

61 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:21:37pm

re: #53 lawhawk

I think we can differentiate between the need to engage in diplomacy and foreign policy, which was the point of the Nixon visit to China, and a piece of art that could be interpreted as Warhol trying to show communist propaganda akin to capitalist advertising.

Poor taste, but not something that would get my dander up.

I applaud Nixon's visit to China.

62 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:21:39pm

re: #59 KingKenrod

The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?

63 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:21:40pm

re: #51 DaddyG

Gee you would think somewhere in the stimulus bill there would be a national holiday decoration vetting committee budget?
//

/don't worry the budget is there but they have the 60 votes so why spend it yet?

64 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:21:42pm

re: #38 Charles

It's the flouride in the water damnit. And while we're at it, I better check my flight survival gear: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

65 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:22:02pm

re: #58 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am fairly certain that when the President hears about this, he's gonna be some kind of pissed. And I don't mean false outrage. He's gonna be flat out, steam coming out of his ears furious.

Why? The only people upset by it are just fringe paranoid Beckists and similar enemies of the people.

66 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:22:06pm

re: #62 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?

4 is right out!

67 huggy77  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:22:23pm

I think the blog post was having fun, Its not really a serious tone, it made me chuckle...

Whats with the lefts obsession with Che and Mao?

68 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:22:40pm

re: #59 KingKenrod

They should be vetting ornaments. Someone might slip in a holy hand grenade...


They probably x-rayd, bomb sniffed, shook rattled and rolled them. They just neglected to look at what was painted on them.

69 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:22:47pm

re: #59 KingKenrod

They should be vetting ornaments. Someone might slip in a holy hand grenade...

the bin laden ornament was rejected...

70 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:23:05pm

re: #21 SanFranciscoZionist

J Edgar Hoover? /

71 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:23:31pm

re: #69 brookly red

the bin laden ornament was rejected...

The protruding wires gave it away?

72 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:24:27pm

re: #65 Guanxi88

Nah. He wakes up every morning knee deep in yesterday's shit, and for this kind of idiocy to drop a fresh new turd on the pile, he can't be happy.

73 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:24:33pm

re: #67 huggy77

I think the blog post was having fun, Its not really a serious tone, it made me chuckle...

Whats with the lefts obsession with Che and Mao?


The skinheads and neo-Nazis picked Hitler first. Poor Bin Laden always gets picked last. /

74 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:24:38pm

re: #46 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

We should also avoid referring to any American history prior to the Civil war, in case any black people get offended.

re: #65 Guanxi88

Why? The only people upset by it are just fringe paranoid Beckists and similar enemies of the people.

Don't forget those who love political correctness, apparently.

75 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:24:47pm

re: #38 Charles

I think we should ban all pictures or mentions of Mao from America. It's the only way to stop the commie takeover of our precious bodily fluids.

For what it's worth, Warhol's intent with the Mao portrait (and many similar ones done of other celebrities) was to strip it of it's propaganda value through caricature (Mao's wearing lipstick in it, for instance) and mass production (lithography).

Now, I don't care much for Warhol's art or his often overwrought justifications for it, but it's quite clear that Warhol's intent with this particular piece was one of ridicule on a number of levels.

Just sayin'. Really, it isn't even clear that whoever created the ornament knew anything about it's content.

76 Bob Dillon  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:25:11pm

re: #48 Guanxi88

Seriously - which Chinese community group in the US would think a Mao ornament was cute, tasteful, or anything other than flat-out ugly and wrong?

Certainly not a religious one. The Chinese Government is the largest incarcerator, controller and suppressor of all religious individuals and groups in China across the board.

77 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:25:12pm

re: #71 Racer X

The protruding wires gave it away?

no, some info obtained with enhanced interrogation.

78 researchok  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:25:23pm

If a Mao ornament is the biggest faux pas of the Obama administration, this president will justifiably end up on Mount Rushmore.

79 SpaceJesus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:25:32pm

woman go take your pills

80 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:25:34pm

Extremist excerpt:

According to World Net Daily, several ornaments on the tree, depict the extremist views of the administration. One ornament contains the face of Mao Zedong, who killed many of his country men. Another a transvestite with rainbows around the ornament. Another pictures Obama added to Mounty Rushmore. A Communist, a transvestite, and our most pompous president to date deck this anti-American, anti-Christian tree.

81 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:25:34pm

re: #73 DaddyG

The skinheads and neo-Nazis picked Hitler first. Poor Bin Laden always gets picked last. /

Except basketball. He's tall as hell.

Hopefully, tall in hell.

82 Jaerik  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:26:05pm

re: #10 lawhawk

...and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

It's not "okay." It's just a symbol of how completely intellectually bankrupt the Right has become that they need to reach this far for something to be outraged about.

It would be like some fringe left-wing environmental group making a controversy out of the tree being real. Because that would mean the White House is symbolically approving of mass deforestation in the Amazon!

83 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:26:11pm

re: #77 brookly red

no, some info obtained with enhanced interrogation.


That was obtained using the waterboard menorah. /

84 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:26:39pm

re: #81 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Except basketball. He's tall as hell.

Hopefully, tall in hell.

chillin in Iran...

85 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:26:49pm

re: #74 Obdicut

We should also avoid referring to any American history prior to the Civil war, in case any black people get offended.

re: #65 Guanxi88

Don't forget those who love political correctness, apparently.

Ahh! Excellent! Taking offense at Mao's image is reflexive political correctness. Nice twist, a little jiu-jitsu.

86 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:27:10pm

re: #64 lawhawk

Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

Or Dallas!

87 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:27:28pm

re: #84 brookly red

chillin in Iran...

I prefer "tall in hell".

88 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:27:36pm

re: #82 Jaerik

It's not "okay." It's just a symbol of how completely intellectually bankrupt the Right has become that they need to reach this far for something to be outraged about.

It would be like some fringe left-wing environmental group making a controversy out of the tree being real. Because that would mean the White House is symbolically approving of mass deforestation in the Amazon!


Welcome to the wrap around effect of teh crazy™

89 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:27:47pm

re: #11 SixDegrees

Look who's on the ornament near Michelle's shoulder.

A Texas Longhorn? With the bowl games coming up, no less.

90 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:28:17pm

Another nut:

# @Lizardoid If you think it's OK to celebrate the birth of Christ by honoring a mass murderer of genocidal proportions, don't let me stop you 19 minutes ago from Tweetie in reply to Lizardoid

91 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:28:31pm

re: #89 The Sanity Inspector

A Texas Longhorn? With the bowl games coming up, no less.


Secret Bush plot to reposses the White House and impose marshall law... shhhhhh. /

92 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:28:44pm

re: #76 Bobibutu

Certainly not a religious one. The Chinese Government is the largest incarcerator, controller and suppressor of all religious individuals and groups in China across the board.

I'll go further - even Chinese atheists want nothing to do with Mao. He's there, he's history, they incarcerated the Gang of Four after he died, to hold someone responsible for what Mao and his folk did, and they buried it as deeply as they could.

93 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:28:48pm

re: #82 Jaerik

It's not "okay." It's just a symbol of how completely intellectually bankrupt the Right has become that they need to reach this far for something to be outraged about.

It would be like some fringe left-wing environmental group making a controversy out of the tree being real. Because that would mean the White House is symbolically approving of mass deforestation in the Amazon!

intellectually bankrupt?, don't make me laugh...that is so old and yesterday....can't you post something original

94 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:28:52pm

re: #11 SixDegrees

Look who's on the ornament near Michelle's shoulder.

Could it be ... Satan?

95 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:30:08pm

re: #11 SixDegrees

Look who's on the ornament near Michelle's shoulder.

What really freaks me out is the disembodied hand on her waist.

96 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:30:21pm

And there won't be snow in China this Christmastime

The greatest gift they'll get this year is life

(Oooh) Where nothing ever grows

No rain nor rivers flow

Do they know it's Christmastime at all?

97 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:30:45pm

re: #75 SixDegrees

But but...

Na mei guan xi! He was a commie!

/

98 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:30:56pm

They put Ronald Reagan by Michelle's armpit. That can't have been an accident.

99 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:30:59pm

re: #85 Guanxi88

Warhol was mocking Mao, and mocking western obsession with Mao.

Art is cool.

Carry on with your PC outrage.

100 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:31:57pm

re: #3 Killgore Trout

Acorns on a pine tree? Now that's just un-natural.
//

101 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:32:02pm

re: #94 Charles

Could it be ... Satan?

Well, at least the anti-Christ.

102 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:32:08pm

re: #99 Obdicut

Warhol was mocking Mao, and mocking western obsession with Mao.

Art is cool.

Carry on with your PC outrage.

How is PC to be outraged?

It's PC NOT to be, cause G-d forbid you should offend Mao supporters.

103 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:32:40pm

re: #90 Gus 802

Another nut:

Yeah, I just blocked that moron.

104 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:32:55pm

re: #49 Obdicut

Is it PC? So, Mao is okay, but what about Hitler art? Okay, so would you have a problem with some Warhol wannabe coming out with Hitler silkscreens (calling 'em SS's for short - another clever run on the SS that terrorized Europe) in a similar fashion.

Is there even a line to be drawn?

Sometimes there are people who are evil. Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it. Hitler was evil. So was Stalin and Mao. I just don't think it was appropriate. The blood on their hands is the blood of tens of millions each.

I just don't think it warrants being immortalized as art.

105 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:32:58pm

Offensisensitivity is so in these days.

106 Ericus58  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:33:02pm

I would hope that my feelings as to why any picture of a Dictator (to say the least) hanging on the WH tree is wrong would not cause some Lizards here to lump me in the same catagory of WND or other wackos...

Let's try this:
The Bush WH tree had some dictator on it, like Franco or such. No problem then for you out there poo-poo this issue?

107 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:33:13pm

re: #99 Obdicut

Warhol was mocking Mao, and mocking western obsession with Mao.

Art is cool.

Carry on with your PC outrage.

Survivors of the Red Brigades don't think there's anything of any value in Mao or any depiction of him, and don't give two shits what that fraud Warhol did or claimed he did with the image of the twentieth century's worst killer.

Mao is evil.

Carry on with your condescending ignorance.

108 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:33:38pm

re: #102 Ben Hur

How is PC to be outraged?

It's PC NOT to be, cause G-d forbid you should offend Mao supporters.

/especially if you owe them a gazillion bucks...

109 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:33:53pm

re: #106 Ericus58

I would hope that my feelings as to why any picture of a Dictator (to say the least) hanging on the WH tree is wrong would not cause some Lizards here to lump me in the same catagory of WND or other wackos...

Let's try this:
The Bush WH tree had some dictator on it, like Franco or such. No problem then for you out there poo-poo this issue?

No koo-koo-ka-choo.

/

110 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:33:55pm

Just you wait. Next year, they'll be hanging ornaments with this Salvador Dali print on them. Inch by inch, that's how they get you...

/

Seriously, I loathe Mao and deplore the lack of fellow feeling in much of the rest of the Western pscyhe. But, I've learned to live with it.

111 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:34:22pm

re: #99 Obdicut

Warhol was mocking Mao, and mocking western obsession with Mao.

Art is cool.

Carry on with your PC outrage.

you are near hysteria yourself...nobody here is expressing any outrage, bad taste and bad choice...don't exaggerate the thing just because others are

112 huggy77  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:34:51pm

re: #94 Charles

your confusing the guy standing to her side with the leader on Ornament :P

See we can still have fun even though we disagree!

113 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:34:55pm

So?

Was the Reagan in plain view intentional?

114 freekurdistan  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:35:53pm

It's a transvestite commie pop art ornament!

115 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:35:59pm

re: #113 Ben Hur

Was the Reagan in plain view intentional?


It's a conspiracy!

116 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:36:08pm

re: #106 Ericus58

I would hope that my feelings as to why any picture of a Dictator (to say the least) hanging on the WH tree is wrong would not cause some Lizards here to lump me in the same catagory of WND or other wackos...

Let's try this:
The Bush WH tree had some dictator on it, like Franco or such. No problem then for you out there poo-poo this issue?

Or Jesus.

117 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:36:24pm

Is a White House Christmas tree ornament containing a Worhal image of Mao in bad taste? Yes - very bad taste.

Should some White House Staffer be scolded for their bad decisions and perhaps historical ignorance? Probably

Is it worth a spot on the Glenn Beck show or a Headline on your favorite conservative blog? No - unless you are making your living off of said controversial blog or TV show then that would be a Yeah Howdy!

118 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:36:47pm

re: #110 The Sanity Inspector

Just you wait. Next year, they'll be hanging ornaments with this Salvador Dali print on them. Inch by inch, that's how they get you...

/

Seriously, I loathe Mao and deplore the lack of fellow feeling in much of the rest of the Western pscyhe. But, I've learned to live with it.

Coming up next! Art banning.

Now I wonder what political regimes partook in the banning of art?

119 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:37:09pm

re: #116 Ben Hur

Or Jesus.

Uh oh......

120 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:37:16pm

re: #106 Ericus58

I would hope that my feelings as to why any picture of a Dictator (to say the least) hanging on the WH tree is wrong would not cause some Lizards here to lump me in the same catagory of WND or other wackos...

Let's try this:
The Bush WH tree had some dictator on it, like Franco or such. No problem then for you out there poo-poo this issue?

Why bother with hypotheticals? What we do have is an instance of an ornament bearing a reproduction of Warhol's portrait of Mao, a piece of art created with the intent of ridiculing Mao (and several other things, too).

I'm not having a problem over it.

If you find there are any other ornaments such as what you're describing, feel free to bring them to everyone's attention as they're noted.

And by the way: does anyone know where these photos came from?

121 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:37:19pm

re: #111 albusteve

you are near hysteria yourself...nobody here is expressing any outrage, bad taste and bad choice...don't exaggerate the thing just because others are

/hey, why did they have to kill a real live tree anyway?

122 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:37:29pm

re: #116 Ben Hur

Or Jesus.

Would that really be appropriate for a Christmas tree? /

123 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:38:29pm

re: #96 Ben Hur

And there won't be snow in China this Christmastime

The greatest gift they'll get this year is life

(Oooh) Where nothing ever grows

No rain nor rivers flow

Do they know it's Christmastime at all?

Youtube Video

BTW I'm still peeved that I never received the Live Aid T-shirt I bought.

124 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:38:48pm

re: #118 Gus 802

Coming up next! Art banning.

Now I wonder what political regimes partook in the banning of art?

Quite the leap.

(and all those problems we have to today with those political regimes of the right, like Zimbabwe, N Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc etc)

125 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:39:06pm

re: #121 brookly red

/hey, why did they have to kill a real live tree anyway?

I'm sure it will become pellet fuel for the WH bakery

126 Sam N  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:39:12pm

re: #118 Gus 802

Coming up next! Art banning.

Now I wonder what political regimes partook in the banning of art?

Criticizing a distasteful ornament from a christmas tree is not the same as banning art.

127 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:39:36pm

re: #123 The Sanity Inspector

[Video]BTW I'm still peeved that I never received the Live Aid T-shirt I bought.

And the Africans didn't get your $.

128 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:39:42pm

re: #123 The Sanity Inspector

[Video]BTW I'm still peeved that I never received the Live Aid T-shirt I bought.

By the way, Paul Young is featured in this song. I really like his voice.

129 KingKenrod  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:40:14pm

Bush had no problem with Christmas tree quality control:

A spokeswoman for first lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the White House tree will not include an ornament by a Seattle artist that supports President Bush’s impeachment.

Artist Deborah Lawrence said she wanted to salute Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott, of Seattle, a longtime Bush foe who backs impeachment.


[Link: www.harikari.com...]
[Link: www.seattlepi.com...]

130 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:40:47pm

re: #124 Ben Hur

re: #126 Sam N

I'm an adult and know the difference between real world politics and 1/800ths of Christmas tree ornaments.

131 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:40:56pm

re: #125 albusteve

I'm sure it will become pellet fuel for the WH bakery

No trees for biscuits!

132 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:41:02pm

re: #102 Ben Hur

It's PC because Warhol's portrait is in no way pro-Mao propaganda. It references Mao. It distorts him and caricaturizes him, as well.

re: #107 Guanxi88

Yes, Mao is evil. If you see a picture of Mao, you should burn it, because the evil can seep out of the picture and make people Commies.
re: #104 lawhawk

re: #104 lawhawk

So, Mao is okay, but what about Hitler art? Okay, so would you have a problem with some Warhol wannabe coming out with Hitler silkscreens (calling 'em SS's for short - another clever run on the SS that terrorized Europe) in a similar fashion.

Yes, I'm not really into censorship, and I think making a caricature of Hitler is awesome.

Sometimes there are people who are evil. Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it.

Closed-minded complete garbage. Art is how we deal with evil.

133 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:41:03pm

Is that Elvis on the lower left?

134 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:41:17pm

re: #105 DaddyG

Offensisensitivity is so in these days.

I hate neologisms!

/

135 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:41:39pm

re: #131 DaddyG

No trees for biscuits!

err, make that waffles...

136 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:41:48pm

re: #130 Gus 802

re: #126 Sam N

I'm an adult and know the difference between real world politics and 1/800ths of Christmas tree ornaments.

No sh*t.

137 Seltzer123  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:41:50pm

... and one of these outrageous symbols of communism sold for $17.4 million dollars.

[Link: www.danwei.org...]

138 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:42:22pm

Zionist!

139 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:43:08pm

re: #132 Obdicut

I misunderstood.

The outrage I thought you were referring to over having Mao on the White House Christmas tree, not over Warhol choosing him as a subject - which I don't see as a glorification.

140 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:43:09pm

re: #137 Seltzer123

... and one of these outrageous symbols of communism sold for $17.4 million dollars.

[Link: www.danwei.org...]

so what...the genius sold a soup can for that much

141 Lateralis  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:43:17pm

re: #75 SixDegrees


Just sayin'. Really, it isn't even clear that whoever created the ornament knew anything about it's content.

Probably true and that is what makes it scary.

142 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:43:19pm

re: #138 Killgore Trout

Biden looks half-baked all the time. He always looks like he's about to open his mouth and a huge cloud of smoke will pour out.

When he's not flashing those pearly whites, that is.

143 metrolibertarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:43:21pm

Guess who has a man crush on lunatic Buchananite Justin Raimondo?

[Link: rsmccain.blogspot.com...]

Color me shocked.

144 brookly red  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:43:36pm

OT. anyone hear from the Biden's lately?

145 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:43:52pm

Here's a pic of the communist infiltrators caught in the act!

A team of volunteers decorates the official White House Christmas Tree in the Blue Room of the White House, Nov. 30, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)


They look pretty radical to me.

146 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:43:54pm

re: #138 Killgore Trout

Zionist!

Obama the Honco?

147 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:45:08pm

re: #132 Obdicut

<
Yes, Mao is evil. If you see a picture of Mao, you should burn it, because the evil can seep out of the picture and make people Commies.

Thank you for your intelligent and insightful summary of the point I was attempting to make. Far be it from me to argue with such brilliance on this point.

Warhol's Mao litho was made in 1973. That evil murdering bastard continued his rampage until his death in 1976; I'd say that rather puts the lie to your suggestion that Art is how we deal with evil, unless you propose that caricatures were what brought down the Axis in Europe and Asia, and that Yaakov Smirnov was at least as responsible for the end of the Cold War as, say, Reagan and Pope John Paul II.

148 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:45:24pm

re: #144 brookly red

OT. anyone hear from the Biden's lately?

He found Cheney's cigar stash in the secret VP hidout and hasn't been up since.

149 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:45:41pm

re: #143 metrolibertarian

Guess who has a man crush on lunatic Buchananite Justin Raimondo?

[Link: rsmccain.blogspot.com...]

Color me shocked.

RSM... jing chang gou shi. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

150 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:45:55pm

Hot Airheads are calling for a Christmas ornament revolution:

I am waaaaaay past tired of this Il Duce wannabe pissing on EVERYTHING American.

FUCK Obama.

At the moment I do NOT have a President.

2010 we need to take back the country through the ballot box…otherwise in 2011 we just need to take back the country.

Justrand on December 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM

[...]

They knew. Now we know. And there is the rub because we can’t seem to do anything about it.

But I have hope that because they seem wired to keep doing this crap that they will very soon do something that is impeachable, that not even the Dems can ignore. And the Dems are pretty upset with them right now- ripe ground.

Keep pushing Obama. I hope to see you in an orange jumpsuit and leggings by Christmas 2010.

journeyintothewhirlwind on December 22, 2009 at 10:58 PM

The Hot Air thread for this is gloriously deranged. "Hitler was a Darwinist."

151 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:47:23pm

re: #147 Guanxi88

Oh geez.

I didn't meant that art stops evil, that once you paint a picture of an evil bastard he stops being evil. That's a ludicrous interpretation.

But yes, American culture was hugely responsible for the end of the Cold War. The circulation of samizdat, rock & roll, and the other undeniable cultural images of freedom of intellectualism were part of what made totalitarin communism an unsustainable system.

152 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:47:29pm

re: #150 Charles

Hot Airheads are calling for a Christmas ornament revolution:

The Hot Air for this is gloriously deranged. "Hitler was a Darwinist."

Typical. And that's where all of this leads.

Nuts.

153 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:47:36pm

re: #132 Obdicut

Where in the world do you think that I support censorship from? I don't ever suggest it.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth and for being sanctimonious about it to boot.

Art like this is how we deal with evil. Putting evil horns on someone can be art. I just don't think Warhol's particular Mao silk screens are ridiculing Mao or the evil he wrought.

It's my opinion, and I'm not foisting it on anyone else. I just didn't think it a good idea to be on the WH Christmas tree.

But Obdicut, go on reading more into my posts than what I actually wrote or even implied.

154 Ericus58  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:47:55pm

re: #129 KingKenrod

I think that was fair. Jimmy McD tried to take a celebration and turn it into a political gig. Not Cool.

155 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:48:12pm

re: #148 DaddyG

He found Cheney's Clinton's cigar stash in the secret VP intern hidout and hasn't been up since.

156 Existential_Donuts  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:48:22pm

re: #82 Jaerik

It's not "okay." It's just a symbol of how completely intellectually bankrupt the Right has become that they need to reach this far for something to be outraged about.

It would be like some fringe left-wing environmental group making a controversy out of the tree being real. Because that would mean the White House is symbolically approving of mass deforestation in the Amazon!

Well stated.

157 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:48:49pm

re: #150 Charles

Hot Airheads are calling for a Christmas ornament revolution:

The Hot Air for this is gloriously deranged. "Hitler was a Darwinist."

We shall support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.

Mao Tse Tung

158 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:48:51pm

re: #143 metrolibertarian

Guess who has a man crush on lunatic Buchananite Justin Raimondo?

[Link: rsmccain.blogspot.com...]

Color me shocked.

Does Stacy know that Raimondo is gay? NTTAWWT. Just sayin'

159 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:49:00pm

About Warhol's Mao portraits:

Mao is one of a series of silkscreened portraits of the Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong (1893-1976) that Warhol produced in 1973. Nearly 15 feet tall, this towering image mirrors representations that were displayed throughout China during and after the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). Warhol was undoubtedly drawn to this subject because of the media’s attention to the opening of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China in the early 1970s. His irreverent attitude toward China’s totalitarian propaganda is apparent on the surface of the painting. Flamboyant brushstrokes compete with the photographic image, forming color splashes on Mao’s clothing. Red rouge and blue eye shadow resemble graffiti. These details can be interpreted as commentary on the resemblance of Communist propaganda to capitalist advertising media.

160 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:49:07pm

re: #151 Obdicut

Oh geez.

I didn't meant that art stops evil, that once you paint a picture of an evil bastard he stops being evil. That's a ludicrous interpretation.

But yes, American culture was hugely responsible for the end of the Cold War. The circulation of samizdat, rock & roll, and the other undeniable cultural images of freedom of intellectualism were part of what made totalitarin communism an unsustainable system.

Cultural imposition isn't so cool anymore.

161 Mark Pennington  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:49:14pm

Andrew Breitbart is a turd.

162 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:49:14pm

re: #151 Obdicut

Oh geez.

I didn't meant that art stops evil, that once you paint a picture of an evil bastard he stops being evil. That's a ludicrous interpretation.

No more ludicrous than the suggestion that those who take offense to the current and ongoing rehabilitation of Mao fear that evil communist influences can escape from the portraits of said bastards.

No more ludicrous than the suggestion that Warhol's litho did anything to change the underlying content of the image he attempted to manipulate.

163 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:50:44pm

re: #158 Alouette

Does Stacy know that Raimondo is gay? NTTAWWT. Just sayin'

Perhaps the raging homophobia of RSM and his ilk really is a cover for... well you know.

164 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:50:52pm

re: #159 Charles

About Warhol's Mao portraits:

So, which Chinese American community group do you suppose was able to see the irreverence in Warhol's work, get the edginess and sly, early post-modernist vibe of the thing, and thought this would make a great ornament?

165 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:51:51pm

re: #153 lawhawk

Your outrage is ludicrous to me.

Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it.

How is it not 'right', exactly? What's wrong about it?

166 Digital Display  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:52:33pm

re: #144 brookly red

OT. anyone hear from the Biden's lately?

I changed my cell phone number.. Jeez Joe will just not shut the hell up..
Blah blah blah.. I hate flying with the guy...It's bitch this..Bitch that...
I swear some of the time he sounds like a wanna be a Tony Saprono Jr. In Jersey.. I have 63 txt messages from Biden..Dude just talks and talks...
I gave him a throw away yahoo account...
It didn't help...
______
Hi It's Joe again!
______

Dude
*wink*

167 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:52:55pm

re: #162 Guanxi88

Do you think that Hitler biographies on A&E should avoid showing Hitler's face, too?

168 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:53:24pm

re: #165 Obdicut

Your outrage is ludicrous to me.

How is it not 'right', exactly? What's wrong about it?

In the West, Mao is a brand.

In the East, he's the historical equivalent of the Boogeyman, Satan, the Angel of Death, Oliver Cromwell, and Goebbels, all rolled into one.

169 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:53:50pm

re: #144 brookly red

OT. anyone hear from the Biden's lately?

I had to unfriend Joe from my Facebook. He kept putting asinine posts on my wall and sending me 800 Farmville requests all day.

/

170 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:53:54pm

Edgar Allan Poe in Bush White House Christmas tree ornament!

Poe was an atheist. Allegedly.

/Crypto tu quoque mode off.

/

171 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:54:46pm

re: #167 Obdicut

Do you think that Hitler biographies on A&E should avoid showing Hitler's face, too?

I dunno - are they using his image as a sly and hip commentary on the uses of propaganda, to eventually appear in a variety of forms and eventually even on ornaments in the White House Christmas tree, or would it be in order to show the human face of evil?

172 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:54:52pm

re: #166 HoosierHoops

He's busy washing his car.

173 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:56:24pm

re: #165 Obdicut

What part of glorifying mass murderers do you just not get? I (that's me - not anyone else) think it isn't right to do so.

Because like so many other famous images (Che's comes to mind) the evil that they have done gets lost in the banality of the images, and the evil that they did gets forgotten (except when someone or some event like this nontroversy brings it back to the forefront).

174 huggy77  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:58:07pm

christmas is should be not political... Next year let michelle's grandma decorate the tree!!!

Problem solved!

175 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:58:11pm

re: #171 Guanxi88

Yeah, those sly, hip commentaries on propaganda are so darn anti-American and Mao-supporting.

This nontroversy reminds me most of Huckleberry Finn getting taken out of school curriculum for being racist.

176 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:58:38pm

re: #166 HoosierHoops

That was funny as hell.

177 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:58:41pm

re: #173 lawhawk

What part of glorifying mass murderers do you see here, exactly? Where's the glory?

178 Bob Dillon  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:59:07pm

re: #145 Killgore Trout

Here's a pic of the communist infiltrators caught in the act!


They look pretty radical to me.

Probably supervised by Anita Dunn.
/

179 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:59:16pm

re: #173 lawhawk

I'd be surprised if even half of the people wearing clothes with Che images on them (or otherwise making use of Che's image) even know who the hell he was.

180 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:00:29pm

re: #168 Guanxi88

In the East, he's the historical equivalent of the Boogeyman, Satan, the Angel of Death, Oliver Cromwell, and Goebbels, all rolled into one.

Wait a second-- you're saying that in China, Mao is hated universally?

181 Ericus58  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:00:44pm

How many US servicemen gave their lives in the Korean War? An Uncle of mine did.

Still think ol' Mao is no big deal on the WH tree?

182 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:00:56pm

re: #177 Obdicut

What part of glorifying mass murderers do you see here, exactly? Where's the glory?

What is the point of putting Mao on a Christmas ornament?

183 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:01:34pm

re: #175 Obdicut

Yeah, those sly, hip commentaries on propaganda are so darn anti-American and Mao-supporting.

This nontroversy reminds me most of Huckleberry Finn getting taken out of school curriculum for being racist.

You're right - the cases are perfectly similar.

Face it - You don't have any qualms or concerns with the rehabilitation of evil, and you don't give two shits about the memories the face (no matter how devastating was Warhol's subversion of his image) of that murderous son of bitch evokes. The important thing, the key consideration around which and toward which all others must defer, is that "Art is cool."

184 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:02:07pm

What's the Hate Mail count Charles?

185 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:02:20pm

re: #164 Guanxi88

So, which Chinese American community group do you suppose was able to see the irreverence in Warhol's work, get the edginess and sly, early post-modernist vibe of the thing, and thought this would make a great ornament?

Frankly, I thought most people knew the work was meant as ridicule. Pretty much all of Warhol's work is meant that way. It's one of the reasons I don't care much for Warhol - he simply didn't have much to say, and said the same thing over and over again.

I just can't seem to find any problems with this.

But if a Chinese group such as you mention wanted the ornament removed, I wouldn't have a problem with that, either.

186 Locker  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:03:27pm

All of this nontroversy can not dampen the fact that I have 2 spicy breasts, 2 biscuits and a side of red beans and rice from Popeye's for lunch. Mmmm chicken.

187 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:03:45pm

re: #180 Obdicut

Wait a second-- you're saying that in China, Mao is hated universally?

Mao is not hated universally - the crimes and excesses of the Cultural Revolution were punished, in the form of the Gang of Four - after his death. They dared not move against him while he lived, but, for the record, Mao is more or less persona non grata. Maoist groups that spring up get stomped on with both feet, and almost NO ONE goes around spouting Maoism anymore.

Still, it may be different, here in the States. Maybe it really WAS some Chinese community group that gave the ornament. After all, I'm sure they'd have no feelings one way or the other about Mao.

188 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:04:20pm

re: #182 Racer X

What is the point of putting Mao on a Christmas ornament?

Honors the memory of Lee Atwater.

189 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:04:50pm

re: #183 Guanxi88

I don't think this rehabilitates evil one whit.

And if it really is about the memories the face evokes, why aren't you angry any time Hitler's face is shown?

Do you get really angry at this Monty Python sketch?

Youtube Video
190 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:05:01pm

Wow. I do not want to visit a Museum with some of the commentators here, although I think it's probably more of a heat of the moment thing. Straight from: Obama is celebrating Mao! to Art must not represent anything evil! Stick to kitties, artists!
If there in fact was a problematic picture on one of the balls, I would think the proper thing to do was to mention it, take it down and mock the White House a bit. Yet, this is treated with a seriousness appropriate for a confederate flag as deliberate background decoration.
That said, I am constantly surprise at how little nuance some people allow. Really, art that reflects on Propaganda and (imo) has effectively attached a pop art meaning to the picture of a political monster, thus robbing it of much of its effectiveness (the picture, not the man, obviously, though there is a connection), that's like Chaplin playing Hitler. I'm all for it!
To think that a group actually promoting Mao would use the Warhol print to do so seems insane on the face of it, to me.

191 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:05:22pm

I could use some spicy breasts just about now.

192 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:05:40pm

re: #168 Guanxi88

In the West, Mao is a brand.

In the East, he's the historical equivalent of the Boogeyman, Satan, the Angel of Death, Oliver Cromwell, and Goebbels, all rolled into one.

At the height of the Cultural Revolution and the Cult of Personality fervor, someone likened him to Hitler, the Pope and the Beatles all rolled into one.

193 Bob Dillon  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:05:41pm

re: #179 ArchangelMichael

I'd be surprised if even half of the people wearing clothes with Che images on them (or otherwise making use of Che's image) even know who the hell he was.

I was in the Berkeley City offices Monday. "Student" walks by wearing a Che T-shirt.
Started to ask him about it then remembered where I was and just let it go.

Dropped in at the Marine Recruiting Office a few blocks away later for a positive fix.

194 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:06:14pm

re: #179 ArchangelMichael

I'd be surprised if even half of the people wearing clothes with Che images on them (or otherwise making use of Che's image) even know who the hell he was.

That's exactly my point - the evil that they have done is lost on those who wear his images or put up his posters.

Would they have done so had they known what Che (or Mao) had done?

re: #185 SixDegrees
That's one interpretation of his art; another is that he was taking pictorial realism in a new direction.

195 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:07:28pm

re: #188 Guanxi88

Honors the memory of Lee Atwater.

Or of Andy Warhol.

OMG - Warhol was GAY!!! THERE'S A HOMOSEXUAL TRIBUTE ON THE WHITE HOUSE CHRISTMAS TREE!!! THE CHILLUN' MIGHT GET GAY COOTIES!!!

196 reine.de.tout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:07:32pm

re: #95 Alouette

What really freaks me out is the disembodied hand on her waist.

yes, but that necklace - to die for!
Beautiful, imo.
And goes well with the dress.

197 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:08:33pm

re: #189 Obdicut

I don't think this rehabilitates evil one whit.

And if it really is about the memories the face evokes, why aren't you angry any time Hitler's face is shown?

Do you get really angry at this Monty Python sketch?


[Video]

I disagree on the rehabilitation of Mao - it is ongoing. Few know - and fewer care - what he did to China. Mao's image as done by Warhol is now more or less the Westernized version of the man - the underlying intent and purpose of the Warhol print is lost on its audience.

Hitler's face evokes anger, naturally. It doesn't appear on ornaments and t-shirts and handbags, though.

The Python sketch is a classic - they can do no wrong.

198 Lateralis  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:09:09pm

re: #193 Bobibutu

I was in the Berkeley City offices Monday. "Student" walks by wearing a Che T-shirt.
Started to ask him about it then remembered where I was and just let it go.

Dropped in at the Marine Recruiting Office a few blocks away later for a positive fix.

Wait till they start wearing Osama t-shirts.

199 Mark Pennington  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:09:51pm

How could you support a mass murderer on Jesus' birthday, Charles?!?!
/

200 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:10:17pm

re: #195 SixDegrees

Or of Andy Warhol.

OMG - Warhol was GAY!!! THERE'S A HOMOSEXUAL TRIBUTE ON THE WHITE HOUSE CHRISTMAS TREE!!! THE CHILLUN' MIGHT GET GAY COOTIES!!!

Warhol was gay? Who knew?

201 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:10:48pm

re: #197 Guanxi88

Then you're massively inconsistent in your sensitivities.

This picture does not at all, in the least, rehabilitate Mao. It shows him in an iconic manner. That's all.

The Python sketch actually compliments Lenin, and you like it.

202 Irenicum  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:10:55pm

That Daily Show clip is stinkin' hilarious! And the best part is that the incredibly stupid GOP strategist doesn't even know she's being punked! I love it!

203 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:11:26pm

re: #197 Guanxi88

Mao's image as done by Warhol is now more or less the Westernized version of the man - the underlying intent and purpose of the Warhol print is lost on its audience.

certainly on you, it seems.

204 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:12:20pm

re: #187 Guanxi88

Mao is not hated universally - the crimes and excesses of the Cultural Revolution were punished, in the form of the Gang of Four - after his death. They dared not move against him while he lived, but, for the record, Mao is more or less persona non grata. Maoist groups that spring up get stomped on with both feet, and almost NO ONE goes around spouting Maoism anymore.[...]

He's not to be disparaged lightly either, as criticism of him could easily slide into criticism--and hence delegitimization--of the current regime.

205 Bob Dillon  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:12:20pm

re: #198 Lateralis

Wait till they start wearing Osama t-shirts.

They may be bat shit crazy but I don't think they're quite that stupid ... yet.

206 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:12:37pm

Raul in comments at the post 9 mins ago:

We can't wait until 2012 to get rid of this comunist bastard of Hussain Obama. The people of the United States must revolt, and demand that this low life, President be impeached and tried for treason agaisnt this great nation of ours. Mao Tse Tung would have allready placed him before a firing squad. A fate he deserves, but that we are too civilized to impose upon this bastard.

207 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:13:00pm

re: #181 Ericus58

How many US servicemen gave their lives in the Korean War? An Uncle of mine did.

Still think ol' Mao is no big deal on the WH tree?

well not when it's art....you gotta know the shit from the shinola around here

208 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:13:42pm

re: #189 Obdicut

I don't think this rehabilitates evil one whit.

And if it really is about the memories the face evokes, why aren't you angry any time Hitler's face is shown?

Do you get really angry at this Monty Python sketch?


[Video]

Too funny. I saw Python at the Hollywood bowl.

209 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:13:42pm

re: #206 Thanos

Raul in comments at the post 9 mins ago:

bu tai zheng chang de

210 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:15:03pm

re: #203 suchislife

certainly on you, it seems.

Exactly right - Philistine that I am, I do not acknowledge that Warhol's masterful parody of the iconic image of the worst evil to befall China removes immediately any and all controversy about the underlying subject. Yokel that I am, I pause from picking my teeth with my pocketknife to oafishly suggest that perhaps the White House Christmas tree ought not to carry the most commonly-known image of the worst killer of the 20th century, and further reveal my own cultural ignorance by suggesting that Warhol's subversion of Maoist propaganda fails to do its work because no one knows anything about Mao, before tuning up my banjo.

That's the one problem about the internet - folk like suchislife have to type instead of spitting in my face.

211 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:15:55pm

re: #204 The Sanity Inspector

He's not to be disparaged lightly either, as criticism of him could easily slide into criticism--and hence delegitimization--of the current regime.

For example:


Girl climbs on Mao statue, gets danders up

She looks fun.

Caution, Lahawk and Guanxi88, that link contains a picture of a statue of Mao, so it's somehow a terrible thing.

Especially at Christmas.

212 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:16:03pm

OT, but are there any Senate votes scheduled for tomorrow?

State Senator Under House Arrest After Alcohol Test

A judge on Wednesday ordered Sen. Anthony Galluccio to stay in his house at all times. For now, he can't attend Senate sessions, which he had been allowed to do under previous terms of his home confinement.

213 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:16:23pm

re: #204 The Sanity Inspector

He's not to be disparaged lightly either, as criticism of him could easily slide into criticism--and hence delegitimization--of the current regime.

Yep - and it amazes me how long they've managed to keep those plates spinning over there.

214 Ericus58  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:16:43pm

re: #207 albusteve

well not when it's art...you gotta know the shit from the shinola around here

Let them have their art... I've not said it should be banned.
However, it's place is not on the WH tree. Go have a Maofest somewhere and display it there.

215 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:18:11pm

re: #211 Obdicut

For example:

Girl climbs on Mao statue, gets danders up

She looks fun.

Caution, Lahawk and Guanxi88, that link contains a picture of a statue of Mao, so it's somehow a terrible thing.

Especially at Christmas.

Somehow, a Mao statue in China doesn't have quite the effect that say, a Mao image in the White House, has. Funny thing.

And yeah, she looks like fun.

216 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:18:15pm
217 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:19:04pm

LIMA, Peru - Cameron Diaz apologized Sunday for carrying a bag with a political slogan that evoked painful memories in Peru.

The voice of Princess Fiona in the animated “Shrek” films visited the Incan city of Machu Picchu in Peru’s Andes on Friday carrying an olive green bag emblazoned with a red star and the words “Serve the People” printed in Chinese, perhaps Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong’s most famous political slogan.

The bags are marketed as fashion accessories in some world capitals, but in Peru the slogan evokes memories of the Maoist Shining Path insurgency that fought the government in the 1980s and early 1990s in a bloody conflict that left nearly 70,000 people dead.

MSNBC Video

Because America is the world.

218 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:20:38pm

re: #207 albusteve

Ok, I'm gonna help you know "the shit from the shinola": it's really not even about art. If I say, Hitler is the greatest! than that's not good. But if I say, Hitler was a mass murderer! That's perfectly fine. But look, I used Hitler in both sentences! Still, they're different.
Now, art is sometimes a little (or a lot) more difficult to understand then plain language (though that can be hard too), but if you put a militaristic leader in makeup and equate him with Marilyn Monroe, you are imo obviously not complimenting the man in a way he would appreciate.
The weirdest thing about this debate here is that Warhol highlights the fact that certain iconic pictures loose their meaning through mass reproduction, and all your "they think Che is just a fashion statement!" whining says the same thing!

219 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:21:14pm

re: #210 Guanxi88

Excuse me??

220 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:21:15pm

re: #204 The Sanity Inspector

He's not to be disparaged lightly either, as criticism of him could easily slide into criticism--and hence delegitimization--of the current regime.

For a parallel case, imagine that Washington and Lincoln were the same man, and that this person then went on to lead an internal revolt that caused the deaths of millions. This guy founded your nation and Party, and yet he was an absolute monster.

221 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:21:17pm

re: #216 Bobibutu

I've been curious what CAT scans of these folks brains would reveal. It would make for an interesting study.

probably just typical, average people that go crazy on the internet...there is not much you can surmize...there are posters here that are quite stable til a certain subject comes up followed by disagreement, then they go off...who knows

222 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:21:18pm

re: #201 Obdicut

Then you're massively inconsistent in your sensitivities.

This picture does not at all, in the least, rehabilitate Mao. It shows him in an iconic manner. That's all.

The Python sketch actually compliments Lenin, and you like it.

Would there be anyone, any person that you would think that shouldn't be pictured on an ornament on the White House Christmas Tree? Just curious. Or are any renditions of any person fine with you?

223 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:21:29pm

OT

Speaking of Mao festivals. /

Breaking news!

Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins Split

224 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:21:59pm

re: #215 Guanxi88

But how can this be? You just looked at a picture with Mao's face in it, and decided it wasn't a big deal.

Face it - You don't have any qualms or concerns with the rehabilitation of evil, and you don't give two shits about the memories the face (no matter how devastating was that girl's subversion of his image) of that murderous son of bitch evokes.*

* please note post 183.

225 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:22:23pm

re: #219 suchislife

Excuse me??

Did you burp or something?

Suggesting that the point of Warhol's manipulation of the image was lost on me. Far simpler to spit in this peasant's face.

226 Irenicum  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:22:25pm

Here's Osama as done Warhol style.

227 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:22:31pm

You say people don't understand Warhol, and I say, I think you don't, according to what you've written, and that means I would spit in your face??

228 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:22:42pm

re: #223 Gus 802

OT

Speaking of Mao festivals. /

Breaking news!

Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins Split

I blame Bush.

229 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:23:07pm

re: #218 suchislife

Ok, I'm gonna help you know "the shit from the shinola": it's really not even about art. If I say, Hitler is the greatest! than that's not good. But if I say, Hitler was a mass murderer! That's perfectly fine. But look, I used Hitler in both sentences! Still, they're different.
Now, art is sometimes a little (or a lot) more difficult to understand then plain language (though that can be hard too), but if you put a militaristic leader in makeup and equate him with Marilyn Monroe, you are imo obviously not complimenting the man in a way he would appreciate.
The weirdest thing about this debate here is that Warhol highlights the fact that certain iconic pictures loose their meaning through mass reproduction, and all your "they think Che is just a fashion statement!" whining says the same thing!

you're wasting your time...my issue is Mao on a Christmas tree at the WH...the rest to me is meaningless...I hope that helps you out

230 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:23:34pm

re: #222 Walter L. Newton

That entirely depends on how they're portrayed.

But no, really I can't see myself ever actually caring deeply about what images are on ornaments on someone else's Christmas tree.

231 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:24:00pm

re: #224 Obdicut

But how can this be? You just looked at a picture with Mao's face in it, and decided it wasn't a big deal.

Face it - You don't have any qualms or concerns with the rehabilitation of evil, and you don't give two shits about the memories the face (no matter how devastating was that girl's subversion of his image) of that murderous son of bitch evokes.*

* please note post 183.

Yes, let the people in China deal with Mao in their midst. Why, exactly, should he be here?

Oh, wait, that's right - Art is cool. Nevermind.

232 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:24:10pm

re: #228 Ben Hur

I blame Bush.

"There is a cold wind blowing, blah, blah,blah." - Tim Robbins

233 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:24:14pm

re: #227 suchislife

You say people don't understand Warhol, and I say, I think you don't, according to what you've written, and that means I would spit in your face??

I'll ask you the same question...

Would there be anyone, any person that you would think that shouldn't be pictured on an ornament on the White House Christmas Tree? Just curious. Or are any renditions of any person fine with you?

234 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:24:29pm

re: #225 Guanxi88

I think you have a massive chip on your shoulder. So I'm gonna stop engaging.

235 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:24:37pm

re: #70 lawhawk

J Edgar Hoover? /

Excellent idea!

236 Digital Display  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:24:38pm

re: #227 suchislife

You say people don't understand Warhol, and I say, I think you don't, according to what you've written, and that means I would spit in your face??


Easy..Art is just like wine..Everybody can disagree and still be right..
Art is in the eye of the beholder..

237 huggy77  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:25:13pm
Would there be anyone, any person that you would think that shouldn't be pictured on an ornament on the White House Christmas Tree? Just curious. Or are any renditions of any person fine with you?

Santa? We can all agree on santa!

238 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:25:15pm

re: #223 Gus 802

OT

Speaking of Mao festivals. /

Breaking news!

Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins Split

I wonder how they will redistribute their wealth in that divorce.

239 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:25:40pm

re: #230 Obdicut

That entirely depends on how they're portrayed.

But no, really I can't see myself ever actually caring deeply about what images are on ornaments on someone else's Christmas tree.

What do you mean how it's is portrayed. I just got to this thread, I've look it over a bit, but can you clarify, explain "That entirely depends on how they're portrayed..." please.

240 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:26:13pm

re: #238 ArchangelMichael

I wonder how they will redistribute their wealth in that divorce.

It'll all go to their respective divorce lawyers.

/

241 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:26:30pm

re: #233 Walter L. Newton

Here's the thing. It's not about who is represented. It's about how they are represented, too. You know the comic where Superman punches Hitler in the face? Would it be Ok for you to put that in the White House? Because I loved it.

242 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:26:34pm

re: #75 SixDegrees

For what it's worth, Warhol's intent with the Mao portrait (and many similar ones done of other celebrities) was to strip it of it's propaganda value through caricature (Mao's wearing lipstick in it, for instance) and mass production (lithography).

Now, I don't care much for Warhol's art or his often overwrought justifications for it, but it's quite clear that Warhol's intent with this particular piece was one of ridicule on a number of levels.

Just sayin'. Really, it isn't even clear that whoever created the ornament knew anything about it's content.

If I am ever president, the White House Christmas tree is just gonna have plain shiny ornaments with no graphics on them at all. I've just decided this.

243 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:26:40pm

re: #227 suchislife

You say people don't understand Warhol, and I say, I think you don't, according to what you've written, and that means I would spit in your face??

If suggesting that a parody becomes the very image it sought to subvert when the underlying subtext of the subverted image is unknown to the audience is a misinterpretation of what has happened with Mao's image and likeness - as has happened in this case - is suggestive of a failure to grasp Warhol's intent, then yes, it's the equivalent of spitting in a peasant's face.

244 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:26:51pm

re: #231 Guanxi88

What does that have to do with the point I just made?

You were fine with that image of Mao that I showed you. You are fine with the portrayal of Lenin as a 'statesman' in the Monty Python sketch I showed you.


re: #239 Walter L. Newton


Well, if it's a picture showing Hitler with a halo, that'd probably annoy me. If it's a picture of Hitler wearing diapers and a dunce cap, that'd probably amuse me.

245 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:05pm

re: #234 suchislife

I think you have a massive chip on your shoulder. So I'm gonna stop engaging.

I've got one on each shoulder - I'm well-balanced.

246 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:08pm

re: #216 Bobibutu

I really wish you hadn't quoted that in such a way as to make it appear that I had said it. I'm reporting that for deletion since it's one of Breitbart's commenters, not me that said it.

247 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:09pm

re: #237 huggy77

Santa? We can all agree on santa!

Did you read my question. I asked "any person that you would think that shouldn't be pictured on an ornament..." You don't think Santa should be pictured on a White House Christmas Tree ornament?

248 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:10pm

re: #230 Obdicut

That entirely depends on how they're portrayed.

But no, really I can't see myself ever actually caring deeply about what images are on ornaments on someone else's Christmas tree.

are you an American?...that's your WH, your tree, and BO serves you, a citizen of the US...it's not just someone else's tree

249 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:11pm

re: #108 brookly red
re: #102 Ben Hur

How is PC to be outraged?

It's PC NOT to be, cause G-d forbid you should offend Mao supporters.

/especially if you owe them a gazillion bucks...

So funny it should be repeated.

250 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:13pm

Another possibility -- since these were ornaments from previous administrations that the Obamas sent out to schoolchildren to decorate, wouldn't it be ironic if this was from the Nixon administration -- and the purpose of putting a picture of Mao on it was to commemorate Nixon's diplomatic outreach to China?

Nah, couldn't be. It must be an attempt to "rehabilitate" Mao Tse-Tung.

/

251 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:43pm

re: #238 ArchangelMichael

I don't think they were ever married. It sucks for their kids that they've called it quits, seeing how they were one of the more stable relationships in Hollywood (having gotten together on the set of Bull Durham). Hopefully they will resolve matters amicably.

252 Stuart Leviton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:58pm

After Marilyn Monroe's tragic death in 1962, Andy Warhol explored what it meant to become famous. The phrase "In the future everyone will have their fifteen minutes of fame" came out of this period. Warhol's first print on the fame theme was of Marilyn Monroe for Marilyn had been turned into a commodity (Elton John music). The prints were mass produced in keeping with the theme of how fame commoditizes a person. Warhol even named his art studio, The Factory, in keeping with the fame thing. Warhol's Marilyn print was followed by similar prints of other famous person - Frederick the Great, Elizabeth Taylor, Hermann Hesse and so forth - of which the Mao print was one.

The Mao print is shocking in that it is huge similar to Mao portraits in China. Warhol wanted these enormous Mao's to diminish the viewer standing before it.

253 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:27:59pm

I saw on Twitter that Rush L has recently dropped LGF from his list of sites consulted for show prep. He doesn't move very quickly, I guess.

254 Digital Display  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:28:31pm

re: #233 Walter L. Newton

I'll ask you the same question...

Would there be anyone, any person that you would think that shouldn't be pictured on an ornament on the White House Christmas Tree? Just curious. Or are any renditions of any person fine with you?

We are still a few years away from a picture of Scratch down at the Cross roads holding a guitar and whistling away...
/Pss..Don't drink the Whiskey

255 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:28:32pm

re: #248 albusteve

Whatever dude. You'll have to provide my outrage here. I really don't care. I have had absolutely no clue, before this date, what was on any president's Christmas tree, and I haven't cared at all.

Have you cared, previous to this moment?

256 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:29:47pm

re: #99 Obdicut

Warhol was mocking Mao, and mocking western obsession with Mao.

Art is cool.

Carry on with your PC outrage.

I just don't know if I would, say, want a Christmas ornament with a picture of Chaplin as Hitler in The Great Dictator. Amazing as that movie is.

257 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:30:20pm

re: #102 Ben Hur

How is PC to be outraged?

It's PC NOT to be, cause G-d forbid you should offend Mao supporters.

Ah--who gets to define politically correct here? The age-old question.

258 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:30:23pm

re: #228 Ben Hur

I blame Bush.

Oh no, that one is all Obama.

259 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:30:34pm

re: #253 wrenchwench

I saw on Twitter that Rush L has recently dropped LGF from his list of sites consulted for show prep. He doesn't move very quickly, I guess.

LOL. Maybe he thought Charles would see the light and come back to the world of race-baiting, scare-mongering, creationists who think scientists are the devil. You know, for the good of the country.

260 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:30:41pm

re: #250 Charles

Another possibility -- since these were ornaments from previous administrations that the Obamas sent out to schoolchildren to decorate, wouldn't it be ironic if this was from the Nixon administration -- and the purpose of putting a picture of Mao on it was to commemorate Nixon's diplomatic outreach to China?

Nah, couldn't be. It must an attempt to "rehabilitate" Mao Tse-Tung.

/

Nixon went in 1972; Warhol's image was made in 1973, and probably wasn't immediately available for use on an ornament.

Still, it's at least as likely as the idea that a Chinese community group here in the states sent it, eh?

261 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:31:14pm

re: #243 Guanxi88

If suggesting that a parody becomes the very image it sought to subvert when the underlying subtext of the subverted image is unknown to the audience is a misinterpretation of what has happened with Mao's image and likeness - as has happened in this case - is suggestive of a failure to grasp Warhol's intent, then yes, it's the equivalent of spitting in a peasant's face.

Most-tortured-post-of-the-thread award right there.

I need a whole China full of Derridas and Lacans to explain what the hell you're talking about.

262 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:31:20pm

re: #241 suchislife

Here's the thing. It's not about who is represented. It's about how they are represented, too. You know the comic where Superman punches Hitler in the face? Would it be Ok for you to put that in the White House? Because I loved it.

I asked you.

I guess I will have to spell it out carefully. Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

263 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:31:28pm

re: #257 SanFranciscoZionist

Ah--who gets to define politically correct here? The age-old question.

Jeez. I wrote that like 2 years ago.

264 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:31:35pm

re: #104 lawhawk

Is it PC? So, Mao is okay, but what about Hitler art? Okay, so would you have a problem with some Warhol wannabe coming out with Hitler silkscreens (calling 'em SS's for short - another clever run on the SS that terrorized Europe) in a similar fashion.

Is there even a line to be drawn?

Sometimes there are people who are evil. Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it. Hitler was evil. So was Stalin and Mao. I just don't think it was appropriate. The blood on their hands is the blood of tens of millions each.

I just don't think it warrants being immortalized as art.

Art can't be about evil? What about, say Guernica?

(Whether art about evil should be on Christmas ornaments in the White House is a whole different kettle of fish.)

265 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:31:54pm

re: #261 Obdicut

Most-tortured-post-of-the-thread award right there.

I need a whole China full of Derridas and Lacans to explain what the hell you're talking about.

Two would do - Hell, one Derrida could do it for you on his own, but he'd need until at least after lunchtime.

266 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:31:56pm

re: #254 HoosierHoops

We are still a few years away from a picture of Scratch down at the Cross roads holding a guitar and whistling away...
/Pss..Don't drink the Whiskey

I guess I will have to spell it out carefully. Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

267 allegro  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:31:58pm

What I wonder is what are the other images on the ornament? The Warhol Mao is part of a larger collage. Perhaps taken as a whole, as the artist of the ornament may have intended, would tell the story of its intent?

268 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:32:02pm

re: #255 Obdicut

Sad thing is that I didn't care either. I simply thought it wasn't a good idea for Warhol to turn a mass murderer into a pop icon, and for a community group to use the image, which found its way on to the WH tree. Not a decision I would have made, but again, that's just me.

269 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:32:31pm

re: #260 Guanxi88

Nixon went in 1972; Warhol's image was made in 1973, and probably wasn't immediately available for use on an ornament.

Still, it's at least as likely as the idea that a Chinese community group here in the states sent it, eh?

And much more likely than the ridiculous idea that this is somehow "rehabilitating" Mao.

270 Bob Dillon  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:32:56pm

re: #246 Thanos

I really wish you hadn't quoted that in such a way as to make it appear that I had said it. I'm reporting that for deletion since it's one of Breitbart's commenters, not me that said it.

My apologies. It was not my intent.

271 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:33:01pm

re: #220 Guanxi88

For a parallel case, imagine that Washington and Lincoln were the same man, and that this person then went on to lead an internal revolt that caused the deaths of millions. This guy founded your nation and Party, and yet he was an absolute monster.

I'd be hard pressed to draw a line under it and move on.

272 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:33:07pm

re: #267 allegro

What I wonder is what are the other images on the ornament? The Warhol Mao is part of a larger collage. Perhaps taken as a whole, as the artist of the ornament may have intended, would tell the story of its intent?

This question is sort of like a thread poll, so I will ask you too!

Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

273 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:33:08pm

re: #242 SanFranciscoZionist

If I am ever president, the White House Christmas tree is just gonna have plain shiny ornaments with no graphics on them at all. I've just decided this.

Wouldn't you just have a menorrah?

274 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:33:08pm

re: #217 Ben Hur

LIMA, Peru - Cameron Diaz apologized Sunday for carrying a bag with a political slogan that evoked painful memories in Peru.

The voice of Princess Fiona in the animated “Shrek” films visited the Incan city of Machu Picchu in Peru’s Andes on Friday carrying an olive green bag emblazoned with a red star and the words “Serve the People” printed in Chinese, perhaps Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong’s most famous political slogan.

The bags are marketed as fashion accessories in some world capitals, but in Peru the slogan evokes memories of the Maoist Shining Path insurgency that fought the government in the 1980s and early 1990s in a bloody conflict that left nearly 70,000 people dead.

[Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

Because America is the world.

Che and Mao: Capitalist fashion icons. Whod'a thunk?

275 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:33:11pm

re: #267 allegro

What I wonder is what are the other images on the ornament? The Warhol Mao is part of a larger collage. Perhaps taken as a whole, as the artist of the ornament may have intended, would tell the story of its intent?

Careful, that's how you get into trouble -- that "context" thing is dangerous.

276 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:33:36pm

re: #243 Guanxi88

Couldn't resist: So you are spitting in the face of all the peasants you say don't get Warhol? Because the only thing I said was that maybe you don't get him.

277 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:33:47pm

re: #269 Charles

And much more likely than the ridiculous idea that this is somehow "rehabilitating" Mao.

I don't think I'm suggesting the ornament rehabilitates Mao - I find that people are, however, increasing comfortable with the uses to which his image are being put. To that extent, he's being rehabilitated by the broader culture. To the extent that his words are attributed to Atwater.

278 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:33:52pm

re: #264 SanFranciscoZionist

Funny you mention Guernica, seeing how I linked it specifically above.

279 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:34:13pm

re: #276 suchislife

Couldn't resist: So you are spitting in the face of all the peasants you say don't get Warhol? Because the only thing I said was that maybe you don't get him.

Ya know, I think I might be.

280 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:34:13pm

re: #145 Killgore Trout

Here's a pic of the communist infiltrators caught in the act!


They look pretty radical to me.

America, this is your future. *shudder*

281 Izzyboy  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:34:26pm

What is this I don't even

282 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:34:50pm

re: #269 Charles

And much more likely than the ridiculous idea that this is somehow "rehabilitating" Mao.

It's sheer thoughtlessness, nothing nefarious, I think we all agree. It's the thoughtlessness that some of us are deploring.

283 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:34:54pm

re: #267 allegro

That's a very good point.

284 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:34:54pm

Mao is still revered by many in China.

Go figure.

285 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:34:56pm

re: #260 Guanxi88

Nixon went in 1972; Warhol's image was made in 1973, and probably wasn't immediately available for use on an ornament.

One more note -- apparently you missed the point. These ornaments were from previous administrations, and schoolchildren redecorated them with their own creations.

286 allegro  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:35:05pm

re: #275 Charles

Careful, that's how you get into trouble -- that "context" thing is dangerous.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. :/

287 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:35:12pm

re: #255 Obdicut

Whatever dude. You'll have to provide my outrage here. I really don't care. I have had absolutely no clue, before this date, what was on any president's Christmas tree, and I haven't cared at all.

Have you cared, previous to this moment?

Up to this moment, I can't remember any time we have had the privilege of getting a bird's eye view of the ornaments on the White House tree.

Your question would make sense if you can show us past close up pictures or articles about ornaments on the White House tree.

Other than that, how could Steve even have known about past trees and ornaments?

288 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:35:57pm

I'd be willing to bet that the president isn't even aware of this "ornament." The president also doesn't sit there and review said ornaments.

And if this issue was risen in the White House we have no idea if the ornament remains.

Hedda Lettuce can stay regardless.

289 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:36:07pm

You know what would be a really cool ornament? One with that famous picture of Nixon and Elvis shaking hands.

290 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:36:09pm

re: #163 ArchangelMichael

Perhaps the raging homophobia of RSM and his ilk really is a cover for... well you know.

One suspects. No one who is comfortable with his sexuality spends that much time fretting over who's gay, and what they say about Megan McCain when she's not around.

291 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:36:33pm

re: #288 Gus 802

Hedda Lettuce can stay regardless.

No, she should leaf.

292 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:36:33pm

re: #282 The Sanity Inspector

It's sheer thoughtlessness, nothing nefarious, I think we all agree. It's the thoughtlessness that some of us are deploring.

Maybe it wasn't thoughtless at all. Maybe it was honoring Nixon's visit to China.

I don't know, but I think that's a lot more likely, given the circumstances, than the silly idea that this is some kind of commie message on the White House Christmas tree.

293 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:36:56pm

re: #285 Charles

One more note -- apparently you missed the point. These ornaments were from previous administrations, and schoolchildren redecorated them with their own creations.

Ahh! I misread the "from the Nixon administration" bit as referring to chronology, instead of sorta historiography.

What school child doesn't think of Nixon around the holidays?

294 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:37:08pm

re: #288 Gus 802

I'd be willing to bet that the president isn't even aware of this "ornament." The president also doesn't sit there and review said ornaments.

And if this issue was risen in the White House we have no idea if the ornament remains.

Hedda Lettuce can stay regardless.

I be willing to bet the President isn't even aware of this ornament. Sounds different when a conservative says it.

(P.S. why did you put ornament in quotes. Is it something else?)

295 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:37:11pm

re: #270 Bobibutu

My apologies. It was not my intent.

NP friend, I understand that. Just don't want it hanging around for others to assume the wrong thing.

296 Mark Pennington  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:37:17pm

OT: The White House's photostream on flickr is absolutely fantastic.

297 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:37:26pm

re: #291 Mad Al-Jaffee

No, she should leaf.

Make like an iceberg and float away? /

298 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:37:39pm

I think some people are mixing the issues. Obama is getting the blame so people are trying to defend him and both are wrong about what's the actual problem. The problem is the peoples tree in the white house has a picture of a murderous dictator that American soldiers died fighting. There isn't any context in which it's appropriate for the white house tree to display the face of a tyrant.

299 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:37:41pm

re: #187 Guanxi88

Mao is not hated universally - the crimes and excesses of the Cultural Revolution were punished, in the form of the Gang of Four - after his death. They dared not move against him while he lived, but, for the record, Mao is more or less persona non grata. Maoist groups that spring up get stomped on with both feet, and almost NO ONE goes around spouting Maoism anymore.

Still, it may be different, here in the States. Maybe it really WAS some Chinese community group that gave the ornament. After all, I'm sure they'd have no feelings one way or the other about Mao.

I will eat a (small) cardboard box if it was a Chinese community group.

Just saying.

300 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:37:50pm

re: #272 Walter L. Newton

I guess I will have to spell it out carefully. Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

Obviously, a lot of them. BUT, that doesn't touch the issue. This picture is in fact showing the person in some satirical or sarcastic light. So you didn't spell it out. You changed the goal posts.

301 avanti  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:37:59pm

re: #260 Guanxi88

Nixon went in 1972; Warhol's image was made in 1973, and probably wasn't immediately available for use on an ornament.

Still, it's at least as likely as the idea that a Chinese community group here in the states sent it, eh?

I thought the ornaments in question were submitted by a artist that did some controversial window displays in the past. Let me google a bit.

302 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:38:06pm

re: #293 Guanxi88

Ahh! I misread the "from the Nixon administration" bit as referring to chronology, instead of sorta historiography.

What school child doesn't think of Nixon around the holidays?

Well, you know, if someone gives you a Christmas ornament that's from the Nixon administration, and tells you to redecorate it because its going on the White House Christmas tree, the subject might come up.

303 charlz  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:38:22pm

re: #230 Obdicut

But no, really I can't see myself ever actually caring deeply about what images are on ornaments on someone else's Christmas tree.

I agree, especially when those ornaments probably were carted in in boxes, handed to the nearest staffers available, who were told "here, hang these on the tree before you go to the Xmas party."

Nontroversy indeed.

304 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:38:36pm

re: #292 Charles

Maybe it wasn't thoughtless at all. Maybe it was honoring Nixon's visit to China.

I don't know, but I think that's a lot more likely, given the circumstances, than the silly idea that this is some kind of commie message on the White House Christmas tree.

I don't think that's what it is, I don't know what it is, I don't care what it is... but this whole thread does bring up an interesting question in my mind, which I have asked a few times and I would like to ask you...

Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

305 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:38:49pm

re: #294 Walter L. Newton

I be willing to bet the President isn't even aware of this ornament. Sounds different when a conservative says it.

(P.S. why did you put ornament in quotes. Is it something else?)

Because the ornament has morphed into a symbol?

306 Digital Display  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:39:02pm

re: #266 Walter L. Newton

I guess I will have to spell it out carefully. Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

You are asking me? Crap If I had my way in the 80's I would have had Richard Pryor in charge of the White House Christmas Decorations crew...

307 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:39:03pm

re: #302 Charles

Well, you know, if someone gives you a Christmas ornament that's from the Nixon administration, and tells you to redecorate it because its going on the White House Christmas tree, the subject might come up.

Hold on! BHO took Nixie's stuff and just handed it out to be desecrated by a buncha crumb-crunchers!

That pisses me off even worse than the Mao image itself.

308 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:39:09pm

re: #298 RogueOne

Where do you stop? Should we remove all the copies of Thomas Moore's works from the Whitehouse, since he tortured people in the name of religion?

309 Stuart Leviton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:39:38pm

re: #140 albusteve

so what...the genius sold a soup can for that much


Good point. The soup cans were part of Warhol's exploration of mass production and commoditization. Anyone know if the term "pop art" (popular art) fits in with Warhol's protest about commercialization?

310 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:39:50pm

re: #302 Charles

Under the direction of this guy:

[Link: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...]

who has a history of "pushing the envelope". The white house tree isn't the appropriate place for that kind of behavior.

311 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:39:57pm

re: #307 Guanxi88

Are you being serious? It's getting hard to tell.

312 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:40:09pm

re: #299 SanFranciscoZionist

I will eat a (small) cardboard box if it was a Chinese community group.

Just saying.

Well, that was one theory floated earlier in the thread. I asked a couple times for possible groups, but none were named.

313 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:40:20pm

re: #287 Walter L. Newton

Up to this moment, I can't remember any time we have had the privilege of getting a bird's eye view of the ornaments on the White House tree.

Your question would make sense if you can show us past close up pictures or articles about ornaments on the White House tree.

Other than that, how could Steve even have known about past trees and ornaments?

I just scroll by that bullshit...I only have so many keystrokes with hunt and peck...so far, those of us that think Mao on a WH Xmas tree are angry, hysterical, intellectually bankrupt and massively inconsistant...nice folks to hang out with..ho hum

314 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:40:23pm

re: #241 suchislife

Here's the thing. It's not about who is represented. It's about how they are represented, too. You know the comic where Superman punches Hitler in the face? Would it be Ok for you to put that in the White House? Because I loved it.

I would think it was funny if framed and over someone's desk.

I don't think it's a tree ornament in the making. Not in the White House.

315 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:40:45pm

re: #308 Obdicut

I think the cutoff point should be around a million corpses +/- a hundred thousand.

316 Stuart Leviton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:41:02pm

re: #147 Guanxi88Mao died in 1976. My gosh. Is he still dead?

317 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:41:08pm

Speaking of Warhol, have some Songs For Drella clips:

318 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:42:07pm

re: #311 Obdicut

Are you being serious? It's getting hard to tell.

Well, it's a little from Column A and a little from Column B. I revere Nixon, on the theory that we rightists are entitled to idolize a heavy, from time to time. I don't think that BHO would send out stuff from previous admin's to be improved by schoolchildren; were it so, I'd be a bit perturbed, if only for the damage it does to artifacts of previous administrations.

319 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:42:16pm

re: #315 RogueOne

Why? The people killed by Moore don't matter because he didn't kill enough?

Isn't that attitude more a glorification of mass murder than the ornament is? Treating it as somehow deeply special, because they were extra-good at being murdering fuckheads?

320 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:42:16pm

re: #300 suchislife

Obviously, a lot of them. BUT, that doesn't touch the issue. This picture is in fact showing the person in some satirical or sarcastic light. So you didn't spell it out. You changed the goal posts.

No that touches MY issue, my question. I didn't change anything. This is a thread, there is general conversation going on right now that revolves around different aspects of this topic.

If you don't or can't answer the question, then don't try. It was simply a question I had. I hadn't even weight in on whether I like this or not until comment #304 to Charles.

I don't give a shit about this ornament. And if you are not capable of actually answering my question by giving me one, two or more (or none), then don't. But don't blame me for your answer.

321 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:42:32pm

re: #279 Guanxi88

Well, here's were we differ. But now I get why you would react so strongly. To me, saying that someone probably didn't get a specific work of art is NOTHING like either saying that person is inferior (and really, peasant? that is dated) in a general sense, or like actually expressing the kind of disdain and hate I would have to feel to actually spit on someone. But it's easy to think that others are like you, I guess.

322 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:42:45pm

re: #263 Ben Hur

Jeez. I wrote that like 2 years ago.

You're just going to have to accept the fact that I HAVE to read the whole thread, and CAN NOT stop myself from commenting as I go. I'm protected in doing this by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

323 Zeke  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:42:46pm

Obamao just loves stuff like this. Get the left and right at each others throat, create chaos, confusion...never let a good crisis go to waste eh?

324 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:42:48pm

re: #316 Stuart Leviton

Mao died in 1976. My gosh. Is he still dead?

Yeah, and he' still feared and hated. Funny thing - the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.

325 _RememberTonyC  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:43:20pm

Harry Reid just said that health care is now a "right" instead of a privilege. Does this newly declared right require a change to the Constitution? And since health care is now a "right," why do we have to pay for it? Aren't rights granted to everyone?

326 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:43:36pm

re: #321 suchislife

Well, here's were we differ. But now I get why you would react so strongly. To me, saying that someone probably didn't get a specific work of art is NOTHING like either saying that person is inferior (and really, peasant? that is dated) in a general sense, or like actually expressing the kind of disdain and hate I would have to feel to actually spit on someone. But it's easy to think that others are like you, I guess.

Hey, nobody said I was a nice guy. My problem is I tend to assume others are like me.

327 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:44:57pm

re: #319 Obdicut

Moore died centuries before this nation was even founded, why are you searching for some kind of moral relativism? The question is "Is it appropriate for the peoples tree in the White House to have ornaments with the faces of dictators that Americans died fighting?" I think that's a very easy question to answer.

328 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:44:57pm

re: #321 suchislife

And yeah, I take cultural criticism and theories of hermeneutics FAR too seriously.

329 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:45:09pm

re: #323 Zeke

Obamao just loves stuff like this. Get the left and right at each others throat, create chaos, confusion...never let a good crisis go to waste eh?

If you use the term "Obamao" again on my website you're going to lose your account.

330 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:45:21pm

It's more bothersome to me that they are essentially destroying historic artifacts / ornaments by sending them out for redecoration than what's on them.
Who knows? Maybe one of these ornaments got into the hands of a friend of ISM or someone like that - but to act like it proves O's a commie is really egregiously silly at minimum.

331 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:45:22pm

re: #292 Charles

Maybe it wasn't thoughtless at all. Maybe it was honoring Nixon's visit to China.

I don't know, but I think that's a lot more likely, given the circumstances, than the silly idea that this is some kind of commie message on the White House Christmas tree.

Regardless of intent, because I don't think there was any secret message intended, would you agree that it is a least inappropriate that a portrait of Mao should be on the White House Christmas Tree?

332 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:45:40pm

re: #306 HoosierHoops

You are asking me? Crap If I had my way in the 80's I would have had Richard Pryor in charge of the White House Christmas Decorations crew...

Yes I was asking you. And I didn't get a straight answer. Interesting, I have asked that same question about 4 times and I have not got a simple answer.

My answer. No, I don't care who is on the tree, they could put Hitler on the tree if they wanted. They could put Lenin on the tree if they wanted. They could put Pol Pot on the tree if they wanted. I don't care.

333 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:46:01pm

re: #273 Mad Al-Jaffee

Wouldn't you just have a menorrah?

Wait for the nontroversy over that one!

No, I would probably still have a tree. The White House tree has gotten to be a tradition, and people like it. And I don't think it would be appropriate for the President to do a big menorah-lighting as a public display. Might have one heck of a family Hanukkah party, though.

334 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:46:33pm

Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus . . . and NORAD Is Tracking Him!

[snip]
Actually, the Santa Watch began long before NORAD came into being. In December 1955, Sears Roebuck ran a newspaper ad with what they claimed was Santa's direct number. Unfortunately, the phone number they offered was one digit off; instead of Sears, it linked to a top secret line at CONAD, the Continental Air Defense Command. When Colonel Harry Shoup, the command's director of operations, answered the phone, he expected to hear about a missile strike against the US. Instead, he got a little kid who wanted to talk to Santa.

Although the conversation ended with the child crying and Shoup fuming, the Colonel eventually came around and began giving the children updates on Santa's travels through the night sky. The following year, CONAD offered a new, non-secret, phone number that children could call. In 1958, when CONAD became NORAD, the new command continued the tradition.
[snip]

335 avanti  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:46:37pm

OK, found some more info. the WH sent out plain bulbs to community groups to decorate, then had the guy that does widow displays suppevise the decorating of the tree.

"Barneys creative director and noted gay male Simon Doonan oversaw White House Christmas decor this year, and his trees are an assault on family values, say right-wing bloggers. Then again, does Mao Tse-Tung really belong on Obama's tree?

Andrew Breitbart's star-spangled cranky-blog, Big Government, reports an "EXCLUSIVE: Transvestites, Mao and Obama Ornaments Decorate White House Christmas Tree" featuring an indictment of Doonan and snapshots of the Blue Room's ornaments. One of which has the image and signature of crème de la drag queens Hedda Lettuce:

Hedda's blog explains that Doonan didn't exactly contrive to get her on the tree. Rather, the White House sent boxes of plain bulbs to schools and charities, including a gay community center at which Hedda volunteers, for creative decoupaging. Hedda decorated her bulb as any self-respecting star of stage and reality television guest spots would, by festooning it with images of herself. "

336 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:46:41pm

re: #331 Ben Hur

Regardless of intent, because I don't think there was any secret message intended, would you agree that it is a least inappropriate that a portrait of Mao should be on the White House Christmas Tree?

No, I don't necessarily agree. If it is indeed an ornament from the Nixon administration, it's appropriate. Or do you also think all the pictures of Nixon shaking hands with Mao should be removed from any government offices they might be in?

337 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:46:48pm

re: #278 lawhawk

Funny you mention Guernica, seeing how I linked it specifically above.

Yes, I saw that after I posted. It was the example that sprang fastest to mind.

338 Slap  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:47:15pm

I'm genuinely curious: why do you think that there is such a lack of knowledge of Mao's mass murders?

I'm sure there are those who'll suggest it's a LEFTY plot to make him a hero; there are probably others who assume it's a RIGHTY plot to make sure the Chinese keep spending money on American businesses and products.

In fact, why is it that, when popular discussions focus on large-scale atrocities, only Hitler and Saddam seem to be used as examples? There does seem to be some sort of mass ignorance going on. Are kids at any age regularly taught about Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Mao, et al?

Again, I am having trouble getting my head around this.

339 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:47:43pm

re: #284 Racer X

Mao is still revered by many in China.

Go figure.

People worshiped Moloch long ago, too.

340 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:47:57pm

re: #335 avanti

The other stuff is not evil - it's kitschy and funny, and, truth be told, part of what this country is about. Mao is a mass-murdering foreign thug.

341 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:48:05pm

re: #336 Charles

No, I don't necessarily agree. If it is indeed an ornament from the Nixon administration, it's appropriate. Or do you also think all the pictures of Nixon shaking hands with Mao should be removed from any government offices they might be in?

No.

That's comparing apples and oranges.

342 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:48:19pm

re: #327 RogueOne

Okay. So once people have been dead long enough, they're cool.

What about a picture of Stalin on the tree? Americans didn't die fighting him, and he was our ally in WWII.


I'm not searching for moral relativism; I'm actually saying that you're engaging in moral relativism.

Respectfully. Sorry if my tone is off, I just honestly cannot believe anyone is actually upset about this.

343 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:48:23pm

re: #323 Zeke

Whose sock puppet are you?

344 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:48:27pm

re: #341 Ben Hur

No.

That's comparing apples and oranges.

Why? What's the difference?

345 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:48:34pm

re: #332 Walter L. Newton

Yes I was asking you. And I didn't get a straight answer. Interesting, I have asked that same question about 4 times and I have not got a simple answer.

My answer. No, I don't care who is on the tree, they could put Hitler on the tree if they wanted. They could put Lenin on the tree if they wanted. They could put Pol Pot on the tree if they wanted. I don't care.

You're a mean one,
Mr. Grinch

Youtube Video
346 avanti  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:49:00pm

re: #330 Thanos

It's more bothersome to me that they are essentially destroying historic artifacts / ornaments by sending them out for redecoration than what's on them.
Who knows? Maybe one of these ornaments got into the hands of a friend of ISM or someone like that - but to act like it proves O's a commie is really egregiously silly at minimum.

I missed the part about destroying historic artifacts, I thought they were plain, store bought bulbs.

347 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:49:05pm

re: #342 Obdicut

Okay. So once people have been dead long enough, they're cool.

What about a picture of Stalin on the tree? Americans didn't die fighting him, and he was our ally in WWII.

I'm not searching for moral relativism; I'm actually saying that you're engaging in moral relativism.

Respectfully. Sorry if my tone is off, I just honestly cannot believe anyone is actually upset about this.

I don't care who is on the tree, they could put Hitler on the tree if they wanted. They could put Lenin on the tree if they wanted. They could put Pol Pot on the tree if they wanted. I don't care.

I think it's up to whoever was in charge of this to do whatever they through they wanted to do.

348 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:49:12pm

re: #338 Slap

I'm genuinely curious: why do you think that there is such a lack of knowledge of Mao's mass murders?

I'm sure there are those who'll suggest it's a LEFTY plot to make him a hero; there are probably others who assume it's a RIGHTY plot to make sure the Chinese keep spending money on American businesses and products.

In fact, why is it that, when popular discussions focus on large-scale atrocities, only Hitler and Saddam seem to be used as examples? There does seem to be some sort of mass ignorance going on. Are kids at any age regularly taught about Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Mao, et al?

Again, I am having trouble getting my head around this.

re: #220 Guanxi88

For a parallel case, imagine that Washington and Lincoln were the same man, and that this person then went on to lead an internal revolt that caused the deaths of millions. This guy founded your nation and Party, and yet he was an absolute monster.

349 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:49:33pm

re: #333 SanFranciscoZionist

Wait for the nontroversy over that one!

No, I would probably still have a tree. The White House tree has gotten to be a tradition, and people like it. And I don't think it would be appropriate for the President to do a big menorah-lighting as a public display. Might have one heck of a family Hanukkah party, though.

Invite my family to the Hanukkah party and your guest list will be all filled up.

350 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:49:57pm

re: #344 Charles

Why? What's the difference?

The difference is that Nixon is showing Mao respect, whereas Warhol was mocking him.

So obviously the picture that's mocking Mao is offensive because it celebrates him, but the ones with Nixon smiling at Mao are all to the good.

351 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:50:52pm

re: #341 Ben Hur

No.

That's comparing apples and oranges.

Didn't Nixon effectively legitimize Mao by meeting with him? Given the rhetoric isn't the logical conclusion that he should have even met with Mao since he was effectively a mass murderer?

352 Stuart Leviton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:51:09pm

re: #222 Walter L. Newton

Would there be anyone, any person that you would think that shouldn't be pictured on an ornament on the White House Christmas Tree? Just curious. Or are any renditions of any person fine with you?


Mohamed

353 Digital Display  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:51:10pm

re: #323 Zeke

Are you really so Shallow?
You just gave a cheap shot to the President of the United States.
Bring it..Go big or go home..

354 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:51:22pm

re: #312 Guanxi88

Well, that was one theory floated earlier in the thread. I asked a couple times for possible groups, but none were named.

I'd say, odds are overwhelmingly against. First, nearly all Chinese American groups hate Mao like the devil. Second, if there was some group that liked him and had gotten a chance to put an ornament on the tree, they wouldn't have used the Warhol image, which is distinctly mocking.

Hence, my offer to eat a miniature cardboard box on proof of such an origin being discovered.

I actually suspect a group of high school kids with art prints, or something similar. Unimportant.

My vote: Mao goes, Hedda stays. J. Edgar may be added, in nylons or out of them.

355 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:51:27pm

re: #350 Obdicut

The difference is that Nixon is showing Mao respect, whereas Warhol was mocking him.

So obviously the picture that's mocking Mao is offensive because it celebrates him, but the ones with Nixon smiling at Mao are all to the good.

The difference is even deeper than that. Nixon is broadly despised and ridiculed; mao is just a chubby chinese guy who said some cool stuff that Lee Atwater quoted.

356 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:51:42pm

re: #345 Racer X

You're a mean one,
Mr. Grinch


[Video]

Why am I mean. Another non answer. I see a lot of people slinging shit on this thread, but not actually making a statement.

Anyone?

Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

This general question still has not been answered. I already answered it above, I think anyone they wanted could be put on the tree.

Anyone?

357 avanti  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:52:14pm

re: #350 Obdicut

The difference is that Nixon is showing Mao respect, whereas Warhol was mocking him.

So obviously the picture that's mocking Mao is offensive because it celebrates him, but the ones with Nixon smiling at Mao are all to the good.

I wonder about the Reagan bulb, some conservative decide to have a bit of fun with his bulb ?

358 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:52:21pm

re: #344 Charles

Why? What's the difference?

People hate Nixon. Mao - he's cool.

359 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:52:23pm

re: #323 Zeke

Obamao just loves stuff like this. Get the left and right at each others throat, create chaos, confusion...never let a good crisis go to waste eh?

How has Obama contributed to this in any way, shape or form?

360 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:52:45pm

re: #342 Obdicut

[snip]

Respectfully. Sorry if my tone is off, I just honestly cannot believe anyone is actually upset about this.

I'm not. Please read my comments up thread.

361 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:53:18pm

re: #356 Walter L. Newton

I answered.

362 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:53:41pm

re: #346 avanti

I missed the part about destroying historic artifacts, I thought they were plain, store bought bulbs.

And I could be wrong about that, it's what I thought I saw upthread?

363 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:53:56pm

re: #360 Walter L. Newton

I'm also not talking to you, Walter. Why do you keep replying as though I am?

364 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:54:05pm
'Balloon Boy' Parents Sentenced to Jail

The parents who carried out the balloon boy hoax were sentenced to jail Wednesday and given strict probation conditions that forbid them from earning any money from the spectacle for four years.

Richard Heene was sentenced to 90 days in jail, including 60 days of work release that will let him pursue his job as a construction contractor while serving his time. His wife, Mayumi, was sentenced to 20 days in jail.

Good.

365 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:54:13pm

re: #37 Guanxi88

Well, obviously, it's not a message FROM the White House to the nation or any group in it. Rather it is a message FROM a community group to the White House. Odd, though, that such a group might find anything sympathetic in the current administration.

366 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:54:16pm

re: #335 avanti

OK, found some more info. the WH sent out plain bulbs to community groups to decorate, then had the guy that does widow displays suppevise the decorating of the tree.

"Barneys creative director and noted gay male Simon Doonan oversaw White House Christmas decor this year, and his trees are an assault on family values, say right-wing bloggers. Then again, does Mao Tse-Tung really belong on Obama's tree?

Andrew Breitbart's star-spangled cranky-blog, Big Government, reports an "EXCLUSIVE: Transvestites, Mao and Obama Ornaments Decorate White House Christmas Tree" featuring an indictment of Doonan and snapshots of the Blue Room's ornaments. One of which has the image and signature of crème de la drag queens Hedda Lettuce:

Hedda's blog explains that Doonan didn't exactly contrive to get her on the tree. Rather, the White House sent boxes of plain bulbs to schools and charities, including a gay community center at which Hedda volunteers, for creative decoupaging. Hedda decorated her bulb as any self-respecting star of stage and reality television guest spots would, by festooning it with images of herself. "

"Noted gay male".

Wow. How do you get that title? And if I ever decorate a tree, do I get to be "Noted bisexual (but married to a man) female"?

367 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:54:48pm

re: #338 Slap

I'm genuinely curious: why do you think that there is such a lack of knowledge of Mao's mass murders?

I'm sure there are those who'll suggest it's a LEFTY plot to make him a hero; there are probably others who assume it's a RIGHTY plot to make sure the Chinese keep spending money on American businesses and products.

In fact, why is it that, when popular discussions focus on large-scale atrocities, only Hitler and Saddam seem to be used as examples? There does seem to be some sort of mass ignorance going on. Are kids at any age regularly taught about Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Mao, et al?

Again, I am having trouble getting my head around this.

It happened in Asia.

368 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:54:54pm

re: #363 Obdicut

I'm also not talking to you, Walter. Why do you keep replying as though I am?

I would like an answer to my "open" question if you could?

369 Digital Display  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:54:58pm

re: #332 Walter L. Newton

Yes I was asking you. And I didn't get a straight answer. Interesting, I have asked that same question about 4 times and I have not got a simple answer.

My answer. No, I don't care who is on the tree, they could put Hitler on the tree if they wanted. They could put Lenin on the tree if they wanted. They could put Pol Pot on the tree if they wanted. I don't care.

No bro.. I'm on vacation and having a blast.. I'm going to call you soon and wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a great new year...You are going to have a wonderful new year Walter...I have a feeling..You know me.
You are a cool dude Walter...
-Be Well

370 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:55:11pm

re: #356 Walter L. Newton

I'm just giving you shit Walter.

371 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:55:28pm

re: #339 The Sanity Inspector

People worshiped Moloch long ago, too.

OK, can we put HIM on a Christmas ornament?

(Can you tell that I will do ANYTHING to keep this conversation going, and not have to grade essays?)

372 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:55:42pm

re: #366 SanFranciscoZionist

"Noted gay male".

Wow. How do you get that title? And if I ever decorate a tree, do I get to be "Noted bisexual (but married to a man) female"?

Is that what you want to be famous for?

373 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:56:22pm

re: #366 SanFranciscoZionist

"Noted gay male".

Wow. How do you get that title? And if I ever decorate a tree, do I get to be "Noted bisexual (but married to a man) female"?

Practise. Lots and lots of practise.

374 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:56:26pm

re: #368 Walter L. Newton

I already answered it, Walter.

375 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:56:54pm

re: #374 Obdicut

I already answered it, Walter.

Sorry, I missed it.

376 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:56:56pm

re: #350 Obdicut

The difference is that Nixon is showing Mao respect, whereas Warhol was mocking him.

So obviously the picture that's mocking Mao is offensive because it celebrates him, but the ones with Nixon smiling at Mao are all to the good.

if Warhol was mocking Mao, show me...anything less is someone else's presumption

377 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:57:38pm
378 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:57:40pm

re: #342 Obdicut

Okay. So once people have been dead long enough, they're cool.

What about a picture of Stalin on the tree? Americans didn't die fighting him, and he was our ally in WWII.

I'm not searching for moral relativism; I'm actually saying that you're engaging in moral relativism.

Respectfully. Sorry if my tone is off, I just honestly cannot believe anyone is actually upset about this.

It's one thing to display American Art or hold philosophical discussions regarding long dead philosophers within the confines of our Presidents home. No one that I can tell is making the argument that there are issues/people we shouldn't mention within the confines of the white house.

If you want me to tune up my question a bit then just take out the fighting portion. "Is it appropriate for the peoples christmas tree to display the faces of murderous tyrants?" We all know the answer. I'd bet $20 as soon as someone in the White House saw this on the web the Mao ornament was gone.

379 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:58:15pm

re: #356 Walter L. Newton

Why am I mean. Another non answer. I see a lot of people slinging shit on this thread, but not actually making a statement.

Anyone?

Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

This general question still has not been answered. I already answered it above, I think anyone they wanted could be put on the tree.

Anyone?

Lots. Would you like a short list?

380 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:58:21pm

re: #351 Gus 802

No.
Heads of superpower states meet.
Realpolitik.

381 Zeke  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:58:23pm

re: #329 Charles

Roger that Charles...Wouldn't want to upset anyone. I'll keep the o off the end.

382 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:58:39pm

re: #378 RogueOne

Probably, and I think that's a shame.

383 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:59:22pm

re: #378 RogueOne

It's one thing to display American Art or hold philosophical discussions regarding long dead philosophers within the confines of our Presidents home. No one that I can tell is making the argument that there are issues/people we shouldn't mention within the confines of the white house.

If you want me to tune up my question a bit then just take out the fighting portion. "Is it appropriate for the peoples christmas tree to display the faces of murderous tyrants?" We all know the answer. I'd bet $20 as soon as someone in the White House saw this on the web the Mao ornament was gone.

I've already ask this question, 4-5 times, as sort of a poll of this thread and no one will give me a simple straight answer, so, why do you think you are going to get an answer?

384 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 1:59:59pm

re: #357 avanti

I wonder about the Reagan bulb, some conservative decide to have a bit of fun with his bulb ?

Presumably. It is the White House tree, putting a president you like on it seems logical.

Anyone remember the King of the Hill episode where Bobby is in trouble for doing his president report on Jed Bartlet and has to redo it

"Who'm I gonna do now? I know.....Roooonald Reaaaagan..."

385 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:00:17pm

re: #320 Walter L. Newton

No flame intended or sought, Walter, but I was hoping for some more insight from you on this thread. As the resident theater type, you're one of lizards with an artistic sensibility. I'm interested in your opinion, so I'm sorry to hear you say that you don't care.

386 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:00:28pm

re: #380 Rightwingconspirator

No.
Heads of superpower states meet.
Realpolitik.

True. Though I'd add this:


"Andy Warhol was in love with fame," said Gorvy. "At the moment in history, 1971-72, it was the reopening of China to the West. China was creating new relations with America. Nixon had gone over to China so Chairman Mao's image was everywhere and Warhol captured that. He understood ... that it was famous not just for that moment but famous forever."

[Link: www.artinfo.com...]

387 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:01:21pm

re: #292 Charles

Maybe it wasn't thoughtless at all. Maybe it was honoring Nixon's visit to China.

I don't know, but I think that's a lot more likely, given the circumstances, than the silly idea that this is some kind of commie message on the White House Christmas tree.

If they were made by schoolchildren, it's just as likely that the Mao portrait was used because the kid liked the colors, end of story.

388 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:01:32pm

re: #372 Alouette

Is that what you want to be famous for?

Not really. I want to write the great American novel and/or win teacher of the year. I just wondered how you become a 'noted gay male'.

389 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:01:35pm
Andy Warhol, Mao Tse Tung, 1972.

In 1972, Andy Warhol included China's chairman Mao Zedong in his famous series of silkscreen paintings. Warhol's timing was impeccable: Richard Nixon had just returned from China in February that same year, opening up new diplomatic channels between the two countries. However, while Warhol converted Mao into an international pop icon, in China the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) was far from over.

[Link: www.flickr.com...]

390 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:01:43pm

I thought the saddest thing about this thread was when SanFranciscoZionist said, quite reasonably I thought, that she would put plain balls there. Because it seems to me that what these nontroversies do is they make people afraid to offend. BUT, in a way that is completely different from the way that stops you from using racist imaginary in jokes, and makes you (or rather me) substitute sex worker for whore.
I think one is considering other person's view point out of respect. The other is pandering out of fear for repraisals. (Not knocking you, SanFranciscoZionist. I quite agree.) One is denouncing someone you find yourself disagreeing with, the other is throwing someone under the bus, because the mob won't understand the complexity of the situation.

391 _RememberTonyC  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:02:16pm

glenn beck is crying ..... he loves Jon Huntsman ...

392 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:02:42pm

re: #376 albusteve

if Warhol was mocking Mao, show me...anything less is someone else's presumption

All the art critics I've ever read interpret the piece as both mocking Mao's cult of personality and the American fascination with him. But art criticism is an open game...

393 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:03:19pm

re: #346 avanti

I missed the part about destroying historic artifacts, I thought they were plain, store bought bulbs.

One of the stories I read about this said they were ornaments from previous administrations -- I don't remember which website this was at.

394 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:03:50pm

re: #383 Walter L. Newton

I've already ask this question, 4-5 times, as sort of a poll of this thread and no one will give me a simple straight answer, so, why do you think you are going to get an answer?

I'm standing my with my list.

395 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:03:57pm

re: #382 Obdicut

Probably, and I think that's a shame.

I disagree. Sorry, but if there is one thing the people of this nation should be able to agree upon it's totalitarians deserve zero respect. The man was a monster. Unless they want to hang his portrait for free people to spit on then I don't think his visage should ever hang in our house.

396 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:04:14pm

re: #344 Charles

Why? What's the difference?

The tree is a holiday ornament for all the people from inside the people's house.

The others are historical documents/images.

It's what they represent.

397 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:04:18pm

re: #393 Charles

One of the stories I read about this said they were ornaments from previous administrations -- I don't remember which website this was at.

New thread? 'Cause I can get SERIOUSLY worked up about the destruction of stuff from the blessed reign of Nixon.

398 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:04:28pm

And I don't think plain Christmas ornament bulbs really qualify as "historical artifacts."

399 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:06:10pm

re: #395 RogueOne

I don't see the picture as granting him any respect, is the difference. I think it, in fact, disrespects him.

400 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:06:13pm

re: #398 Charles

And I don't think plain Christmas ornament bulbs really qualify as "historical artifacts."

Tell that to the Smithsonian.

///

Seriously, though, if they're just the plain glass thingies - dime a dozen - why not send 'em out?

And yet, one comes back with the non-controversial image?

401 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:06:16pm

re: #351 Gus 802

Didn't Nixon effectively legitimize Mao by meeting with him? Given the rhetoric isn't the logical conclusion that he should have even met with Mao since he was effectively a mass murderer?

I don't know how I would've reacted then, within the context of the Cold War, closed China, etc.

I understand what the strategy was.

402 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:06:56pm

re: #385 The Sanity Inspector

No flame intended or sought, Walter, but I was hoping for some more insight from you on this thread. As the resident theater type, you're one of lizards with an artistic sensibility. I'm interested in your opinion, so I'm sorry to hear you say that you don't care.

Well, that's where a lot of people intend to tag us in the entertainment business as "arty" or left or something like that, and that's what you are doing.

In my opinion, there is very little art, short of satirical or sarcastic art (as in certain poster art, like Stanislaw Linke) of mass murderers that I find acceptable almost anywhere.

403 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:06:57pm

Errands to run. BBL

Last excerpt regarding Warhol/Mao/Nixon:

Recall, as we are reminded in the catalogue, that Warhol became obsessed with Mao and China just when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger organized the great opening to the People's Republic. Irony was not on anybody's mind. Nor certainly was the fact that Mao happens to have been the greatest mass murderer in modern history. More than Hitler and more than Stalin. As it happens, Warhol was canny about who would acquire his images of Mao. Capitalists, that's who. And very rich capitalists, at that.

From Warhol's Mao

404 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:07:08pm

re: #388 SanFranciscoZionist

Not really. I want to write the great American novel and/or win teacher of the year. I just wondered how you become a 'noted gay male'.

There is no freaking way that I can ever become a "noted gay male."

405 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:07:17pm

Outty.

Peace all.

406 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:07:38pm

Here it is: Remarks by The First Lady at Holiday Press Preview %P% The White House

MRS. OBAMA: Hello. Good afternoon. Welcome to the White House and Happy Holidays! Thanks to all of you for joining us here today as we preview how we will mark the holidays here at the White House.

Now, like many years past, we've actually been planning this day, and the holiday season, since the summer. And our starting point was a very simple idea: that we include as many people, in as many places, in as many ways as we can.

So we decided to do something just a little different. We took about 800 ornaments left over from previous administrations, we sent them to 60 local community groups throughout the country, and asked them to decorate them to pay tribute to a favorite local landmark and then send them back to us for display here at the White House.

407 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:08:39pm

re: #402 Walter L. Newton

Well, that's where a lot of people intend to tag us in the entertainment business as "arty" or left or something like that, and that's what you are doing.

In my opinion, there is very little art, short of satirical or sarcastic art (as in certain poster art, like Stanislaw Linke) of mass murderers that I find acceptable almost anywhere.

But I don't care what the White House puts up on it's tree. It's ok with me.

(I posted before I had finished typing)

408 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:08:56pm

re: #338 Slap

I'm genuinely curious: why do you think that there is such a lack of knowledge of Mao's mass murders?

I'm sure there are those who'll suggest it's a LEFTY plot to make him a hero; there are probably others who assume it's a RIGHTY plot to make sure the Chinese keep spending money on American businesses and products.

In fact, why is it that, when popular discussions focus on large-scale atrocities, only Hitler and Saddam seem to be used as examples? There does seem to be some sort of mass ignorance going on. Are kids at any age regularly taught about Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Mao, et al?

Again, I am having trouble getting my head around this.

I can help you out. Rightwing totalitarian evil of the 20th century was based on racism and/or ultra-nationalism. These were not only evil, they were regarded as atavistic. By contrast, leftwing totalitarian evil is, in its most important manifestations, class-based. Disenfranchisment of and violence against "the exploiting classes" still has a whiff of idealism about it for some.

409 Racer X  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:09:17pm

re: #406 Charles

Here it is: Remarks by The First Lady at Holiday Press Preview %P% The White House

I knew it!

ACORN!

410 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:09:20pm

re: #398 Charles

And I don't think plain Christmas ornament bulbs really qualify as "historical artifacts."

This one might.

411 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:09:47pm

An image of Mao in make-up, hanging on a symbol of pagan celebration. Wonders never cease.

/WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!1!eleventy!

412 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:10:32pm

re: #411 Slumbering Behemoth

lol

413 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:11:03pm

re: #396 Ben Hur

The tree is a holiday ornament for all the people from inside the people's house.

The others are historical documents/images.

It's what they represent.

the Presidency has become imperial to many people, and any criticism of his habits, comings and goings, trying to get into his is verboten....this is much more worrisom than a fucking ornament....the idea that he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to is just plain wrong....the guy works for me and if I question what he's doing then so be it....call me racist or monger or hysterical, I really don't care because I know I'm right

414 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:11:27pm

re: #408 The Sanity Inspector

Out of curiousity, to what right wing totalitarianism are you referring?

415 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:12:17pm

re: #371 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, can we put HIM on a Christmas ornament?

(Can you tell that I will do ANYTHING to keep this conversation going, and not have to grade essays?)

BUNNIES!!

416 Tats66  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:12:32pm

Charles, did my comment get deleted? If so is there a private venue that you could tell me why, cuz Im pretty shocked that it was.

417 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:14:47pm

re: #386 Gus 802

In a sense Nixon rehabilitated Mao by bringing China into the mainstream or world commerce. That whole free trade that became the jobs exporting industry is a huge topic for another day.

I just want to register my reaction to The Ornament.

418 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:14:52pm

re: #416 Tats66

Comments complaining about what is posted or not posted at LGF will be deleted.

As always. I've posted this notice at least 200 times.

419 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:15:09pm

Happy day before the day before. Is there a name for this day? Wondering what local landmark they were honoring? Is this in the same category as the Navy guys hanging the "Mission Accomplished" banner?

420 Ericus58  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:15:12pm

What is the WH Holiday/Christmas Tree for?
I would think it much like most tree's we all have: It's a symbol of Celebration - Peace, Love, Joy and used as a gathering for giving.

Across many homes, and not just in this nation, it is recongized as a good symbol and brings happiness.
It should not be used as a prop for politics, pole-in-the-eye spite nor a place for hate to reside. There are more than enough places to showcase these issues that is more appropriate.

The WH tree represents all of us, and should reflect us all - there are soo many icons, pictures and other symbols that would show this. From "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men" to a school child's decoration made for their mom.

For me, it's that easy.
This one celebration, this moment of the year, can we not have goodness rather than ...... Mao?

421 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:16:16pm

re: #393 Charles
The Jon Stewart video has this teacher describing how the ornaments were plain red or gold, and big. The kids just had a ball decorating the things. I only hope nione of them get wind on this nontroversy.

422 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:16:54pm

re: #420 Ericus58

It's not the Obamas who politicized this issue. It's the right wing blogs. Again.

423 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:17:01pm

re: #420 Ericus58

What is the WH Holiday/Christmas Tree for?
I would think it much like most tree's we all have: It's a symbol of Celebration - Peace, Love, Joy and used as a gathering for giving.

Across many homes, and not just in this nation, it is recongized as a good symbol and brings happiness.
It should not be used as a prop for politics, pole-in-the-eye spite nor a place for hate to reside. There are more than enough places to showcase these issues that is more appropriate.

The WH tree represents all of us, and should reflect us all - there are soo many icons, pictures and other symbols that would show this. From "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men" to a school child's decoration made for their mom.

For me, it's that easy.
This one celebration, this moment of the year, can we not have goodness rather than ... Mao?

no, the WH can do whatever it want's and those of us that disagree are intellectually bankrupt..it's true

424 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:17:50pm

re: #414 RogueOne

Out of curiousity, to what right wing totalitarianism are you referring?

Hitler for the race-based, Mussolini, Franco, et seq. for the ultra-nationalism.

425 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:18:09pm

re: #420 Ericus58

What is the WH Holiday/Christmas Tree for?

To celebrate the Winter Solstice, fertility, and bountiful harvests, maybe?

426 recusancy  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:18:16pm

re: #420 Ericus58

What is the WH Holiday/Christmas Tree for?
I would think it much like most tree's we all have: It's a symbol of Celebration - Peace, Love, Joy and used as a gathering for giving.

Across many homes, and not just in this nation, it is recongized as a good symbol and brings happiness.
It should not be used as a prop for politics, pole-in-the-eye spite nor a place for hate to reside. There are more than enough places to showcase these issues that is more appropriate.

The WH tree represents all of us, and should reflect us all - there are soo many icons, pictures and other symbols that would show this. From "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men" to a school child's decoration made for their mom.

For me, it's that easy.
This one celebration, this moment of the year, can we not have goodness rather than ... Mao?

And some of us put Mao art on xmas bulbs. That bulb is representing them I guess. Obama didn't put it on there.

427 Tats66  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:18:46pm

Wow, I didnt think I was complaining, I just had gotten a perception of the change in the blog and had been wanting to try and illicit an affirmation or otherwise......no disrespect meant. Bummer.

428 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:19:16pm

re: #420 Ericus58

You're absolutely right. There is no doubt, none at all, that this ornament was deliberately placed on the tree to ruin Christmas, not just for you, but for everyone in the country, and represents yet another enormous, successful volley lobbed by the enemy in the War Against Christmas. By Obama. Who is really Satan.

/^100

429 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:20:13pm

I suppose soon somebody will post how a having white house Christmas tree violates the separation of state and religion.

430 Stuart Leviton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:20:29pm

re: #376 albusteve

if Warhol was mocking Mao, show me...anything less is someone else's presumption

Warhol, being basically apolitical, likely was unaware of what a monstrous criminal Mao was. Worse yet, he probably did not care. That being said, Warhol used Mao more as a way of talking about how the viewer has been turned into something less than human. Warhol was a Luddite of sorts.

On a personal note, I never thought I would defend Warhol's Mao. The painting was shocking. I had read about Marcel Duchamp's taking a urinal, turning it upside down, calling it art Duchamp parody, and of course Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. - Elle a chaud au cul Cream - SWLABR. But the Mao was shocking in a revolting way.

431 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:20:37pm

re: #425 Slumbering Behemoth

To celebrate the Winter Solstice, fertility, and bountiful harvests, maybe?

But what would I know? The tree is a pagan thing, and I'm not a practicing pagan.

To bad Sal's not here, he could explain it better.

432 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:20:45pm

re: #413 albusteve

re: #423 albusteve

if I question what he's doing then so be it... I really don't care because I know I'm right

You can question anyone you like, obviously. But, if you're not right about it, people will point that out. And even if you're right, people might disagree. Censorship! Obama has now become emperor of the world, because people disagreed with your critique. Because in a normal democratic political debate, every one would agree with your opinion!

This is just like Guanxi's reaction. Someone says you're wrong, argues for another side, and you automatically assume that means you've been generally dismissed as somehow unworthy. With him, he said that's because it's what he does, and then he turned it into a joke. What about you?

433 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:20:47pm

re: #417 Rightwingconspirator

In a sense Nixon rehabilitated Mao by bringing China into the mainstream or world commerce. That whole free trade that became the jobs exporting industry is a huge topic for another day.

I just want to register my reaction to The Ornament.

:)

And here's mine:

Youtube Video

//

434 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:22:06pm

re: #429 Rightwingconspirator

I suppose soon somebody will post how a having white house Christmas tree violates the separation of state and religion.

Paganism in the White House! Call the ACLU!
/

435 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:22:38pm

re: #433 The Sanity Inspector

Perfect. I tried to find a yawning cat that matched my avatar.

Oh well. I'm going to keep that both links for future nontroversies.

436 Slap  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:22:39pm

re: #356 Walter L. Newton

Walter, here's my take on your question:

It depends. (Sorry, that was my favorite line when I was training banking clerks many years ago....)

Seriously, though: I'm not sure there's any one person's image I'd name, per se; for me, it can matter WHICH image of a major figure is used, to a degree. A Warhol thingy to me has FAR less weight than, say, an official state portrait.

But on a far more personal aesthetic level, I always wonder why people put portraits on ornaments to begin with unless they're some sort of keepsake. I just don't like "portrait" ornaments, period -- and on public trees, you're always taking the chance of offending somebody somewhere. Mao is offending people. If there had been an ornament of Toby Keith, somebody will be offended.

In (not-so) short, I say NO FACES. Unless they're cartoons. CRIKEY, IT'S A DECORATION, not a declaration!

Give me abstract colors and shapes any day. Not to be PC, but I see faces all day long. When I look at my Christmas tree, I wanna see pretty colors and shapes without the need for flashbacks.

437 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:22:41pm

re: #433 The Sanity Inspector

It is always time to up-ding Kinison.

438 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:23:33pm

Is it not possible that the person who made the offending ornament simply didn't know who Mao was or what his face looked like? The ornament maker could have been blind for all we know!

439 recusancy  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:23:52pm

re: #431 Slumbering Behemoth

But what would I know? The tree is a pagan thing, and I'm not a practicing pagan.

To bad Sal's not here, he could explain it better.

[Link: www.holidays.net...]

440 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:24:14pm

Time to call it a day.
Keep it cool and Merry Christmas!


Youtube Video
441 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:25:11pm

re: #436 Slap

Walter, here's my take on your question:

It depends. (Sorry, that was my favorite line when I was training banking clerks many years ago...)

Seriously, though: I'm not sure there's any one person's image I'd name, per se; for me, it can matter WHICH image of a major figure is used, to a degree. A Warhol thingy to me has FAR less weight than, say, an official state portrait.

But on a far more personal aesthetic level, I always wonder why people put portraits on ornaments to begin with unless they're some sort of keepsake. I just don't like "portrait" ornaments, period -- and on public trees, you're always taking the chance of offending somebody somewhere. Mao is offending people. If there had been an ornament of Toby Keith, somebody will be offended.

In (not-so) short, I say NO FACES. Unless they're cartoons. CRIKEY, IT'S A DECORATION, not a declaration!

Give me abstract colors and shapes any day. Not to be PC, but I see faces all day long. When I look at my Christmas tree, I wanna see pretty colors and shapes without the need for flashbacks.

Thanks for the answer. And an honest answer.

442 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:26:02pm

re: #438 Surabaya Stew

Is it not possible that the person who made the offending ornament simply didn't know who Mao was or what his face looked like? The ornament maker could have been blind for all we know!

Or maybe a child-killing communist with one arm.

443 Ericus58  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:26:20pm

re: #422 Charles

Charles, I didn't mention the Obama's in my post. And I've earlier stated that in no way were they are the issue.
I didn't even know that this was an issue being raised until you posted in the previous thread and then made this thread for us to comment.

I would hope that I'm not being placed in the same category. Thanks.

444 Kronocide  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:26:41pm

"Woman, go take your pills."

That's a great Xmas gift!

445 Slap  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:27:38pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton

Are you the real Richard Kimball?

446 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:27:39pm

re: #432 suchislife

re: #423 albusteve

You can question anyone you like, obviously. But, if you're not right about it, people will point that out. And even if you're right, people might disagree. Censorship! Obama has now become emperor of the world, because people disagreed with your critique. Because in a normal democratic political debate, every one would agree with your opinion!

This is just like Guanxi's reaction. Someone says you're wrong, argues for another side, and you automatically assume that means you've been generally dismissed as somehow unworthy. With him, he said that's because it's what he does, and then he turned it into a joke. What about you?

what about me..what do you want to know? ask me a direct question instead of laying all your blab on me

447 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:28:07pm

re: #423 albusteve

no, the WH can do whatever it want's and those of us that disagree are intellectually bankrupt..it's true

I get that you don't care for this administration, but has any past administration ever really come on like "Sure, tell us how to run things, we welcome your criticism?"

448 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:29:02pm

Surabaya, I would bet the kid didn't know who Mao was. My 18 year old couldn't tell me. I just asked. They don't teach kids this stuff. Maybe that's a better point. Nobody cares because nobody knows enough to care. The staffer who hung it on the tree was possibly as ignorant as that child. And for THAT he should be fired. It isn't appropriate in a public, and publicy funded, venue to insult so many people in such an offensive way. And the kid would probably not have even known his ornament wasn't used. Plus the crazies have something else to blather on about.

449 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:29:14pm

re: #436 Slap

And to reconfirm my opinion.

I wouldn't put anyone of these people we have discussed on a ornament of any sort, at any time, cartoon, satirical or otherwise.

I don't care what White House Christmas Tree ornament have on them.

450 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:29:41pm

re: #447 SanFranciscoZionist

I get that you don't care for this administration, but has any past administration ever really come on like "Sure, tell us how to run things, we welcome your criticism?"

not that I recall, I don't expect them to

451 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:30:03pm

re: #429 Rightwingconspirator

I suppose soon somebody will post how a having white house Christmas tree violates the separation of state and religion.

It doesn't, but it certainly illustrates the dominant culture of the U.S. I don't have a problem with that. I DO have a BIG problem with people from that culture trying to act like they're all marginalized and oppressed.

452 Digital Display  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:30:12pm

re: #427 Tats66

Wow, I didnt think I was complaining, I just had gotten a perception of the change in the blog and had been wanting to try and illicit an affirmation or otherwise...no disrespect meant. Bummer.

You have been registered here for 6 years...Don't come off like I just joined up last month and i don't understand the conversation...
LGF is handing out clues during the Holiday season...

453 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:30:34pm

re: #6 Stanley Sea

Mao is wearing blue eyeshadow. Hedda Lettuce is a transvestite. The conspiracy is even thicker than they think. /

I just logged in for a moment and I apologize in advance for interrupting any above conversations, however...

Do you know how to pick your transvestite name? It's really quite fun. Your first name is the name of the your first pet. Your second name is the name of the street you first lived on. So my name would be "Schotzie Southwood". My husband's is "Mama Harmony."

Try it LOL

454 Kronocide  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:31:31pm

Some kids parents may be commies or have a Mao painting at their house for chrissakes. Kids are impressionable. I would have keeled over if there was one with Hannity on it.

455 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:31:33pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon
Blackie 30th?

456 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:31:36pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

My first pet was a dog named Russell.

I'd be Russell Wormwood.

That sounds more like a character from a Victorian novel than a transvestite.

457 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:31:46pm

re: #448 Escaped Hillbilly

Surabaya, I would bet the kid didn't know who Mao was. My 18 year old couldn't tell me. I just asked. They don't teach kids this stuff. Maybe that's a better point. Nobody cares because nobody knows enough to care. The staffer who hung it on the tree was possibly as ignorant as that child. And for THAT he should be fired. It isn't appropriate in a public, and publicy funded, venue to insult so many people in such an offensive way. And the kid would probably not have even known his ornament wasn't used. Plus the crazies have something else to blather on about.

From the things I read many of the decorators weren't staffers they were members of the general public who volunteer.

458 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:31:49pm

There's only one solution. Replace all the ornaments with these.

459 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:32:06pm

I'll say this: Vlaams Belang and the Eurofascists adopt and adapt imagery and iconography that shows their underlying political sympathies and aspirations, and they're quite rightly called out for it whenever (which is always) and wherever (which is everywhere) they do it.

Same principles of hermeneutics apply to the adaptation and uses to which images and iconography of other murderous regimes are put.

460 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:33:25pm

re: #456 Obdicut

My first pet was a dog named Russell.

I'd be Russell Wormwood.

That sounds more like a character from a Victorian novel than a transvestite.

Sir Russell Wormwood, Esq., QC, VC, KBE

461 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:34:53pm

Wolf E. Benton STreet? Uhhh no. ;-)

462 Cathypop  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:34:54pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon
Scratch B?

463 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:35:37pm

It's a good thing that the ornament with Reagan's pic doesn't depict him wearing ridiculous make-up. People might get the impression that Obama actually respects him, or something.

464 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:36:20pm

re: #448 Escaped Hillbilly

Interesting what is worthwhile history. We never fought Mao. But they all know Hitler the genocidal maniac. But not Mao as such.

Reminds me of kids with T-shirts on. They often have no idea who Che was or Mao. Or even better

465 Mocking Jay  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:36:38pm

I was really hoping for a more interesting nontroversy today. X-Mas tree ornaments? Bleh. The far right needs to work harder.

466 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:36:58pm

I still want to know - who sent the Mao ornament?

It's not one of BHO's - it's not FROM him, so it's not his fault. I want to know, though, who thought it would be appropriate to send it, and, further, which of his blunder, bungling staff thought it should be put on the tree?

467 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:37:22pm

re: #10 lawhawk

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history (whose body count is probably above 70 million), and some community group thinks it okay to use the Warhol pop-art as a Christmas ornament, it's okay?

I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities to turn Mao into "art", followed by the idiocy of the community group that thought including Mao on their ornament was a good idea (even if it was Warhol's print).

Ah, another enemy of art. Another cultureless nitwit smearing an incredibly important artist for his choice of subject matter.

Methinks the same vacant, vacuous nimrods who wanted to slam the Obamas for their choice of art before are going to come out of the woodwork once again.

I don't pontificate on how airplane engines work or the intricacies of World War I. Because I wouldn't know what I was talking about. Just like you don't know what you're talking about now.

468 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:37:35pm

re: #459 Guanxi88

Oh dear god. You're really still trying? Now you're equating the use of this with the use of imagery by the Vlaams Belang?

You one-upped your previous post in terms of tortured logic.

469 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:38:09pm

re: #468 Obdicut

Oh dear god. You're really still trying? Now you're equating the use of this with the use of imagery by the Vlaams Belang?

You one-upped your previous post in terms of tortured logic.

Stick around - I can do better than that, even.

470 eneri  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:39:18pm

OMG, what a frightening bunch of loonie tunes.

471 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:39:49pm

re: #467 WindUpBird

To be fair, Lawhawk is not a nitwit, cultureless or otherwise. I just think he doesn't get the mockery of Mao inherent in the Warhol print.

472 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:40:06pm

re: #253 wrenchwench

I saw on Twitter that Rush L has recently dropped LGF from his list of sites consulted for show prep. He doesn't move very quickly, I guess.

Yes -- it's the best Christmas present I've ever gotten.

473 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:40:12pm

re: #470 eneri

OMG, what a frightening bunch of loonie tunes.

Who? can you be a little more specific?

474 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:40:36pm

re: #467 WindUpBird

Ah, another enemy of art. Another cultureless nitwit smearing an incredibly important artist for his choice of subject matter.

Methinks the same vacant, vacuous nimrods who wanted to slam the Obamas for their choice of art before are going to come out of the woodwork once again.

I don't pontificate on how airplane engines work or the intricacies of World War I. Because I wouldn't know what I was talking about. Just like you don't know what you're talking about now.

you, of all people calling Lawhawk a clueless nitwit for articulating his opinion?....that's extremely rude....talk about clueless

475 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:41:27pm

re: #420 Ericus58

Another enemy of art. God damn, I'm glad I don't take orders from conservatives about what to paint or draw.

476 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:41:39pm

re: #468 Obdicut

Oh dear god. You're really still trying? Now you're equating the use of this with the use of imagery by the Vlaams Belang?

You one-upped your previous post in terms of tortured logic.

So, to recap, then:

VB and eurofascist use of symbols and iconography of totalitarianism - bad.

Leftist and "pop culture" use of symbols and iconography of totalitarianism - good.

477 Cathypop  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:42:19pm

re: #473 Walter L. Newton

Who? can you be a little more specific?


But Loonie Toons make me laugh.

478 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:42:21pm

re: #474 albusteve

you, of all people calling Lawhawk a clueless nitwit for articulating his opinion?...that's extremely rude...talk about clueless

On the subject of art, he is a clueless nitwit. I would be a clueless nitwit if I were opining about something I knew nothing about as well.

479 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:42:40pm

re: #475 WindUpBird

Another enemy of art. God damn, I'm glad I don't take orders from conservatives about what to paint or draw.

Nope - you've got Organizing for America to handle that for you.

480 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:42:41pm

Warhol is "great"? To me, popular is not the same as important.

481 Stuart Leviton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:42:58pm

re: #356 Walter L. Newton

Why am I mean. Another non answer. I see a lot of people slinging shit on this thread, but not actually making a statement.

Anyone?

Would there be any SINGLE person, rendered either in art, photograph or some medium, which is not meant to show the person in some satirical or sarcastic light... meaning meant to show the person such as he/she was, a recognizable reproduction of that person, in which you would find bothersome to be hanging or displayed on a Christmas tree decoration on the White House tree?

This general question still has not been answered. I already answered it above, I think anyone they wanted could be put on the tree.

Anyone?


Would I want to see anyone put on a tree? Taking the phrase in the biblical sense (see the Hebrew for Deuteronomy 21:22) where the phrase means to execute someone by hanging, there are very few people I would want to see put on a tree. Certainly here in the United States, I oppose the death penalty for it is used freely.

But answering your good question, I would not put Mohamed on a tree (with reference to the Danish cartoons).

482 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:43:13pm

re: #467 WindUpBird

Whoa. Argue with Lawhawk's take on Andy Warhol the artist all you want. How does that make him an enemy of art? Even if he is an enemy of Andy Warhols art?

BTW-Lawhawk is no longer logged into this thread, so your call out is not being heard. Oh and unlike aircraft engineering, art is intended to generate emotions and reactions.

483 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:44:30pm

re: #480 Escaped Hillbilly

Warhol is "great"? To me, popular is not the same as important.

I don't care for him much. But his place as an important 20th century artist is secure.

484 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:44:33pm

re: #476 Guanxi88

So, to recap, then:

VB and eurofascist use of symbols and iconography of totalitarianism - bad.

Leftist and "pop culture" use of symbols and iconography of totalitarianism - good.

Holy wow. Are you kidding me? It's ANDY WARHOL. HE IS AN ARTIST.

Did I jump down the rabbit hole? Am I wearing a blue dress? Follow that white rabbit!

485 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:45:05pm

:sigh: Yet more last minute xmas dinner stuff to attend too. Why do people procrastinate so? And who elected me family chauffeur?

Later Lizards. If you celebrate, have a Merry Christmas.

/just don't hang mocking images on your pagan tree :)

486 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:45:29pm

re: #406 Charles

Here it is: Remarks by The First Lady at Holiday Press Preview %P% The White House

So lets' assume that one was sent to a school near Andy Warhol's Factory, which would be a local landmark... if they were old and Plain ornaments, I don't consider them historic artifacts either.

487 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:45:54pm

re: #467 WindUpBird

Ah, another enemy of art. Another cultureless nitwit smearing an incredibly important artist for his choice of subject matter.

Methinks the same vacant, vacuous nimrods who wanted to slam the Obamas for their choice of art before are going to come out of the woodwork once again.

I don't pontificate on how airplane engines work or the intricacies of World War I. Because I wouldn't know what I was talking about. Just like you don't know what you're talking about now.

Art does not exist in a void. If it did, would it still be art? I don't care what the White House puts on it's ornaments, I don't care what Warhol painted, but art elicits response, good art elicits strong response.

That response can't be right or wrong. If there was a right or wrong way to respond to art, than it would be instruction, not art.

You may not agree with Lawhark, but he is not an enemy of art.

488 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:46:25pm

re: #484 WindUpBird

Holy wow. Are you kidding me? It's ANDY WARHOL. HE IS AN ARTIST.

Did I jump down the rabbit hole? Am I wearing a blue dress? Follow that white rabbit!

I'm not pissed that the fraud and crank Warhol decided to make a buck off the image of a famous mass-murderer. He'd done it with other famous people previously, so no great shock.

I'm pissed that, yet again, we find Mao where he ought not to be.

489 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:46:32pm

re: #485 Slumbering Behemoth

:sigh: Yet more last minute xmas dinner stuff to attend too. Why do people procrastinate so? And who elected me family chauffeur?

Later Lizards. If you celebrate, have a Merry Christmas.

/just don't hang mocking images on your pagan tree :)

And please, don't hang one of these on it, either. (NSFW)

490 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:46:42pm

re: #482 Rightwingconspirator

Whoa. Argue with Lawhawk's take on Andy Warhol the artist all you want. How does that make him an enemy of art? Even if he is an enemy of Andy Warhols art?

BTW-Lawhawk is no longer logged into this thread, so your call out is not being heard. Oh and unlike aircraft engineering, art is intended to generate emotions and reactions.

"I think it speaks to Warhol's warped sensibilities"

That's why I consider him an eney of art. Not because he's reacting to the piece itself, because he says that Warhol is a terrible person for daring to depict someone in a portrait.

491 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:46:49pm

re: #478 WindUpBird

On the subject of art, he is a clueless nitwit. I would be a clueless nitwit if I were opining about something I knew nothing about as well.

he's been posting for years and probably has forgotten more than you'll ever know....he's a gem of a contributor and has never said a harsh word about anybody that I recall....you on the other hand are a brazen, loudmouth, noob with no sense of propriety at all....a gigantic asshole...fuck off

492 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:47:04pm

re: #476 Guanxi88

Leftist is a pretty dumb word.

Yes, I do think that artistic use of symbols and iconography of totalitarianism are good, especially when they show a totalitarian dictator looking like he's wearing eyeliner.

Totalitarian dictators aren't very fond of artists representing them in a caricature, you know.

493 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:47:19pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton

Or maybe a child-killing communist with one arm.

Why one arm?

494 recusancy  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:47:20pm

re: #487 Walter L. Newton

You may not agree with Lawhark, but he is not an enemy of art.

He's an enemy of art if he wants to censor it.

495 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:48:12pm

re: #481 Stuart Leviton

Would I want to see anyone put on a tree? Taking the phrase in the biblical sense (see the Hebrew for Deuteronomy 21:22) where the phrase means to execute someone by hanging, there are very few people I would want to see put on a tree. Certainly here in the United States, I oppose the death penalty for it is used freely.

But answering your good question, I would not put Mohamed on a tree (with reference to the Danish cartoons).

I don't need the textual criticism lesson on the hebrew scriptures, it's one of my prime education areas, and you were well aware that I was not talking about hanging.

496 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:48:17pm

re: #485 Slumbering Behemoth

:sigh: Yet more last minute xmas dinner stuff to attend too. Why do people procrastinate so? And who elected me family chauffeur?

Later Lizards. If you celebrate, have a Merry Christmas.

/just don't hang mocking images on your pagan tree :)

I am ahead of schedule. It is not Christmas Eve until tomorrow night, and I have already successfully gotten my husband to sign all the cards.

497 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:49:22pm

re: #448 Escaped Hillbilly

Surabaya, I would bet the kid didn't know who Mao was. My 18 year old couldn't tell me. I just asked. They don't teach kids this stuff. Maybe that's a better point. Nobody cares because nobody knows enough to care. The staffer who hung it on the tree was possibly as ignorant as that child. And for THAT he should be fired. It isn't appropriate in a public, and publicy funded, venue to insult so many people in such an offensive way. And the kid would probably not have even known his ornament wasn't used. Plus the crazies have something else to blather on about.

Don't agree with you on the ignorant staffer being fired (a reprimand is the correct punishment IMHO), but an big upding for bringing up historical ignorance as the main culprit here!

498 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:49:41pm

re: #494 recusancy

He's an enemy of art if he wants to censor it.

Lawhawk posted very clearly about that...go up and read it before you judge and play word games

499 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:50:25pm

re: #492 obdicut

Leftist is a pretty dumb word.

Yes, I do think that artistic use of symbols and iconography of totalitarianism are good, especially when they show a totalitarian dictator looking like he's wearing eyeliner.

Totalitarian dictators aren't very fond of artists representing them in a caricature, you know.

Leftist is a dumb word. Fine. What other word would you prefer I use to indicate the political inclinations of persons who see in Mao an inspiring example of political genius, and one whose experiences are to be used to encourage high schoolers to persevere, as happened in yet another "nontroversy" involving the use or presence of Mao in current discourse here in the States?

Mao wasn't bothered by Warhol, who probably had no clue at the time (1973) what Mao was up to or what was really going on in China.

So, was the ornament then sent to mock Mao? If so, why?

500 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:51:23pm

re: #488 Guanxi88

I'm not pissed that the fraud and crank Warhol decided to make a buck off the image of a famous mass-murderer. He'd done it with other famous people previously, so no great shock.

I'm pissed that, yet again, we find Mao where he ought not to be.

Fraud and crank, huh? Wow. Keep talking, I want to see where your crazy train will let me off.

Sometimes it is made abundantly clear how totally apart I am from conservative thought. This is one of those times! Some of the opinions on Warhol here, it's like visiting an alien landscape.

Mao where he ought not to be

So one of the most recognized world leaders on earth cannot be drawn or painted or depicted? Fuck, maybe I should paint a portrait of Mao tonight!

501 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:52:33pm

re: #488 Guanxi88

Why on earth would you call Warhol a fraud and a crank? Do you just want to pretend he hasn't been enormously influential in art?

You sound like the idiots who disparaged Picasso. Warhol did creative things in some pretty conventional mediums. He's not smearing shit on fan blades and calling it art.

502 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:52:43pm

re: #493 Surabaya Stew

Why one arm?

It's as silly as you suggest that maybe the person who made the ornament was blind. I don't know who made it, you don't know who made it, none of us know anything about the person who made it so it's a worthless exercise trying to make up shit. All you or I know is it was made by someone. You can't offer explanations for something you have no information on.

503 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:52:50pm

re: #491 albusteve

he's been posting for years and probably has forgotten more than you'll ever know...he's a gem of a contributor and has never said a harsh word about anybody that I recall...you on the other hand are a brazen, loudmouth, noob with no sense of propriety at all...a gigantic asshole...fuck off

Not on art he doesn't.

Again, being a contributor doesn't make you a magic expert on everything. I am a brazen asshole, because I point out people who talk about things they know nothing about. I'll accept that! I've always been that.

504 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:52:58pm

Yes, you have gone down the rabbit hole. Please don't ask me to join you. Oh, and I studied art in college before realizing I don't have enough talent to be the next DaVinci, or enough gall to be the next Warhol. He was to visual art what Madonna was to music. A little talent, and a lot of showmanship. And he DID have wharped sensibilities. No one said he was evil or should have been censored.

505 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:53:04pm

re: #475 WindUpBird
Slap said something worth repeating, I loved it. In the context of a celebratory art piece-the Christmas tree "Decoration, not declaration."
Save it for political art venues.
re: #490 WindUpBird
It's a shame Lawhawk is not here to answer your insults. I have read Warhol reveled in this kind of controversy.

506 emcesq  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:53:36pm

Oh for god sake, where does bad taste end and conspiracy begin? This is what you get if you are surrounded with clueless staffer young'uns getting some stupid school projects on the tree.

What the hell happened to good taste, professionalism, and just general sense?

I can just picture Josef Dzhugashvili's christmas tree with an ornament likeness of President Hoover. (Dzhugashvili, anyone?)

507 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:53:43pm

re: #27 Charles

Hundreds of community groups donated these ornaments -- you can't tell from that tiny image, but I suggest it's quite possible the Warhol Mao ornament was donated by a Chinese community group.

Should Mao be taken off the tree now that he's been outed?/

508 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:54:02pm

re: #499 Guanxi88

What other word would you prefer I use to indicate the political inclinations of persons who see in Mao an inspiring example of political genius, and one whose experiences are to be used to encourage high schoolers to persevere, as happened in yet another "nontroversy" involving the use or presence of Mao in current discourse here in the States?

You could call that one person by her name, I guess. Nice stretch there, Mr. Armstrong.

You seriously meant, by 'leftists', above, people who see in Mao an inspiring example of political genius?

Is your view of the 'left' really that warped?

509 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:54:08pm

re: #500 WindUpBird

So one of the most recognized world leaders on earth cannot be drawn or painted or depicted? Fuck, maybe I should paint a portrait of Mao tonight!

Mao has no place on the White House Christmas tree, even as his words (even if attributed to Atwater) have no place in a speech to high schoolers, even as his iconography has no place in campaign art - official or spontaneous - for an American president. Face it - people have no problem with Mao - they either don't know who he was or what he did - or they agree with it.

Warhol can make all the lithographs in the world; it will do nothing to change the underlying subject matter. His attempt to disarm Mao by co-opting his image into the pantheon of pop art is a cultural fail.

510 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:54:27pm

re: #494 recusancy

He's an enemy of art if he wants to censor it.

Please show me where Lawhawk used the word "censor."

511 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:54:32pm

re: #501 obdicut

Why on earth would you call Warhol a fraud and a crank? Do you just want to pretend he hasn't been enormously influential in art?

You sound like the idiots who disparaged Picasso. Warhol did creative things in some pretty conventional mediums. He's not smearing shit on fan blades and calling it art.

Do you feel suddenly like the entire room has spun upside down and we're in the Twilight Zone? That's the vibe I'm getting.

If I were to say a bunch of uninformed shit about Israel that didn't make any sense, I'd be called out by the whole board. As I should be. People say a bunch of shit that makes no sense about Warhol, and it's celebrated and defended!

512 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:54:33pm

re: #504 Escaped Hillbilly

Sorry I only have 1 up ding to give.

513 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:54:54pm

re: #506 emcesq

(Dzhugashvili, anyone?)

No thanks, I just ate.

514 abolitionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:55:39pm

Aha! What have we here? The guy looks kinda oriental. It is a guy, isn't it? No matter. Yay, Diversity.

(speculating)

515 Mocking Jay  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:55:40pm

re: #511 WindUpBird

Dude, take a step back. That's all I'm asking.

516 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:56:10pm

You got me Surabay Stew, I overreacted. Reprimanded, not fired. And Charles already corrected me in that it was volunteers not staffers who hung them. But thanks for the upding! My first.

517 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:56:29pm

re: #506 emcesq

Oh for god sake, where does bad taste end and conspiracy begin? This is what you get if you are surrounded with clueless staffer young'uns getting some stupid school projects on the tree.

What the hell happened to good taste, professionalism, and just general sense?

I can just picture Josef Dzhugashvili's christmas tree with an ornament likeness of President Hoover. (Dzhugashvili, anyone?)

Stalin... aren't you clever...

518 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:56:41pm

re: #505 Rightwingconspirator

Slap said something worth repeating, I loved it. In the context of a celebratory art piece-the Christmas tree "Decoration, not declaration."
Save it for political art venues.
re: #490 WindUpBird
It's a shame Lawhawk is not here to answer your insults. I have read Warhol reveled in this kind of controversy.

He did, yeah. But the insult is to Warhol and his body of work.

519 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:56:44pm

re: #508 obdicut

You could call that one person by her name, I guess. Nice stretch there, Mr. Armstrong.

You seriously meant, by 'leftists', above, people who see in Mao an inspiring example of political genius?

Is your view of the 'left' really that warped?

The left as a whole is not Maoist, but Maoism is not excluded from the political left - no more than Franco is excluded from the right.

I'd note that approval for Franco (and others, worse still, who will not be named, Godwin's Law and all) or for the use of their images, iconography, etc., are not tolerated by or among the mainstream of the political or cultural Right, but that Mao and Che are de rigeur to the political and cultural left.

520 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:57:19pm

Back to the point at hand, I refuse to get upset on cue because there's an ornament I don't like on the WH Christmas tree. The fact that the right is leading with crap like just tells what a vacuum they have for leadership right now.

521 Kewalo  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:58:13pm

Charles, did you happen to read this comment by ByteRider?

"Did you know [or do you care] that the school Obama attended, Punahou School, has a statue of their most PRIZED student bronzed in a court yard on the school campus? And who is this "piller of academic and character success"?

HO CHI MINH

Absolute fact, I actually touched the statue myself during one of the Punahou Carnivals! (I was poor and had to attend the poor kid's school down the street, McKinley High School, class of '84)."

That is just unbelievably stupid.

522 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:58:26pm

re: #503 WindUpBird

Not on art he doesn't.

Again, being a contributor doesn't make you a magic expert on everything. I am a brazen asshole, because I point out people who talk about things they know nothing about. I'll accept that! I've always been that.

you are a brazen asshole because you call people trolls and nitwits...no explanation, no input, no contribution...just pumped up bullshit...and always behind their back...why don't you just speak for yourself without all the self righteous namecalling and make your point....your crude fist pumping is meaningless....you don't contribute and are funny even less often....TonyC is not a troll and Lawhawk is not a clueless nitwit...it's the other way around imo

523 Jaerik  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:58:40pm

I read this stuff and wonder... how much of their internal concepts of AMERICA and "this great country," which they're so fond of screaming as though a singular absolute truth, actually intersects from one of them to the next?

524 recusancy  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:58:46pm

re: #510 Walter L. Newton

Please show me where Lawhawk used the word "censor."

#104

Sometimes there are people who are evil. Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it. Hitler was evil. So was Stalin and Mao. I just don't think it was appropriate. The blood on their hands is the blood of tens of millions each.
I just don't think it warrants being immortalized as art.

525 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:58:50pm

re: #494 recusancy

He's an enemy of art if he wants to censor it.

Smearing an artist's character because of their choice of portraiture absolutely makes someone an enemy of art.

Maybe you have different standards. Maybe you find it completely okay to call someone insane because of what they put on canvas.

Me, I think it reveals an incredibly childish, uninformed perspective on art and creative acts.

526 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:59:18pm

re: #519 Guanxi88

The left as a whole is not Maoist

...

but that Mao and Che are de rigeur to the political and cultural left.

You either don't know what de rigeur means, or you do have an incredibly deranged view of the 'political and cultural left'.

527 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 2:59:48pm

re: #490 WindUpBird
I can see his point. Making a genocidal maniac into pop art is not what I want on my wall. The man was famous for deliberately provocative art. Those who dislike his brand of art are not enemies of his art they are half of his love it hate it equation.

That would be Lawhawk and in this instance myself.

528 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:00:18pm

re: #520 Thanos

Back to the point at hand, I refuse to get upset on cue because there's an ornament I don't like on the WH Christmas tree. The fact that the right is leading with crap like just tells what a vacuum they have for leadership right now.

How does some blog/news site covering something silly like this have anything to do with lack of leadership in the GOP (not that I think they have any that stand out). I just don't understand the stretch.

The National Inquirer covers all sorts of silly stuff. Does that speak of lack of leadership on one side or the other?

529 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:01:16pm

re: #526 obdicut

You either don't know what de rigeur means, or you do have an incredibly deranged view of the 'political and cultural left'.

I'm sorry - maybe someone slipped me acid, but I seem to recall seeing quite a bit of Mao iconography in the last election, and Che shirts seem fairly common on leftist punks, Che portraits in BHO campaign field offices, etc. Mao is quoted freely and approvingly in bizarre contexts..

But perhaps you're right - maybe I'm just ignorant of the meaning of the term.

530 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:02:20pm

re: #524 recusancy

#104

Sometimes there are people who are evil. Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it. Hitler was evil. So was Stalin and Mao. I just don't think it was appropriate. The blood on their hands is the blood of tens of millions each.
I just don't think it warrants being immortalized as art.

It's "not right" to make art about important people or important acts? The blood of millions of people on his hands is the perfect reason to make art of his image. He's already immortalized. Warhol depicted him. There's no "wrong or right" about it. It's an image.

531 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:02:41pm

re: #521 Kewalo

Charles, did you happen to read this comment by ByteRider?

"Did you know [or do you care] that the school Obama attended, Punahou School, has a statue of their most PRIZED student bronzed in a court yard on the school campus? And who is this "piller of academic and character success"?

HO CHI MINH

Absolute fact, I actually touched the statue myself during one of the Punahou Carnivals! (I was poor and had to attend the poor kid's school down the street, McKinley High School, class of '84)."

That is just unbelievably stupid.

Ho Chi Minh was not a student at Punahou.

532 recusancy  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:02:54pm

re: #530 WindUpBird

It's "not right" to make art about important people or important acts? The blood of millions of people on his hands is the perfect reason to make art of his image. He's already immortalized. Warhol depicted him. There's no "wrong or right" about it. It's an image.

I was quoting lawhawk for walt

533 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:04:07pm

re: #527 Rightwingconspirator

I can see his point. Making a genocidal maniac into pop art is not what I want on my wall. The man was famous for deliberately provocative art. Those who dislike his brand of art are not enemies of his art they are half of his love it hate it equation.

That would be Lawhawk and in this instance myself.

Notice I am not concerned about Lawhawk's tastes? Or anyone's. I don't care what imagery one likes or doesn't like.

Smearing the artist's character for his depictions is all I'm talking about. It's foolish and childish.

534 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:04:10pm

re: #524 recusancy

#104

Sometimes there are people who are evil. Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it. Hitler was evil. So was Stalin and Mao. I just don't think it was appropriate. The blood on their hands is the blood of tens of millions each.
I just don't think it warrants being immortalized as art.

First off, he never used the word "censor." That's simply his opinion as to what he considers art or acceptable art subjects.

That's the whole purpose of art, to elicit response, positive, negative, enlightening or lame.

Or do you think art and artist are beyond criticism?

535 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:04:13pm

re: #532 recusancy

I was quoting lawhawk for walt

your tag team needs a tune up!...hahaha!...keep going, and try not to bump into each other

536 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:04:46pm

re: #528 Walter L. Newton

Breitbarts' sites and Drudge are the mainstream touchpoints for these Nontroversies Walter, but of course you already know that.

537 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:04:51pm

re: #532 recusancy

I was quoting lawhawk for walt

ok, fair enough!

538 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:05:11pm

re: #529 Guanxi88

De rigeur means that you must do it, if you're a member of that group. So it's de rigeur for Yankees fans to have a rivalry with Boston fans. It means it's an absolute social custom.

You just said that for the left, Mao and Che are absolute social custom. Your proof of this is a Che flag in some Obama field office and a bunch of Che shirts.

Mao and Che are not absolutely social custom on the political left, and you're absolutely crazy for saying so.

539 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:06:24pm

re: #501 obdicut

He's not smearing shit on fan blades and calling it art.

You enemy of the "shit has hit the fan"-art!

540 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:07:23pm

re: #538 obdicut

De rigeur means that you must do it, if you're a member of that group. So it's de rigeur for Yankees fans to have a rivalry with Boston fans. It means it's an absolute social custom.

You just said that for the left, Mao and Che are absolute social custom. Your proof of this is a Che flag in some Obama field office and a bunch of Che shirts.

Mao and Che are not absolutely social custom on the political left, and you're absolutely crazy for saying so.

U.C. Berkeley, yes.
DNC, no.

542 palomino  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:07:51pm

It's very unlikely that the community group that donated this meant it as some sort of pro-Mao statement. If you know anything about Warhol's art, you know he rarely intended to glorify his subjects in these contexts. Normally there was some sort of parody or deconstruction involved, such as putting makeup on men. Moreover, Warhol didn't take the photo--he re-touched someone else's "iconic" picture.

Breitbart is a hysterical partisan hack. I think a liberal beat him up 15 years ago, and his whole life is an attempt to settle that score.

543 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:08:40pm

re: #541 Killgore Trout

To appease conservatives, CPAC organizer promises that gay group won’t speak at the conference.


Meanwhile Paulian idiot Thomas DiLorenzo will be giving a speech demonizing Lincoln.

Clearly, a line is being drawn. I will go the side that has the gay guys and Abraham Lincoln on it, thank you.

544 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:10:07pm

re: #530 WindUpBird

It's "not right" to make art about important people or important acts? The blood of millions of people on his hands is the perfect reason to make art of his image. He's already immortalized. Warhol depicted him. There's no "wrong or right" about it. It's an image.

So, art should not elicit response from the viewer? It's exists simply to be? I don't think so. Lawhawk has an opinion about certain art. He never implied it should be censored. It was his personal opinion as to what he merits as art.

That's the wonderful thing about art.

I write plays. I have had major productions of my works done, I have been reviewed a number of times in Weekly Variety. The reviews have been positive and sometimes instructive.

I had a play about suicide, where a Denver critic who didn't like the message in the piece, tell me in his review that I shoudl "get down on my hands and knees and pray to G-d I never have a suicide happen in my family." Other critics praised the piece.

It didn't make the critic more right or more wrong because he didn't like the material, the subject. And I don't call this critic a art hater because he had an opinion.

Sorry, if you don't want art talked about, hide it. Otherwise, it's open season.

545 suchislife  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:10:11pm

re: #458 The Sanity Inspector

But wouldn't that mean that Obama thinks he's the King?

546 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:10:26pm

re: #543 SanFranciscoZionist

Clearly, a line is being drawn. I will go the side that has the gay guys and Abraham Lincoln on it, thank you.

Wait - Abraham Lincoln was gay? And this is going to be the headliner at CPAC?

Great Caesar's ghost!

547 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:10:37pm

re: #534 Walter L. Newton

First off, he never used the word "censor." That's simply his opinion as to what he considers art or acceptable art subjects.

That's the whole purpose of art, to elicit response, positive, negative, enlightening or lame.

Or do you think art and artist are beyond criticism?

I never used the word censor. And of course, a purpose of art is to elicit response. And criticism. I think some responses are foolish, and childish and uninformed. All responses to art are not created equal. Some criticisms and some critics are silly and worthy only of mockery.

Like I've been saying, my problem is not that he criticizes the work. It's that he says Warhol has "Warmed sensibilities" for daring to paint Mao. (and screen print Mao, etc)

If I look at a painting in a gallery, and then point at the artist and say "that guy's crazy and immoral for painting that", I would probably be ridiculed!

548 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:10:46pm

re: #528 Walter L. Newton

How does some blog/news site covering something silly like this have anything to do with lack of leadership in the GOP (not that I think they have any that stand out). I just don't understand the stretch.

The National Inquirer covers all sorts of silly stuff. Does that speak of lack of leadership on one side or the other?

The rest of the matter is that there are few large right wing blogs that are not carrying this. Do a search, you can see for yourself.

549 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:10:48pm

re: #543 SanFranciscoZionist

Clearly, a line is being drawn. I will go the side that has the gay guys and Abraham Lincoln on it, thank you.

I wouldn't patronize a business that opposed ending slavery and had a "no gays allowed" sign out front. I certainly won't vote for a political party that does the same thing.

550 Kewalo  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:12:07pm

re: #531 SanFranciscoZionist

Of course he wasn't. That's part of what makes that comment so freaken ridiculous. But Charles and I both lived in HI, so I thought he'd get a kick out of it.

551 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:12:09pm

Wind up bird, don't you get it, the art the artist creates is the only way to judge an artist's character. He communicates with the world through his art. He chooses what to communicate. So don't blame us if we take him at his word. And just because I don't like his work and think he's a weirdo, doesn't mean I think he is crazy or bad.

552 Stuart Leviton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:12:18pm

re: #495 Walter L. Newton
I know Walter. No harm meant. I enjoy reading your insightful comments. I was just riffing.

By the way, I did not know you were biblically trained. That's cool.

553 avanti  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:12:21pm

re: #541 Killgore Trout

To appease conservatives, CPAC organizer promises that gay group won’t speak at the conference.

Meanwhile Paulian idiot Thomas DiLorenzo will be giving a speech demonizing Lincoln.

Why not, who needs the votes of gays, blacks, Hispanics, secular's or moderates and liberals to win ?

Older, white Christians are all you need./

554 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:12:32pm

re: #540 SanFranciscoZionist

Exactly. And even at UC Berkeley, it's not at all necessary. It's not de rigeur. It's unfortunately common.

555 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:12:41pm

re: #548 Thanos

The rest of the matter is that there are few large right wing blogs that are not carrying this. Do a search, you can see for yourself.

You still haven't answered my question. How does the fact that someone, anyone is covering this speak to a lack of leadership. Is the GOP suppose to tell conservative what to cover and what not to cover?

556 reine.de.tout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:13:00pm

re: #518 WindUpBird

He did, yeah. But the insult is to Warhol and his body of work.

Is there a rule that it's unacceptable to insult an artist and/or the artist's body of work?

557 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:13:53pm

re: #553 avanti

Why not, who needs the votes of gays, blacks, Hispanics, secular's or moderates and liberals to win ?

Older, white Christians are all you need./

They're also alienating people with goofy beards!

558 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:14:41pm

Now Walter, on to the rest of the question. If there were true leadership within the party then crap like this wouldn't have to be run daily to keep the fires burning. Anger and outrage wouldn't be the only tools of leverage right wing pundits used. There would be real, substantive and informed opposition to Obama instead of knee jerk fauxtroversy and nontroversy.

559 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:16:07pm

re: #550 Kewalo

Of course he wasn't. That's part of what makes that comment so freaken ridiculous. But Charles and I both lived in HI, so I thought he'd get a kick out of it.

My MIL is a Punahou graduate.

560 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:16:14pm

re: #547 WindUpBird

I never used the word censor.

[snip]

If I look at a painting in a gallery, and then point at the artist and say "that guy's crazy and immoral for painting that", I would probably be ridiculed!

I think there is some crossing of comment here. Resurency (sp?) said that Lawhawk wanted to censor the Warhol stuff, or something of that nature.

It's possible that you would find the person next to you agreeing with you. That's the joy of art. If you expect only positive or enlightened responses to all art, then you are an art elitist, and I would advise you to hide that art, in fear that someone may have an opinion.

I write my plays for everyone, and I am happy to here an opinion, informed or otherwise.

I'm not sure why you feel that just because the art exists, someone has to understand it, like it or respect it?

561 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:17:11pm

re: #553 avanti

Why not, who needs the votes of gays, blacks, Hispanics, secular's or moderates and liberals to win ?

Older, white Christians are all you need./

And you should hope you can find some who are both homophobes AND hate Abraham Lincoln. That could be a tall order.

562 Mocking Jay  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:17:16pm

I'll toss a couple of cents in for the hell of it. There is definitely a place for art that makes us uncomfortable. That could be images of Mao or interpretations of horrific events. I'm of the opinion that ugliness needs to be preserved. Would anyone here argue that Elie Weisel shouldn't have written about the Holocaust? Maybe some would. If you do I'm not going to get bent out of shape.

Personally I wouldn't choose to do it on a Christmas tree, but this really isn't a big deal at all.

563 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:17:18pm

re: #558 Thanos

Now Walter, on to the rest of the question. If there were true leadership within the party then crap like this wouldn't have to be run daily to keep the fires burning. Anger and outrage wouldn't be the only tools of leverage right wing pundits used. There would be real, substantive and informed opposition to Obama instead of knee jerk fauxtroversy and nontroversy.

Crap like this comes from the left and right all the time. I don't agree with your connecting leadership with the way the general public approaches something like this.

564 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:17:26pm

Did Sarah Palin's Kids Get Gang Rape Threats?

Youtube Video

Lefties claim it was a made up story.

565 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:18:07pm

re: #559 SanFranciscoZionist

My MIL is a Punahou graduate.

Never mentioned the Ho Chi Minh statue.

Odd, that.

566 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:18:46pm

re: #544 Walter L. Newton

So, art should not elicit response from the viewer? It's exists simply to be? I don't think so. Lawhawk has an opinion about certain art. He never implied it should be censored. It was his personal opinion as to what he merits as art.

That's the wonderful thing about art.

I write plays. I have had major productions of my works done, I have been reviewed a number of times in Weekly Variety. The reviews have been positive and sometimes instructive.

I had a play about suicide, where a Denver critic who didn't like the message in the piece, tell me in his review that I shoudl "get down on my hands and knees and pray to G-d I never have a suicide happen in my family." Other critics praised the piece.

It didn't make the critic more right or more wrong because he didn't like the material, the subject. And I don't call this critic a art hater because he had an opinion.

Sorry, if you don't want art talked about, hide it. Otherwise, it's open season.

I'm on your side here. I do want art talked about. Like I keep saying, Lawhawk wans't criticizing the work, he was saying "that guy's a bad person for daring to paint that." if someone calls Warhol's morals and sensibilites into question just for his subject matter, I'm going to find that ridiculous. All opinions are not created equal. I'm not going to give some yokel who points at a Rothko and says "my kid coulda painted that" my respect.


When I say "enemy of art", what brings those words to my head are people who believe that people should be smeared and attacked and compared to VLAMMS BELANG (!?!?!?!?) because of what they paint.

An artist. being compared to a racist political group. For painting a picture.

Do you see where I could perhaps become exasperated with the tone floating around here?

567 recusancy  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:18:48pm

re: #565 SanFranciscoZionist

Never mentioned the Ho Chi Minh statue.

Odd, that.

cause she's a commie //

568 Mocking Jay  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:19:57pm

re: #566 WindUpBird

Wind down.

569 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:20:10pm

re: #564 Killgore Trout

Did Sarah Palin's Kids Get Gang Rape Threats?

[Video]

Lefties claim it was a made up story.

And they make that claim while wearing Che shirst, because it's de rigeur.

570 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:20:22pm

re: #563 Walter L. Newton

Crap like this comes from the left and right all the time. I don't agree with your connecting leadership with the way the general public approaches something like this.

No, it does not come all the time. Since Obama was elected the Republicans have been stuck in "waning days of losing campaign mode, let's keep throwing the kitchen sink and the garbage cans out there" mode.
You might not agree Walter, but this is pretty persistent and ugly anger for a non campaign year and Christmas season.

571 Kewalo  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:20:44pm

re: #559 SanFranciscoZionist

No kidding? Well, I'll bet she'd get a good laugh about that stupid comment too.

It really gets me that the commenter felt free enough to post such a stupid lie, knowing that nobody who posts there would bother checking on it. In fact some people commenting will probably repeat it. Stupidity like that really gets to me after I have a good laugh at their expense.

572 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:22:58pm

re: #569 obdicut

And they make that claim while wearing Che shirst, because it's de rigeur.

I don't know who the chick is but the Young Turks guy is a douchebag. It's certainly possible that Palin is just making stuff up but I wouldn't trust those two people's word for it. If Palin did make up that story it's certainly pretty twisted but I wouldn't put it past the Young Turks to lie about it.

573 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:24:22pm

re: #564 Killgore Trout

Did Sarah Palin's Kids Get Gang Rape Threats?

[Video]

Lefties claim it was a made up story.

Well, that's extra-special creepy.

574 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:24:24pm

re: #551 Escaped Hillbilly

Wind up bird, don't you get it, the art the artist creates is the only way to judge an artist's character. He communicates with the world through his art. He chooses what to communicate. So don't blame us if we take him at his word. And just because I don't like his work and think he's a weirdo, doesn't mean I think he is crazy or bad.

What?

He chooses what to communicate, but a single image is not the totality of someone's character as an imagemaker. I've painted hundreds of images. I have probably over 80 sketchbooks piled up in my garage, 20 years of work. You could probably flip open to certain pages and pass a lot of judgement on me, out of context.

This is one image, among thousands in his body of work. I do not believe you know a thing about Warhol. None of us are remotely qualified to judge his "character".

If you think looking at one single painting somehow gives you a magic glimmering portal of insight where you think you can pass judgment on someone, you can think that, and I'll find you silly for thinking that. Quite silly.

575 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:24:51pm

re: #572 Killgore Trout

Me either. I haven't liked... forget his name, the host... since his interview with a Truman Institute veteran who I liked a lot.

576 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:25:18pm

re: #567 recusancy

cause she's a commie //


And if Mommy is a commie, then you gotta turn her in!

/Who should I contact?

577 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:25:43pm

Silly question, but it is kinda niggling at me now. How many kids now know who Chairman Mao is? My son didn't know and only 2 of 24 of my Soldiers knoew. Owch. These are not dumb kids. Half didn't know what the Ho Chi Mihn Trail was.

578 Ojoe  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:26:01pm

I am all for bizarre ornaments on the Christmas tree.

Ours has:

Killer whale
camping tent
Chianti Bottle
Octopus (wooden)
Zeppelin
Queen Elizabeth Tudor
Horizontally striped zebra
Alarm clock ...

And on and on, and all the regular type ornaments too.

/very un—American

579 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:26:04pm

re: #533 WindUpBird

Notice I am not concerned about Lawhawk's tastes? Or anyone's. I don't care what imagery one likes or doesn't like.

Smearing the artist's character for his depictions is all I'm talking about. It's foolish and childish.

Suck it up and move on.

580 recusancy  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:26:27pm

re: #576 SanFranciscoZionist

And if Mommy is a commie, then you gotta turn her in!

/Who should I contact?

Probably should contact Brietbart. I think he's near you. He'll alert the right people.

581 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:26:29pm

re: #568 JasonA

Wind down.

I sorta am. ;-)

I'm still blown away by Guanxi's ridiculous comparison of Warhol to Vlamms Belang, though. That one's still ringing!

582 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:26:57pm

re: #566 WindUpBird

I'm on your side here. I do want art talked about. Like I keep saying, Lawhawk wans't criticizing the work, he was saying "that guy's a bad person for daring to paint that." if someone calls Warhol's morals and sensibilites into question just for his subject matter, I'm going to find that ridiculous. All opinions are not created equal. I'm not going to give some yokel who points at a Rothko and says "my kid coulda painted that" my respect.

When I say "enemy of art", what brings those words to my head are people who believe that people should be smeared and attacked and compared to VLAMMS BELANG (!?!?!?!?) because of what they paint.

An artist. being compared to a racist political group. For painting a picture.

Do you see where I could perhaps become exasperated with the tone floating around here?

We do agree to some extent, but then again we don't. The only enemy of art are those who want to eliminate it. That's it. Every thing else is opinion, equal or otherwise.

You mean you never read something and you never consider the possible moral and sensibilities of the author? You read in a vacuum? A person can't look at art and say "the artist is sick." Of course they can. You may not agree, you may not respect the persons opinion, but if it elicited ANY response, then it has accomplished something. Maybe not what the artist envisioned, but something. That's good.

You ask... "Do you see where I could perhaps become exasperated with the tone floating around here?" I can that you are, but in my opinion, it's because you don't trust to let art be art, and speak for itself. You are doing all the talking for it.

583 Ojoe  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:27:05pm

OK what weird ornaments do the lizards put up?

584 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:27:06pm

re: #578 Ojoe

I want to party with you, dude!

585 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:27:47pm

re: #583 Ojoe

If I put any ornaments up all I get is my cats jumping into the tree.

586 erraticsphinx  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:27:56pm

Maybe conservatives should be more worried about the actual freaks in their midst *cough* John Birch Society, anti-gay bigots, Dominionists *cough* rather than imaginary Communist plots hatched through blue eyeshadowed Mao ornaments.

Good God, the conservative movement in this country is dead.

587 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:28:20pm

re: #578 Ojoe

I am all for bizarre ornaments on the Christmas tree.

Ours has:

Killer whale
camping tent
Chianti Bottle
Octopus (wooden)
Zeppelin
Queen Elizabeth Tudor
Horizontally striped zebra
Alarm clock ...

And on and on, and all the regular type ornaments too.

/very un—American

All of those are OK by me, although I really don't see the Tudors as the sort of people who I want to think about during the holidays.

588 Mocking Jay  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:28:47pm

re: #551 Escaped Hillbilly

Wind up bird, don't you get it, the art the artist creates is the only way to judge an artist's character. He communicates with the world through his art. He chooses what to communicate. So don't blame us if we take him at his word. And just because I don't like his work and think he's a weirdo, doesn't mean I think he is crazy or bad.

Please be very careful making a personal judgment of character based on someone's art. It's all in the eye of the beholder, and you very well could see something the artist didn't intend. If they make their views public outside of their medium that's different.

589 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:29:50pm

re: #574 WindUpBird

What?

He chooses what to communicate, but a single image is not the totality of someone's character as an imagemaker. I've painted hundreds of images. I have probably over 80 sketchbooks piled up in my garage, 20 years of work. You could probably flip open to certain pages and pass a lot of judgement on me, out of context.

This is one image, among thousands in his body of work. I do not believe you know a thing about Warhol. None of us are remotely qualified to judge his "character".

If you think looking at one single painting somehow gives you a magic glimmering portal of insight where you think you can pass judgment on someone, you can think that, and I'll find you silly for thinking that. Quite silly.

Quite normal and quite valid. Hide your art if you don't want it to be art. Art speaks for itself in the final reel. If art didn't elicit varied responses from varied people over the years, then it would be instruction not art.

You don't trust the art.

590 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:30:09pm

re: #583 Ojoe

OK what weird ornaments do the lizards put up?

vacation ornaments...you know the type, the ones to help recall old times...one favorite was alawys a little adobe church with a light in it my wife bought in NM years before we divorced then moved here

591 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:30:58pm

Ok, I am not going to beat this dead horse any more. You are the one taking things out of context. Warhol painted a LOT of images. I never said this one portarit told me anything. He put his personality and his opinions out there in the public venue for everyone to see and hear. Based on his words and his work, yes, I judge him a flake. You disagree and think he was important. Who cares?

592 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:31:02pm

re: #586 erraticsphinx

Maybe conservatives should be more worried about the actual freaks in their midst *cough* John Birch Society, anti-gay bigots, Dominionists *cough* rather than imaginary Communist plots hatched through blue eyeshadowed Mao ornaments.

Good God, the conservative movement in this country is dead.

Not so much; Conservatism is probably more popular now than it has ever been. But 1) it's become very mainstream, with entire hordes of people demanding fiscal restraint on the part of government, so it doesn't stand out as a separate thing so much anymore, and 2) it's an ideology in search of a party, which has always been the case.

The GOP, on the other hand, may be in serious trouble over the next several years.

593 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:31:57pm

re: #564 Killgore Trout

Did Sarah Palin's Kids Get Gang Rape Threats?

[Video]Lefties claim it was a made up story.

I seem to recall an angry leftist comedian, Sandra Bernhard, making jokes about Sarah Palin being gang-raped.

594 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:32:01pm

re: #590 albusteve

vacation ornaments...you know the type, the ones to help recall old times...one favorite was alawys a little adobe church with a light in it my wife bought in NM years before we divorced then moved here

You got divorced, and then you both moved here? Sweet.

595 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:32:14pm

re: #578 Ojoe

I am all for bizarre ornaments on the Christmas tree.

Ours has:

Killer whale
camping tent
Chianti Bottle
Octopus (wooden)
Zeppelin
Queen Elizabeth Tudor
Horizontally striped zebra
Alarm clock ...

And on and on, and all the regular type ornaments too.

/very un—American

That there is one cool retro hippie tree...but missing the roach clip.

596 Ojoe  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:34:10pm

re: #587 SanFranciscoZionist

Except, Elizabeth I had an office of her government, which office was in charge of the official festivites, and its name really was

"The Office of Revels."

Merry England, I personally like it.

597 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:34:43pm

re: #583 Ojoe

OK what weird ornaments do the lizards put up?



My Christmas decorations.

598 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:35:01pm

re: #593 Alouette

I seem to recall an angry leftist comedian, Sandra Bernhard, making jokes about Sarah Palin being gang-raped.

Yes. She did. (Feh.)

That doesn't seem to be the incident in question.

599 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:35:23pm

re: #591 Escaped Hillbilly

Please use the "Reply" or "Quote" button when responding to someone else's posts. Otherwise, you're just talking to air, and it's impossible for anyone else to figure out what you're on about.

600 Ojoe  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:36:01pm

re: #584 obdicut

I am a nerd type, it may be boring!

601 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:36:05pm

re: #502 Walter L. Newton

It's as silly as you suggest that maybe the person who made the ornament was blind. I don't know who made it, you don't know who made it, none of us know anything about the person who made it so it's a worthless exercise trying to make up shit. All you or I know is it was made by someone. You can't offer explanations for something you have no information on.


Jesus Christ, what an absolutist we here! Speculation is part of life, and being blind is a reasonable explanation as to the choice of Mao on a Christmas ornament. Unlikely, yes; impossible, no. Must every fucking post contain an absolute truth? No guessing (even in jest) allowed ever?

602 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:36:51pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

I just logged in for a moment and I apologize in advance for interrupting any above conversations, however...

Do you know how to pick your transvestite name? It's really quite fun. Your first name is the name of the your first pet. Your second name is the name of the street you first lived on. So my name would be "Schotzie Southwood". My husband's is "Mama Harmony."

Try it LOL

Bat Boy Walthery...damn I'm not much of a transvestite.

603 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:37:30pm

re: #594 wrenchwench

You got divorced, and then you both moved here? Sweet.

yep...she was here last night lavishing presents on me...she lives in Rio Rancho and demanded I come down here after we split...I was not doing well...I can not be left unsupervised...heh...we are very close, but she got the mine and I got the shaft and she's been squaring it ever since...I got the Jamaica hill top tho, but would gladly give it back if she asked for some reason....life is just weird sometimes

604 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:37:48pm

re: #600 Ojoe

I am a nerd type, it may be boring!

Dude, I just rebuilt my computer from mobo on up and I'm reading an article about neural nets and writing up some rough equations for using them in order to better target pedagogy; I'm a gigantic nerd.

605 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:38:07pm

re: #598 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. She did. (Feh.)

That doesn't seem to be the incident in question.

I can't decide which "comedian" is less funny: Sandra Bernhard or Sarah Silverman.

Oh, I know: Roseanne Barr.

606 erraticsphinx  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:38:13pm

re: #592 SixDegrees

I dunno, we've heard this fiscally conservative tune from the GOP before many, many times.
Years to do something about healthcare in that free market fashion we hear about so often, nada. Years for immigration reform of any kind, zilch. They did absolutely nothing of substance fiscally.

The fiscal conservatives are either hypocritical or beholden to the dominionists. This will get nowhere, IMO. 2010, if it is a victory, will be a pyrrhic one.

607 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:38:16pm

Ok, help. Really. My Reply and Quote buttons don't seem to be working. Anybody?

608 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:39:50pm

re: #582 Walter L. Newton

We do agree to some extent, but then again we don't. The only enemy of art are those who want to eliminate it. That's it. Every thing else is opinion, equal or otherwise.

You mean you never read something and you never consider the possible moral and sensibilities of the author? You read in a vacuum? A person can't look at art and say "the artist is sick." Of course they can. You may not agree, you may not respect the persons opinion, but if it elicited ANY response, then it has accomplished something. Maybe not what the artist envisioned, but something. That's good.

You ask... "Do you see where I could perhaps become exasperated with the tone floating around here?" I can that you are, but in my opinion, it's because you don't trust to let art be art, and speak for itself. You are doing all the talking for it.

I trust art to be art, of course. I can't do all the talking for it, he's one of the most important artists in earth. Warhol's impact is a million times bigger than any of us on a blog.

Here's my problem with people looking at art and saying 'the artist is sick". First, it's usually said by people who have no frame of reference for the work, who aren't taking things in context. I'd certainly be called sick if you saw some of the things I've drawn. I've personally drawn thousands of images! Which one do you pick to pass judgement, ya know? Sometimes artists ARE sick and then continue to work, thinking of Goya and his Black Paintings. But that's a fact, not a smear.

Censorship is the final nail, but the road down to censorship is filled with people who compare artists to Belgian racist political entities. ;-) That because a guy painted Mao, the baffling conclusion some have come to is that he's endorsing the regime. It happened in Britian not too long ago. Google Video Nasties. People in Britian who passed judgement on the character of artists, helping to get their work banned. And yes, it's good that the work elicited response, (and that the response elicits responses as well, heh) but I don't have to treat all responses with respect. And I never have.

I guess the thing is, we're NOT actually not talking about Warhol's work, we're talking about peoples' response to art in general, and the willingness of people to make snap judgements and attack the character and essential worthiness of a man for a thing he painted. Manet's character was smeared for his work, Picasso's character was smeared for his work. It isn't new, and it's almost always wrong. Comparing him to dangerous racists and nationalists for one image. If we were truly talking about Warhol's body of work, I'd be much more comfortable.

609 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:40:21pm

re: #583 Ojoe

OK what weird ornaments do the lizards put up?

On my tree? Mostly talking Star Trek ornaments. ;-)

610 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:40:32pm

re: #601 Surabaya Stew

Jesus Christ, what an absolutist we here! Speculation is part of life, and being blind is a reasonable explanation as to the choice of Mao on a Christmas ornament. Unlikely, yes; impossible, no. Must every fucking post contain an absolute truth? No guessing (even in jest) allowed ever?

The chances of a blind person randomly picking Wharhol's Mao for an ornament is approximately zero. And if chosen deliberately, then the blindness is entirely irrelevant.

611 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:40:38pm

re: #607 Escaped Hillbilly

Make sure you are logged in, refresh the page, wait for the spinny icon to stop before you use any of the ajaxified features like buttons.

612 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:42:07pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

I just logged in for a moment and I apologize in advance for interrupting any above conversations, however...

Do you know how to pick your transvestite name? It's really quite fun. Your first name is the name of the your first pet. Your second name is the name of the street you first lived on. So my name would be "Schotzie Southwood". My husband's is "Mama Harmony."

Try it LOL

If your method is correct, mine is Stubby Eleven. Obviously, I'd make a poor transvestite!

613 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:42:23pm

re: #602 Jeff In Ohio

Bat Boy Walthery...damn I'm not much of a transvestite.

I think that works rather well!

614 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:42:42pm

re: #606 erraticsphinx

I dunno, we've heard this fiscally conservative tune from the GOP before many, many times.
Years to do something about healthcare in that free market fashion we hear about so often, nada. Years for immigration reform of any kind, zilch. They did absolutely nothing of substance fiscally.

The fiscal conservatives are either hypocritical or beholden to the dominionists. This will get nowhere, IMO. 2010, if it is a victory, will be a pyrrhic one.

I make a distinction between Conservatives and Republicans. The GOP got hornswoggled by the religious right and their usurpation of the conservative elements within the party. While they've generally been more conservative than the Democrats, I would hardly call them the Conservative party.

The Dems are now beginning to embrace Conservatism. I don't expect them to wholly embrace Conservative principles either, though.

615 erraticsphinx  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:43:21pm

re: #612 Surabaya Stew

"Stubby Eleven", that actually sounds like an incredibly popular transvestite.

616 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:44:10pm

re: #538 obdicut


Mao and Che are not absolutely social custom on the political left, and you're absolutely crazy for saying so.

You're right - it's optional, not mandatory, the cult of the dictators. My apologies.

617 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:44:38pm

re: #612 Surabaya Stew

If your method is correct, mine is Stubby Eleven. Obviously, I'd make a poor transvestite!

Rusty Washington?

618 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:46:04pm

re: #616 Guanxi88

Any of your other loony statements you'd like to pedal back on as well?

619 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:46:10pm

re: #610 Spare O'Lake

The chances of a blind person randomly picking Wharhol's Mao for an ornament is approximately zero. And if chosen deliberately, then the blindness is entirely irrelevant.

You're totally correct; my original comment was just wanted to point out that there are millions of theoretically possible reasons behind Chairman Mao ending up on the White House christmas tree. Obviously, I was being too subtle.

620 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:46:13pm

Sparky Grace signing off.
BBL.

621 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:46:21pm

re: #588 JasonA

Please be very careful making a personal judgment of character based on someone's art. It's all in the eye of the beholder, and you very well could see something the artist didn't intend. If they make their views public outside of their medium that's different.

There is of course political art, and art that is meant to make very sharpened political statements, but if someone's paging through my personal work, they're probably going to eventually find something very upsetting. If that's the first thing they find, they'll probably have a very negative opinion of me.

And then they'll be shocked to find I'm not a depraved and dangerous lunatic with warped sensibilities, but a goofy (if opinionated) headbanger who plays a lot of Xbox and hangs out in karaoke bars.

622 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:47:19pm

re: #615 erraticsphinx

"Stubby Eleven", that actually sounds like an incredibly popular used up transvestite.

Fixed!

623 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:47:23pm

re: #618 obdicut

Any of your other loony statements you'd like to pedal back on as well?

With such a friendly invitation, who could resist?

624 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:48:14pm

re: #611 Thanos

Yep, that did it. Isn't that the fix for all computer problems?

625 erraticsphinx  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:48:31pm

re: #614 SixDegrees

Yep, we'll see.

All I know is (usually false) promises of "lower spending and lower taxes" are not worth the trojan horse of crazed dominionists.
BBL

626 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:48:48pm

re: #618 obdicut

Any of your other loony statements you'd like to pedal back on as well?

Eh, I think that's about it - and I wouldn't consider that one to be loony so much as - to borrow & adapt your phrase - Armstrongian.

627 Irenicum  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:48:53pm

This has got to be one of the most unusual threads that I've seen in a while. It's kinda funny what gets people started and really fired up.

So anyway, here's the hot anti creationist chick from Romania talking about Ken Hovind. Hope y'all like it.

Youtube Video
628 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:49:31pm

re: #626 Guanxi88

So the Vlaam Belangs comparison, you don't find the slightest ethical tickle at having done that?

629 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:50:30pm

re: #608 WindUpBird

We are sort of talking across each others bow, both agreeing and not agreeing and sometimes missing a point.

Everything you said makes sense, and since you appear to be deeply knowledgeable about painted art, every one of your points are correct, according to your informed knowledge of art.

But, that's what I like about art, it's for everyone. A totally uninformed person can look at art and come away with a positive opinion, a n understanding of some sort, and maybe even insight. And that same uninformed person can look at a piece of art and say "dog shit." And that's fine with me. Because I see art as something that is available to all, informed, uninformed, it doesn't matter.

So, for you, informed, you know DIFFERENT than the other person, but not better. Because art is what it elicits inside of a person, not what you deem as the correct, proper and informed response.

You are an art elitist. I can't stand art elitist. It's people like you that kept me afraid to visit the numerous museums in Paris, even though I had been to Paris a dozen times. It was people like you who made it impossible to enjoy art for arts sake. When I finally decided to respect art and let it speak for itself, let it speak to me, and turned out the elitists like you, then I had a revelation... I understood what art is.

I hope you have that epiphany someday.

630 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:51:22pm

re: #628 obdicut

So the Vlaam Belangs comparison, you don't find the slightest ethical tickle at having done that?

Not at all. VB uses the iconography it does for precisely the same reasons that those who use Maoist or Cheist iconography choose the images they do.

631 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:51:43pm

re: #610 Spare O'Lake

The chances of a blind person randomly picking Wharhol's Mao for an ornament is approximately zero. And if chosen deliberately, then the blindness is entirely irrelevant.

Maybe someone who made the ornament just...

...liked the colors.

That painting is everywhere, if you had a stack of National Geographics in an art class you were using as collage material, that might come up. And because it's a fantastic and strong image, someone could have just slapped it on there for aesthetic reason alone.

It's like because we're all POLITICS here, it's important to us (and psyschos who want Obama tried for ornament treason) that it's Mao.

Maybe it wasn't important to whoever made the ornament? Maybe they just went "cool colors" or "hey, Warhol!" and that was the only decision they made. I've made lots of collages. LOTS. And some of them had strong imagery because I liked the visual interaction, not because the imagery was weighted with some giant symbolic significance.

People who don't make art often don't understand the LACK of decision making that sometimes goes into making art. Sometimes things come intuitively, with no conscious decision. Sometimes a painting is just a painting.

632 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:52:00pm

re: #615 erraticsphinx

"Stubby Eleven", that actually sounds like an incredibly popular transvestite.

Ya have to know drag queens. It's pretty darn good.

633 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:54:02pm

re: #630 Guanxi88

Not at all. VB uses the iconography it does for precisely the same reasons that those who use Maoist or Cheist iconography choose the images they do.

Yeah. So Vlaam Belangs use whatever the hell Nazi imagery they use, for 'precisely' the same reasons that Warhol uses Mao.

That's crazy.

634 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:54:40pm

re: #632 marjoriemoon

Ya have to know drag queens. It's pretty darn good.

Heh, I'm blushing now! Wonder if "Stubby Eleven" translates well into other drag queen cultures around the world, or if its a purely American phenomena.

635 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:55:58pm

re: #613 marjoriemoon

I think that works rather well!

I'm off to try on my wife's bra. TTFN.

636 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:57:55pm

re: #634 Surabaya Stew

Heh, I'm blushing now! Wonder if "Stubby Eleven" translates well into other drag queen cultures around the world, or if its a purely American phenomena.

I had my own drag queen name (well, I was really a trash drag, as would be imagined, look at me)... it was Patti O'Furniture.

637 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:58:12pm

re: #633 obdicut

Yeah. So Vlaam Belangs use whatever the hell Nazi imagery they use, for 'precisely' the same reasons that Warhol uses Mao.

That's crazy.

Not talking about Warhol - others. And you knew that.

638 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:58:28pm

re: #636 Walter L. Newton

I had my own drag queen name (well, I was really a trash drag, as would be imagined, look at me)... it was Patti O'Furniture.

Out all night, were ya?

639 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:58:37pm

re: #634 Surabaya Stew

Heh, I'm blushing now! Wonder if "Stubby Eleven" translates well into other drag queen cultures around the world, or if its a purely American phenomena.

I think it would work on a short person hehe I have no idea. I thought drag queens were pretty international.

640 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 3:59:16pm

re: #639 marjoriemoon

I think it would work on a short person hehe I have no idea. I thought drag queens were pretty international.

I knew an Afghan fellow who did the most amazing Madonna. Really something to see.

641 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:00:35pm

re: #46 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Kind of goes to the same thought I had of The Empire State Building being lit up with China's colors.

There are many Chinese people in the United States who fled Chairman Mao. This to them would be disgusting.

Here's a simple idea. Take the ornament off the tree.

What if the White House decided to do a screening of Mel Brooks' "The Producers" - it's a send-up of Hitler. He is featured, right there on screen (or someone dressed as him) one of the main characters is a Nazi-loving German. Would it be horrible? Why?

What about a still frame from the movie? Would that be horrible? Why?

642 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:01:37pm

re: #637 Guanxi88

Huh. You said:

. VB uses the iconography it does for precisely the same reasons that those who use Maoist or Cheist iconography choose the images they do.

And Warhol used Maoist iconography. And whoever put this on the tree and thus excited you so deeply, was using Warhol using Maoist iconography.

I think that saying that Vlaams Belang are the equivalent in any way of students at UC Berkeley is shameful on your part.

643 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:01:42pm

re: #638 Guanxi88

Out all night, were ya?

Actually that's not an original name, it's used by many drags, as an actor, I had a character, and I took the name. I've had a number of "characters" for different aspects of my entertainment talents. I use my real name for acting and writing, Al Desmond for magic and Patti for the drag, Apples the Clown for the clown act and so on.

I have to dig Al Desmond out of the closet for New Years Eve. Actually have a show to do.

644 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:01:53pm

Sidebar: For those who think abstract art is a big humbug, The Art Renewal Center is a mecca for realism.

645 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:02:35pm

Back. lol Just saw the Jon Stewart video. What a hoot. The last bit with the kids was perfect. What a dip Noelle Nikpour comes out to be. And she's a Republican Consultant and Strategist. Too much.

646 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:02:54pm

re: #636 Walter L. Newton

I had my own drag queen name (well, I was really a trash drag, as would be imagined, look at me)... it was Patti O'Furniture.

Sounds pretty functional and not very trashy! Then again, since the actual article the name evokes is meant to be sat on, left out in the rain, and replaced every few years, it does make sense....

647 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:04:07pm

re: #629 Walter L. Newton

We are sort of talking across each others bow, both agreeing and not agreeing and sometimes missing a point.

Everything you said makes sense, and since you appear to be deeply knowledgeable about painted art, every one of your points are correct, according to your informed knowledge of art.

But, that's what I like about art, it's for everyone. A totally uninformed person can look at art and come away with a positive opinion, a n understanding of some sort, and maybe even insight. And that same uninformed person can look at a piece of art and say "dog shit." And that's fine with me. Because I see art as something that is available to all, informed, uninformed, it doesn't matter.

So, for you, informed, you know DIFFERENT than the other person, but not better. Because art is what it elicits inside of a person, not what you deem as the correct, proper and informed response.

You are an art elitist. I can't stand art elitist. It's people like you that kept me afraid to visit the numerous museums in Paris, even though I had been to Paris a dozen times. It was people like you who made it impossible to enjoy art for arts sake. When I finally decided to respect art and let it speak for itself, let it speak to me, and turned out the elitists like you, then I had a revelation... I understood what art is.

I hope you have that epiphany someday.

You might be getting me wrong, I'm mostly just a guy who is very opinionated about art. Opinionated might look like elitism, but if we were to sit down and groove about art, you're not going to find a bunch of elitism from a guy who grew up reading X-Men and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comics. When you look at my work, it's not elitist, it's more silly. My stuff is mostly spooky nerdy genre fantasy influenced by comic books, strange fashion, and horror movies. I like really low-class stuff too, one of my favorite artists of all time is Coop. Yes, the dude who draws fat devil chicks. I love Pushead, who draws skulls for concert t-shirts. I love rock posters. I love abstract art. I love it all, because there's something to be learned from it all.

I've had that ephiphany, I had it a long time ago. But I still like to argue, and I still get pissed off when someone attacks a great artist and compares them to racists. The art speaks for itself, but I speak for myself, and I personally will become offended and RAGECAPSLOCK if someone unfairly trashes the imagemakers that helped shaped my work.

I don't want to make it impossible for anyone to enjoy art, and I don't believe that getting mad at someone who attacked the man behind the work is preventing anyone from enjoying his work. I hope that I read as a guy who likes Warhol a lot and is offended that people want to make snap judgements about his entire life, his morals and his sanity. That;s ultimately all I am, is a big fan and someone who is seeing a hero tarnished.

If someone wants to trash the work, they can trash the work, hate on it, say it's crap, whatever. But, and I emphasize with judicious boldface: But they don't get a pass when it comes to calling artists racists. That's out of school, that's beyond the scope of what you're talking about. I'm not being an elitist for calling that out. Your point is taken though, I have done that in the past, I have often been the know-it-all about painting, especially painters that I am influenced by. I've been in two dozen arguments about Picasso. Picasso keeps coming up!

648 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:04:41pm

re: #642 obdicut

Huh. You said:

And Warhol used Maoist iconography. And whoever put this on the tree and thus excited you so deeply, was using Warhol using Maoist iconography.

I think that saying that Vlaams Belang are the equivalent in any way of students at UC Berkeley is shameful on your part.

And I've been making the broader point about the use of the images of Mao in contemporary America. Warhol's use is one instance, but does not exhaust the range of possibilities or instances to which I have been referring.

As for whackos at UC Berkeley or elsewhere - to the extent they approve or approximate the evil of Mao or any other totalitarian enemy of humanity, they are every bit as shameful as VB, who have at least the decency to attempt to deny their love affair with the evil they embrace.

649 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:05:05pm

re: #640 Guanxi88

I knew an Afghan fellow who did the most amazing Madonna. Really something to see.

Now that's a challenge!

650 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:05:14pm

re: #646 Surabaya Stew

Sounds pretty functional and not very trashy! Then again, since the actual article the name evokes is meant to be sat on, left out in the rain, and replaced every few years, it does make sense...

Er, you nailed it. Like I said above, it's a reused name, and the jokes you just related is all part of the Patti character. I've seen numerous trash drags use it, and recycle the same old jokes.

651 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:06:11pm

re: #639 marjoriemoon

I think it would work on a short person hehe I have no idea. I thought drag queens were pretty international.

They sure are international! A dear friend of mine did her College thesis (in Surabaya of course) on slang terminology used by the Waria in her city.

652 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:06:31pm

re: #649 marjoriemoon

Now that's a challenge!

And I tell you the truth - this was in '97 when I saw him do it - it was the consensus of the audience - gay and straight alike - that they'd pay to see him before they'd pay to see her. He did a perfect, idealized Madonna - he captured everything you thought of when you thought of her as a pop icon.

653 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:07:52pm

re: #642 obdicut

Huh. You said:

And Warhol used Maoist iconography. And whoever put this on the tree and thus excited you so deeply, was using Warhol using Maoist iconography.

I think that saying that Vlaams Belang are the equivalent in any way of students at UC Berkeley is shameful on your part.

That's the point where the false equivalency just becomes outright vicious blind hate, and so far afield from the work Charles does on his blog. He spends all these long hours laboriously researching all of these frightening and dangerous racist groups and connections, all their motivations, all the ways in which they manipulate opinion, only to have people read all that and go "yeah, but ANDY WARHOL is just as bad!"

Frustrating! I get frustrated.

654 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:08:54pm

re: #650 Walter L. Newton

Er, you nailed it. Like I said above, it's a reused name, and the jokes you just related is all part of the Patti character. I've seen numerous trash drags use it, and recycle the same old jokes.

Hmmm, seems like a drag good name is one that make you think and ponder....unlike the names we are usually born with! Very interesting.

655 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:09:27pm

re: #647 WindUpBird

[snip]

I've been in two dozen arguments about Picasso. Picasso keeps coming up!

"No one cares who Picasso fucks... not even Picasso." Have you ever seen the play "A Picasso" by Jeffery Hatcher? It was the last show we did before the current Xmas show that just closed. A fictional history of a meeting between Picasso and a female German Cultural Attache who wants Picasso to validate 3 sketches. She needs "a picasso" to include in a public burning"

Very clever play built around quotes and sayings of Picasso and how he would have reacted to this. Two people, 1 hour 20 minutes, one act, no intermission.

Both our actors have been nominated for best actress/actor awards for the show in the local Denver awards.

656 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:10:32pm

re: #648 Guanxi88

And I've been making the broader point about the use of the images of Mao in contemporary America. Warhol's use is one instance, but does not exhaust the range of possibilities or instances to which I have been referring.

Given that you made a stupidly sweeping statement, yes, I understand you were making a completely wrong broader point.


As for whackos at UC Berkeley or elsewhere - to the extent they approve or approximate the evil of Mao or any other totalitarian enemy of humanity, they are every bit as shameful as VB, who have at least the decency to attempt to deny their love affair with the evil they embrace.

You have such a bizarre view of what UC Berkeley is like. There aren't Mao shirts at Berkeley. There are Che shirts. Because that's fashionable. There really aren't as many as you think there are, either. And you're still talking about a vanishingly small, politically impotent bunch of people.

Vlaams Belang is a political party with actual seats at the fucking table in Belgium. They actually have representation in the Belgian legislature.

657 Gus  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:10:58pm

In light of the John Birch Society's return and welcome at the Conservative Political Action Conference I thought I'd look up their opinion regarding Nixon, Mao and China, and found this pathetic entry:

The Eisenhower trip was to accomplish in the USSR what Nixon later did with China — to open it up to the world. But unlike our success in stopping Eisenhower, in Nixon’s case, we did not have sufficient prior warning to stop his trip to China, the purpose of which was to show the world that Mao was really a fine fellow, even after killing millions of his own countrymen — and ours — in Korea.

In the case of Eisenhower, our Society was able to attract hundreds of key opinion molders to our effort and in a short time put a halt to this Insider ploy.

Perhaps our greatest success has been the ongoing dissemination of hard-copy material promoting the basics of classic liberal arts, such as economics, history, etc.; and exposing the organizations and people behind the quest for power.

This is not from the 1960s or 1970s. This is from 2008 so you can see that these crackpots have barely changed.

658 Guanxi88  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:13:16pm

re: #656 obdicut

You have such a bizarre view of what UC Berkeley is like. There aren't Mao shirts at Berkeley. There are Che shirts. Because that's fashionable. There really aren't as many as you think there are, either. And you're still talking about a vanishingly small, politically impotent bunch of people.

Vlaams Belang is a political party with actual seats at the fucking table in Belgium. They actually have representation in the Belgian legislature.

Che shirts are fashionable. So be it.

mao is cool and to be quoted without concern for repercussions, because we certainly have no current instances of approving uses of the man's image, iconography, or teachings.

We leave it where it is.

659 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:15:03pm

re: #658 Guanxi88

mao is cool and to be quoted without concern for repercussions, because we certainly have no current instances of approving uses of the man's image, iconography, or teachings.

There were repercussions. You have to ignore that to make your fantasy work.

And again: Comparing UC Berekely students to an actual Fascist political party with actual governmental power is idiotic of you to do.

660 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:15:52pm

re: #658 Guanxi88

Che shirts are fashionable. So be it.

mao is cool and to be quoted without concern for repercussions, because we certainly have no current instances of approving uses of the man's image, iconography, or teachings.

We leave it where it is.

Is it ever permissible to display a satirical image of a bad person publicly?

If so, when?

661 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:15:58pm

re: #658 Guanxi88

Che shirts are fashionable. So be it.

mao is cool and to be quoted without concern for repercussions, because we certainly have no current instances of approving uses of the man's image, iconography, or teachings.

We leave it where it is.

How about a Deng Xiaoping shirt? Becasue I'd really like to wear one for May day, just to piss people off!

662 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:16:33pm

re: #655 Walter L. Newton

"No one cares who Picasso fucks... not even Picasso." Have you ever seen the play "A Picasso" by Jeffery Hatcher? It was the last show we did before the current Xmas show that just closed. A fictional history of a meeting between Picasso and a female German Cultural Attache who wants Picasso to validate 3 sketches. She needs "a picasso" to include in a public burning"

Very clever play built around quotes and sayings of Picasso and how he would have reacted to this. Two people, 1 hour 20 minutes, one act, no intermission.

Both our actors have been nominated for best actress/actor awards for the show in the local Denver awards.

That Picasso quote is AWESOME, I'm saving that. I LOLed. :D I haven't seen the play, but now I totally want to!

Oh and because now we're shifting gears away from ARGH to ART, I'll link to some of my favorite artists: Phil Hale, Rick Berry, Coop, Mark Ryden, Senecal, Bill Sienkiewicz, and of course I love Warhol, also Edgar Degas, Picasso, and Goya.

663 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:19:47pm

I'm greatly amused by the fact that my criticism of Warhol and his choice of subject in Mao somehow makes me an enemy of art (windupbird's apparent take above) and that my criticism of Warhol for taking up Mao in his art is somehow akin to censorship and itself occupying quite a bit of verbiage.

That my choice in art is now the focus tells me how far off the rails this subject has gotten from the original issue - and how my criticism of Warhol for picking Mao as a subject for his art - which you might argue is ridicule (obdicut's take as well) but I see as encouraging a banality of evil, doesn't diminish my view on Warhol's other works. It's rather presumptuous to make that leap in logic when you know nothing of my background (or whether I studied art in school or grew up in a house where art was a hallowed and central theme in exposure to culture, or that I try to hit art museums wherever I go to immerse myself in culture).

So, because I disagree with Warhol's choice to paint Mao makes me wrong? Gotcha. Because I see that Warhol's choice in subject matter could lead to a bad outcome doesn't make me argue for censorship.

But apparently I'm outnumbered by other self professed art critics who know better about Warhol and his intentions when he painted this.

So be it.

664 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:20:59pm

re: #660 Cineaste

It's perfectly acceptable to post satirical images of people. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.

665 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:22:10pm

re: #662 WindUpBird

That Picasso quote is AWESOME, I'm saving that. I LOLed. :D I haven't seen the play, but now I totally want to!

Oh and because now we're shifting gears away from ARGH to ART, I'll link to some of my favorite artists: Phil Hale, Rick Berry, Coop, Mark Ryden, Senecal, Bill Sienkiewicz, and of course I love Warhol, also Edgar Degas, Picasso, and Goya.

Get the script... it's LOADED with quotes like that. Of course, some from real life, some the authors way of making Picasso speak, but all wonderful.

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

My favorite painter... George Seurat

[Link: images.google.com...]

666 Cheechako  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:22:49pm

re: #520 Thanos

Back to the point at hand, I refuse to get upset on cue because there's an ornament I don't like on the WH Christmas tree. The fact that the right is leading with crap like just tells what a vacuum they have for leadership right now.


I have to agree...BFD!

667 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:22:52pm

re: #663 lawhawk

I think I held your banner down the thread, right?

668 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:22:53pm

re: #524 recusancy

#104

Sometimes there are people who are evil. Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it. Hitler was evil. So was Stalin and Mao. I just don't think it was appropriate. The blood on their hands is the blood of tens of millions each.
I just don't think it warrants being immortalized as art.

Because I don't think it appropriate doesn't mean I say ban it or censor it. I get to bitch about it because that's my right to express myself, just as surely as it was Warhol's right to express his take on Mao.

669 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:23:36pm

re: #663 lawhawk

You didn't criticize him, you smeared him as having warped sensibilities. For doing what he's always done, what his whole body of work is about, which is iconography and repetition of such.

I'm not an art critic, I'm someone who knows the guy's work, who ha slearned from the guy's work, who doesn't like him being slandered by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

670 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:24:17pm

re: #665 Walter L. Newton

Get the script... it's LOADED with quotes like that. Of course, some from real life, some the authors way of making Picasso speak, but all wonderful.

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

My favorite painter... George Seurat

[Link: images.google.com...]

isn't he the guy that painted huge pictures with millions of dot?....basically?

671 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:24:18pm

re: #667 Walter L. Newton

I think I held your banner down the thread, right?

You weren't smearing him! You were making very rational points which I mostly agreed with.

672 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:25:29pm

re: #670 albusteve

isn't he the guy that painted huge pictures with millions of dot?...basically?

Yes. They're really something to see in person, you get a lot of the texture that the four-color-process of Seurat's work prints and art books sort of de-emphasizes.

673 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:26:11pm

re: #663 lawhawk

Oh come off it. You made a blanket statement that representing Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or presumably any other person over some sort of ineffable line, in art, isn't right.

Sometimes there are people who are evil. Putting them into art just isn't right no matter how you look at it. Hitler was evil. So was Stalin and Mao. I just don't think it was appropriate. The blood on their hands is the blood of tens of millions each.


That is not in the least bit a nuanced. You flatly condemned the use of Hitler, Mao, or Stalin in art.

Do you object strongly to the Monty Python skit above, as well?

674 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:27:51pm

re: #664 lawhawk

It's perfectly acceptable to post satirical images of people. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.

isn't Warhol's image satirical? It has a leader who preached uniformity gussied up in lipstick and blue eyeshadow...

"Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric. But if you can bring these people down with comedy, they stand no chance." - Mel Brooks

675 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:29:08pm

re: #670 albusteve

isn't he the guy that painted huge pictures with millions of dot?...basically?

pointilism

676 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:29:38pm

Chairman Mao would not be amused.

677 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:31:05pm

re: #668 lawhawk

Because I don't think it appropriate doesn't mean I say ban it or censor it. I get to bitch about it because that's my right to express myself, just as surely as it was Warhol's right to express his take on Mao.

"warped sensibilites."

That's what you said. That's what I responded to. You didn't say "I don't think that's appropriate". And I never called you a censor. People who smear artists for their statements, I consider those people enemies of the creative process, because their notion is that if you make the wrong creative statement, you are to be shamed and smeared. Obviously Warhol is dead and amazing and completely secure in history, but I have personally witnessed some pretty nasty rhetoric leveled at artist friends of mine for their choice of imagery. Personal works are taken out of context and used as some bizarre evidence of an artist's perversions, of their misogyny, of their evil political beliefs, of their racism. It's ridiculous, and I get pissed off when I see it.

If his sensibilites are warped by making a visual comment about a world leader whose image was all over China, then all history books and all history professors have "warped sensibilities."

678 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:31:50pm

re: #673 obdicut

Jesus, don't show him The Producers, his head will fly off his shoulders. God help he watch Hogan's Heroes!

679 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:32:00pm

re: #673 obdicut

No, I don't object to the Python skit, or satirical use of those images. And I would clarify (this is a posting format where you get to do that) to not ban all images.

Is the Warhol a satirical use? Not in my view; not when he's purposefully trying to link the Communist heroic imagery with the capitalist advertising ethic. Or maybe, I'm just wrong on Warhol - it is just my opinion.

680 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:33:01pm

re: #672 WindUpBird

re: #670 albusteve

isn't he the guy that painted huge pictures with millions of dot?...basically?


Yes. They're really something to see in person, you get a lot of the texture that the four-color-process of Seurat's work prints and art books sort of de-emphasizes.

And do you know where you find the LEAST amount of Seurat's work on display... Paris. You really have to work at it to find any hanging. Most of it is in private hands and museums around the world.

681 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:33:01pm

re: #674 Cineaste

I'm trying to check my outrage and bafflement at people who don't understand the work, it's hard. ;-)

682 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:34:02pm

re: #680 Walter L. Newton

re: #670 albusteve

And do you know where you find the LEAST amount of Seurat's work on display... Paris. You really have to work at it to find any hanging. Most of it is in private hands and museums around the world.

It's true. :( I'm trying to remember where the Seurat I saw was, it's escaping me.

(I hope you got to visit the Musee D'Orsay in Paris? Such amazing work there *_* )

683 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:34:35pm

I like this discussion very much!

I'm with Lawhawk on his take of the Mao. It offends me. I like art. I read about art. I haven't studied art in any academic way, but I like looking at everything. In the end, really, "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is probably where I'm at.

Modern art is more difficult to understand, of course, particularly what the artist is trying to convey (paintings, plays, whatever). Does one ask, "What is this artist saying?" or do you say, "I like the blue tones. It makes me feel xxxxx." Is Mao being obviously ridiculed as indicated by the colors (I'm assuming?) and maybe bringing him down to Pop Art Status, or does he represent persecution of millions of people, I don't care if you put a bow in his hair. Well I guess you can see what I think.

I never understood Warhol anyway. Maybe he's just a Happy Communist.

684 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:35:02pm

re: #679 lawhawk

No, I don't object to the Python skit, or satirical use of those images. And I would clarify (this is a posting format where you get to do that) to not ban all images.

Is the Warhol a satirical use? Not in my view; not when he's purposefully trying to link the Communist heroic imagery with the capitalist advertising ethic. Or maybe, I'm just wrong on Warhol - it is just my opinion.

HE'S WEARING MAKEUP, MAN. HE'S WEARING FREAKING EYESHADOW. IT'S SATIRE.

I'm rubbing my temples right now.

685 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:36:21pm

re: #680 Walter L. Newton

re: #670 albusteve

And do you know where you find the LEAST amount of Seurat's work on display... Paris. You really have to work at it to find any hanging. Most of it is in private hands and museums around the world.

I walked into a room at the Chicago Art Museum and saw a huge painting of his across the room and I instantly liked it....as I walked closer I saw how he did it and was just blown away, so I crossed the room and did it again...dots....millions of dots...amazing

686 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:36:27pm

re: #676 The Sanity Inspector

Chairman Mao would not be amused.

LOL I saw that front and center on my China visit. I was not amused either!

687 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:36:43pm

re: #682 WindUpBird

It's true. :( I'm trying to remember where the Seurat I saw was, it's escaping me.

(I hope you got to visit the Musee D'Orsay in Paris? Such amazing work there *_* )

Yes... Paris is my third city, after NYC and then Denver. I know it like the back of my hand.

688 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:38:44pm

re: #665 Walter L. Newton

This is the Seurat I saw in person, BTW: Image: seurat.jpg

National Gallery in London!

689 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:38:48pm

re: #684 WindUpBird

HE'S WEARING MAKEUP, MAN. HE'S WEARING FREAKING EYESHADOW. IT'S SATIRE.

I'm rubbing my temples right now.

too bad..."shamed and smeared" for expressing an opinion?...you have bad karma, a bad vibe....go ahead and rub asshole, you bring it on yourself

690 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:39:40pm

re: #687 Walter L. Newton

Yes... Paris is my third city, after NYC and then Denver. I know it like the back of my hand.

Okay, I am officially freaking jealous. :D I've only been there twice. Loved hanging out at the Montmarte, with all the drunk students and street performers!

691 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:39:44pm

re: #685 albusteve

I walked into a room at the Chicago Art Museum and saw a huge painting of his across the room and I instantly liked it...as I walked closer I saw how he did it and was just blown away, so I crossed the room and did it again...dots...millions of dots...amazing

Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte - 1884
A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte - 1884

American composer wrote a full length musical about Seurat. Sunday in the Park with George. Starred Mandy Pantikin and Bernedette Peters.

692 Surabaya Stew  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:41:03pm

re: #683 marjoriemoon

I like this discussion very much!

I'm with Lawhawk on his take of the Mao. It offends me. I like art. I read about art. I haven't studied art in any academic way, but I like looking at everything. In the end, really, "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is probably where I'm at.

Modern art is more difficult to understand, of course, particularly what the artist is trying to convey (paintings, plays, whatever). Does one ask, "What is this artist saying?" or do you say, "I like the blue tones. It makes me feel xxx." Is Mao being obviously ridiculed as indicated by the colors (I'm assuming?) and maybe bringing him down to Pop Art Status, or does he represent persecution of millions of people, I don't care if you put a bow in his hair. Well I guess you can see what I think.

I never understood Warhol anyway. Maybe he's just a Happy Communist.

Actually, Warhlol was quite the Capitalist and had no problem making money off other people for a fair price. He was also a practicing Byzantine Catholic and he often gave time and money towards charitable causes. Not an easy man to categorize.

693 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:41:07pm

re: #683 marjoriemoon

I think the goal of a lot of modern art and contemporary art is to change the statement from: "I don't know art, but I know what I like" to "I don't know art, but I know what I feel or think". The goal is not necessarily to be pleasing to the eye or narrative in a conscious way but, rather, to provoke thoughts and responses. To challenge the viewer and their ideas. If all you ever saw was images that you found pleasing in a banal way, how would you know what was pleasing? By creating a complex landscape and confronting your notions of "pleasing" and "art" the artists seek to broaden the discourse. If you take something more extreme like, say Serrano's "Piss Christ" there are very few people who would be found arguing over whether it's "pretty" but a great deal of the response is about the emotions it evokes and the ideas it conveys.

694 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:41:24pm

re: #691 Walter L. Newton

Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte - 1884
A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte - 1884

American composer wrote a full length musical about Seurat. Sunday in the Park with George. Starred Mandy Pantikin and Bernedette Peters.

It's called "pointillism."

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

695 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:41:52pm

Warhol is a pop icon, hugely over rated for any supposed talents he had....sort of a garage band of an artist whose contribution will be nearly forgotten in time...sort of the Kurt Cobain of the paintbrush....pffft...gimme a break

696 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:42:06pm

re: #679 lawhawk

No, I don't object to the Python skit, or satirical use of those images. And I would clarify (this is a posting format where you get to do that) to not ban all images..

So, to clarify, you are taking back your foolish condemnation of all art that uses Hitler, Mao, or Stalin?

And to clarify, you are still condemning all works of art of those men that are not satirical?

Not in my view; not when he's purposefully trying to link the Communist heroic imagery with the capitalist advertising ethic.

Yes, he is. That's what makes it satirical. He's calling Mao a cult of personality just like Marilyn Monroe is. He's also playing off of the West's fascination with Mao.

697 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:43:17pm

re: #684 WindUpBird

HE'S WEARING MAKEUP, MAN. HE'S WEARING FREAKING EYESHADOW. IT'S SATIRE.

I'm rubbing my temples right now.

I think a lot of people forget that in 1973 a man wearing makeup was a deeply transgressive idea. Ziggy Stardust only came out in 1972 and Boy George wouldn't be seen by most until 1983.

698 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:43:39pm

re: #691 Walter L. Newton

Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte - 1884
A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte - 1884

American composer wrote a full length musical about Seurat. Sunday in the Park with George. Starred Mandy Pantikin and Bernedette Peters.

well the theme of the picture I refer to was Victorian, near a lake, very similar to your google link...I'm pretty sure it was his work

699 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:44:50pm

re: #685 albusteve

I walked into a room at the Chicago Art Museum and saw a huge painting of his across the room and I instantly liked it...as I walked closer I saw how he did it and was just blown away, so I crossed the room and did it again...dots...millions of dots...amazing

All by hand, too.

700 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:45:02pm

re: #685 albusteve

I walked into a room at the Chicago Art Museum and saw a huge painting of his across the room and I instantly liked it...as I walked closer I saw how he did it and was just blown away, so I crossed the room and did it again...dots...millions of dots...amazing

You might want to check out the work of Chuck Close. His work is photorealistic from a distance and usually made up of abstract blotches when seen from close up.

701 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:45:08pm

re: #689 albusteve

too bad..."shamed and smeared" for expressing an opinion?...you have bad karma, a bad vibe...go ahead and rub asshole, you bring it on yourself

I have an argumentative vibe, and art is right in my wheelhouse, it's the thing I've devoted my life to. If it's bad, hey, fine. I think comparing Vlamms Belang to an artist is a far worse vibe. That's an "opinion" I find ludicrous and repellent, that seems to go against the entire point of Charles' blog.

I'm so old I can remember you harshing on me for my music tastes. I guess it's only okay when you do it!

702 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:46:23pm

re: #700 Cineaste

You might want to check out the work of Chuck Close. His work is photorealistic from a distance and usually made up of abstract blotches when seen from close up.

And everyone thinks he does it with the aid of computers, and he doesn't, it's all him.

703 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:47:26pm

re: #697 Cineaste

I think a lot of people forget that in 1973 a man wearing makeup was a deeply transgressive idea. Ziggy Stardust only came out in 1972 and Boy George wouldn't be seen by most until 1983.

It shouldn't be that far afield to expect people to understand that giving Mao lipstick is probably not celebrating his reign, ya know?

704 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:49:48pm

re: #701 WindUpBird

I have an argumentative vibe, and art is right in my wheelhouse, it's the thing I've devoted my life to. If it's bad, hey, fine. I think comparing Vlamms Belang to an artist is a far worse vibe. That's an "opinion" I find ludicrous and repellent, that seems to go against the entire point of Charles' blog.

I'm so old I can remember you harshing on me for my music tastes. I guess it's only okay when you do it!

your attitude sucks...I harshed you in jest and anybody that knows me here knows that...you on the other hand are a pompous jerk...there is no comparison noob....you called TonyC a troll for no damned reason, and now you call Lawhawk names....you don't seem to care about anybody but yourself...fuck off

705 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:49:56pm

re: #695 albusteve

Warhol is a pop icon, hugely over rated for any supposed talents he had...sort of a garage band of an artist whose contribution will be nearly forgotten in time...sort of the Kurt Cobain of the paintbrush...pffft...gimme a break

Well I think Warhol would be thrilled that a bunch of people on a chat forum are arguing about whether one of his images is "art" because it featured a communist and was hung as an ornament (a classic disposable commodity) on the White House Christmas Tree.

Frankly, this is the ultimate fulfillment of Warhol!

706 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:51:41pm

re: #698 albusteve
Ferris Beuhler's Day Off: 3 friends visit the Chicago Museum of Art, I think the one you're talking about was featured. It was beautiful.

707 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:52:11pm

re: #695 albusteve

Warhol is a pop icon, hugely over rated for any supposed talents he had...sort of a garage band of an artist whose contribution will be nearly forgotten in time...sort of the Kurt Cobain of the paintbrush...pffft...gimme a break

People will still consider Warhol hugely important in a hundred years, and they'll still consider Cobain important in a hundred years. Warhol is the artist who commented on pop icons, who himself became a pop icon. The "pop icon-ness" is the very reason he is important. And Cobain is arguably respected more now by music critics than he was when he was alive.

You should probably be thanking Cobain (and Novoselic, and Grohl) for helping remove bad over-produced glam-metal from the scene in the early 1990s, and replacing it with bands who were interested in honest song-writing over cliche and image.

By the way, Nirvana's drummer is now in a band with John Paul Jones from Led Zeppelin. Maybe he knows something you don't? Maybe you shouldn't be so hostile to music that didn't come out in the 60's?

708 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:52:12pm

re: #705 Cineaste

Well I think Warhol would be thrilled that a bunch of people on a chat forum are arguing about whether one of his images is "art" because it featured a communist and was hung as an ornament (a classic disposable commodity) on the White House Christmas Tree.

Frankly, this is the ultimate fulfillment of Warhol!

But does that speak wonders to the artist or badly of the people who have been suck into the argue. I think Warhol would be laughing at most of the commenters here.

709 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:52:12pm

re: #702 WindUpBird

And everyone thinks he does it with the aid of computers, and he doesn't, it's all him.

Yup - I've been to his studio in fact, it's a few blocks from me. Nice guy! He does it all on a system of automated canvasses since they are oversized and he is confined to a wheelchair. They can sink into the floor so he can reach any part when he needs to.

710 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:52:21pm

re: #705 Cineaste

Well I think Warhol would be thrilled that a bunch of people on a chat forum are arguing about whether one of his images is "art" because it featured a communist and was hung as an ornament (a classic disposable commodity) on the White House Christmas Tree.

Frankly, this is the ultimate fulfillment of Warhol!

makes me no difference...his work is memorable but hardly expresses much inventiveness or talent

711 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:54:23pm

re: #708 Walter L. Newton

But does that speak wonders to the artist or badly of the people who have been suck into the argue. I think Warhol would be laughing at most of the commenters here.

I do too....drooling over a fucking soup can?....genius!, classic!, timeless!..you are exactly right, Andy got the last laugh

712 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:54:48pm

re: #693 Cineaste

Banal images are cheapening, but so is a perpetual stance of épater les bourgeois

I am sick of shit masquerading as art.
-- Brian Sewell on The Turner Prize, 1998, Evening Standard

The temptation to be a curmudgeon is hard to withstand. When a drama critic encounters a "Gay Fantasia" or an art critic encounters an exhibition of soiled teddy bears -- indeed when anyone trained in anything encounters the self-congratulatory work of someone trained in nothing -- it is very difficult to resist the temptation to lay back one's ears and bray.
-- J. Bottum

713 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:55:30pm

re: #707 WindUpBird

People will still consider Warhol hugely important in a hundred years, and they'll still consider Cobain important in a hundred years. Warhol is the artist who commented on pop icons, who himself became a pop icon. The "pop icon-ness" is the very reason he is important. And Cobain is arguably respected more now by music critics than he was when he was alive.

You should probably be thanking Cobain (and Novoselic, and Grohl) for helping remove bad over-produced glam-metal from the scene in the early 1990s, and replacing it with bands who were interested in honest song-writing over cliche and image.

By the way, Nirvana's drummer is now in a band with John Paul Jones from Led Zeppelin. Maybe he knows something you don't? Maybe you shouldn't be so hostile to music that didn't come out in the 60's?

Seriously, if they are talking about Cobain for anything it will be because he offed himself, not because he was a 3 chord "wonder." and yes, I know something about popular music. I made a living at rock, pop and country for 12 years, was even in a nationally recognized band in 1982 for 6 months. So, I have some chops to make this comment.

714 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:57:04pm

re: #710 albusteve

makes me no difference...his work is memorable but hardly expresses much inventiveness or talent

There is an argument to be made about the craftsmanship as he was not known for skill but I think it's hard to say he wasn't inventive. His work feels un-inventive because it is pop. It is hard, having lived in the years since Warhol worked, to look back and comment on his inventiveness since so much of what we see every day was influenced by him in small and large ways. Ever since Duchamp's "Fountain" we've been struggling with the question of what is "art" and, frankly, that has been the point of much of that art. It is fair not to like Warhol, it is fair not to admire his skill, but to say he lacked inventiveness is probably selling him short. The notion of the lithograph was defined by Warhol and much semiotic thought since then (from Nozick to Baudrillard) was influenced by him.

715 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:58:53pm

re: #713 Walter L. Newton

Seriously, if they are talking about Cobain for anything it will be because he offed himself, not because he was a 3 chord "wonder." and yes, I know something about popular music. I made a living at rock, pop and country for 12 years, was even in a nationally recognized band in 1982 for 6 months. So, I have some chops to make this comment.

I will amend my statement a bit. Cobain wil be remember for being Cobain, the entertainer and person, but not much for his actual music.

716 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:59:25pm

re: #704 albusteve

your attitude sucks...I harshed you in jest and anybody that knows me here knows that...you on the other hand are a pompous jerk...there is no comparison noob...you called TonyC a troll for no damned reason, and now you call Lawhawk names...you don't seem to care about anybody but yourself...fuck off

It sure didn't come off as jest when you did it, it came off as random mockery for no reason. I was in the middle of a very positive and pleasant conversation about mutual love of music and here comes albusteve trashing and mocking. So please, you're guilty of the bad vibes as well. It doesn't come off as jest when you're wildly dismissive of any form of music you're not familiar with as worthless garbage. It came off as what you're doing now, your "fuck off noob, you don't belong here" territorial attitude.

For all that I hear that LGF is a rough-and-tumble place, I'm honestly not seeing it. If you want to accuse me of being fired up and pissed off when people say ridiculous things, fine! But I won't be stopping.

717 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 4:59:42pm

re: #709 Cineaste

Yup - I've been to his studio in fact, it's a few blocks from me. Nice guy! He does it all on a system of automated canvasses since they are oversized and he is confined to a wheelchair. They can sink into the floor so he can reach any part when he needs to.

Agh, also jealous of you! He's so amazing.

718 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:00:00pm

re: #693 Cineaste

I think the goal of a lot of modern art and contemporary art is to change the statement from: "I don't know art, but I know what I like" to "I don't know art, but I know what I feel or think". The goal is not necessarily to be pleasing to the eye or narrative in a conscious way but, rather, to provoke thoughts and responses. To challenge the viewer and their ideas. If all you ever saw was images that you found pleasing in a banal way, how would you know what was pleasing? By creating a complex landscape and confronting your notions of "pleasing" and "art" the artists seek to broaden the discourse. If you take something more extreme like, say Serrano's "Piss Christ" there are very few people who would be found arguing over whether it's "pretty" but a great deal of the response is about the emotions it evokes and the ideas it conveys.

Yes, I agree, but I would say what I like is based on what I know, intellectually, emotionally, morally, and what I don't like, too.

What about the Maplethorpe photos? I didn't find them offensive in the least. Not my cup of tea particularly, I probably wouldn't have visited the gallery, but I don't get a strong feeling towards them. I think that's based on my feeling about gay people. Others certainly had a different take.

719 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:00:52pm

re: #712 The Sanity Inspector

Banal images are cheapening, but so is a perpetual stance of épater les bourgeois

Fair enough. I'm not actually that interested in Warhol's work but I can respect it for what it was and what it did for the cultural discourse. I prefer more emotive things myself, Egon Schiele and Man Ray.

720 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:01:40pm

re: #714 Cineaste

There is an argument to be made about the craftsmanship as he was not known for skill but I think it's hard to say he wasn't inventive. His work feels un-inventive because it is pop. It is hard, having lived in the years since Warhol worked, to look back and comment on his inventiveness since so much of what we see every day was influenced by him in small and large ways. Ever since Duchamp's "Fountain" we've been struggling with the question of what is "art" and, frankly, that has been the point of much of that art. It is fair not to like Warhol, it is fair not to admire his skill, but to say he lacked inventiveness is probably selling him short. The notion of the lithograph was defined by Warhol and much semiotic thought since then (from Nozick to Baudrillard) was influenced by him.

Here is a poster artist...

[Link: images.google.com...]

721 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:02:22pm

re: #715 Walter L. Newton

I will amend my statement a bit. Cobain wil be remember for being Cobain, the entertainer and person, but not much for his actual music.

I don't agree. Nevermind and In Utero aren't disappearing from top 100 lists, those records are instrumental in defining the decade. I was in high school when Nevermind came out, there wasn't a soul I knew who didn't know Nevermind. One member of his band (Grohl) has gone on to fabulous success and critical acclaim since Cobain's death. I wasn't even a big fan of the band at the time! But they're hugely important.

722 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:02:31pm

re: #715 Walter L. Newton

I will amend my statement a bit. Cobain wil be remember for being Cobain, the entertainer and person, but not much for his actual music.


his music is awful...his degenerate fans made him seem to be more than he was...these are not highly skilled musicians and songwriters I'm talking here...Cobain himself could not face the responsibility of his own life....just a rich, spoiled brat that had zero coping skills....he was used and couldn't take it...so he shot his head off and now he is a heroic myth.....hahaha!....how original!

723 webevintage  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:02:40pm

Long thread and I get to it at the end...oh well, just glad someone pointed out the Daily Show bit (see what you miss by not watching the Daily Show everyday?) that gal Bee was "interviewing" is nutty, nuts nut.

724 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:03:31pm

re: #719 Cineaste

Fair enough. I'm not actually that interested in Warhol's work but I can respect it for what it was and what it did for the cultural discourse. I prefer more emotive things myself, Egon Schiele and Man Ray.

I love Schiele, I study Schiele a LOT to get his figurative vibe. One day I hope to be one thousandth the figurative artist that guy was.

725 Mocking Jay  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:04:28pm

re: #722 albusteve

his music is awful...his degenerate fans made him seem to be more than he was...these are not highly skilled musicians and songwriters I'm talking here...Cobain himself could not face the responsibility of his own life...just a rich, spoiled brat that had zero coping skills...he was used and couldn't take it...so he shot his head off and now he is a heroic myth...hahaha!...how original!


Thanks for calling me a degenerate you cranky old fuck.

726 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:05:44pm

re: #697 Cineaste

I think a lot of people forget that in 1973 a man wearing makeup was a deeply transgressive idea. Ziggy Stardust only came out in 1972 and Boy George wouldn't be seen by most until 1983.

Bowie was the first punk rocker in my estimation.

727 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:05:45pm

re: #722 albusteve

his music is awful...his degenerate fans made him seem to be more than he was...these are not highly skilled musicians and songwriters I'm talking here...Cobain himself could not face the responsibility of his own life...just a rich, spoiled brat that had zero coping skills...he was used and couldn't take it...so he shot his head off and now he is a heroic myth...hahaha!...how original!

Sorry buddy:

1) I like their music, does that make me a degenerate?

2) Laughing at someone who shot themselves is in exceedingly poor taste. He clearly had long standing mental issues including depression and possible bi-polar disorder. I'm not putting him on a pedestal but it's a little perverse to laugh at him for it.

728 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:06:20pm

re: #725 JasonA

Thanks for calling me a degenerate you cranky old fuck.

for you, I'll make an exception...and for my buddy up thread Sharmuta, if she were here she'd be kicking my ass...she's a big Nirvana fan

729 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:06:30pm

re: #724 WindUpBird

I love Schiele, I study Schiele a LOT to get his figurative vibe. One day I hope to be one thousandth the figurative artist that guy was.

I'm more of a Max Beckmann fan, of artists from that style & era.

730 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:06:45pm

re: #721 WindUpBird

I don't agree. Nevermind and In Utero aren't disappearing from top 100 lists, those records are instrumental in defining the decade. I was in high school when Nevermind came out, there wasn't a soul I knew who didn't know Nevermind. One member of his band (Grohl) has gone on to fabulous success and critical acclaim since Cobain's death. I wasn't even a big fan of the band at the time! But they're hugely important.

A decade can be defined by bad music. There was nothing musically original or unique about the band, and the musicianship was bland, repetitive and juvenile.

As an entertainer, he made some points. That's it. If those two songs are remembered for anything, it will simply be a bullet point for explaining where pop music started to go wrong in the 90's.

731 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:07:48pm

re: #722 albusteve

his music is awful...his degenerate fans made him seem to be more than he was...these are not highly skilled musicians and songwriters I'm talking here...Cobain himself could not face the responsibility of his own life...just a rich, spoiled brat that had zero coping skills...he was used and couldn't take it...so he shot his head off and now he is a heroic myth...hahaha!...how original!

His degenerate fans are now running things. His degenerate fans are about the entire Northwest. So if we're all degenerates, so be it. I'm in good company.

And Cobain was a rich brat? He lived in Aberdeen. Ever been to Aberdeen? It sucks. He was homeless for a while. I guess he was so rich he just wanted to live under an overpass for fun?

Now, the idea that Dave Grohl is not skilled, that just puts me in fits and giggles. Remember when I said I'm tired of people who don't know what they're talking about? You're currently that guy.

732 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:08:02pm

re: #727 Cineaste

Sorry buddy:

1) I like their music, does that make me a degenerate?

2) Laughing at someone who shot themselves is in exceedingly poor taste. He clearly had long standing mental issues including depression and possible bi-polar disorder. I'm not putting him on a pedestal but it's a little perverse to laugh at him for it.

read #725....JasonA knows how to do it

733 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:08:23pm

re: #730 Walter L. Newton

That's it. If those two songs albums are remembered for anything, it will simply be a bullet point for explaining where pop music started to go wrong in the 90's.

FTFY... Know the work?

734 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:08:30pm

re: #726 marjoriemoon

Bowie was the first punk rocker in my estimation.

His "style" was called "glam rock," it was not punk in the least. And Jagger really had that style going for him first, but not as well defined. Bowie defined it, refined it and sold it big time.

735 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:08:40pm

re: #728 albusteve

for you, I'll make an exception...and for my buddy up thread Sharmuta, if she were here she'd be kicking my ass...she's a big Nirvana fan

And dismissing his suicide would probably not sit well with her.

736 Mocking Jay  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:09:03pm

re: #735 WindUpBird

And dismissing his suicide would probably not sit well with her.

As you should well know :P

737 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:09:10pm

re: #726 marjoriemoon

Bowie was the first punk rocker in my estimation.

That's a topic worthy of its own thread! My opinion is that if punk didn't get its start here, it should have:

Youtube Video
738 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:09:25pm

re: #733 Cineaste

FTFY... Know the work?

My mistake. My point still stands.

739 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:09:37pm

re: #730 Walter L. Newton

A decade can be defined by bad music. There was nothing musically original or unique about the band, and the musicianship was bland, repetitive and juvenile.

As an entertainer, he made some points. That's it. If those two songs are remembered for anything, it will simply be a bullet point for explaining where pop music started to go wrong in the 90's.

Pearl Jam's Ten was bad music? Houdini by the Melvins? Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger?

740 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:09:43pm

re: #735 WindUpBird

And dismissing laughing at his suicide would probably not sit well with her.

741 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:10:00pm

re: #737 The Sanity Inspector

That's a topic worthy of its own thread! My opinion is that if punk didn't get its start here, it should have:


[Video]

Bowie was not punk.

742 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:10:02pm

re: #736 JasonA

As you should well know :P

That's why I brought it up, yes.

743 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:10:24pm

Off to the in-laws for dinner. 'Night all.

744 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:10:40pm

re: #734 Walter L. Newton

His "style" was called "glam rock," it was not punk in the least. And Jagger really had that style going for him first, but not as well defined. Bowie defined it, refined it and sold it big time.

Now, Iggy Pop...

745 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:11:44pm

re: #720 Walter L. Newton

Here is a poster artist...

[Link: images.google.com...]

Whoa, great link! Didn't know his work.

746 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:12:46pm

re: #739 WindUpBird

Pearl Jam's Ten was bad music? Houdini by the Melvins? Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger?

I was pointing out a you can't claim a decade is defined as good or bad by one band, I thought we were talking about Cobain. If I was to use Cobain as the metric, yes, his music sucked.

The genre refined itself, with no help from Cobain.

747 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:14:42pm

re: #745 WindUpBird

Whoa, great link! Didn't know his work.

I'm an art slob, I like what I like, can't always tell you why, and Linke is amazing, go do some research on him. He was the "visual" inspiration for me when I was writing my Holocaust play "A Field of Buttercups."

748 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:15:19pm

re: #744 WindUpBird

Now, Iggy Pop...

Of course, correct. T-Rex and so on.

749 albusteve  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:15:39pm

re: #735 WindUpBird

And dismissing his suicide would probably not sit well with her.

wtf do you know?...she and I have butted heads for years...we've earned each others respect, she still smacks me once in a while...you newer posters need to chill out and get the feel for how people post and learn their style and intensions...JasonA is getting it, and I like him already...don't presume, just post without alot of judgement, or someone like Walter will tear you a new asshole...I'm doing you a favor, but it takes a while

750 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:16:22pm

re: #705 Cineaste

Well I think Warhol would be thrilled that a bunch of people on a chat forum are arguing about whether one of his images is "art" because it featured a communist and was hung as an ornament (a classic disposable commodity) on the White House Christmas Tree.

Frankly, this is the ultimate fulfillment of Warhol!

Ok, how's this. I don't know Warhol, but I know what I feel ?

Simple images can stir the emotions, talking about emotions.

I had a Cuban friend whose father was the mayor of Santiago during the revolution. Her house was shot up. It was quite the story. They were taken by the Communists. Eventually they made it to the states.

Anyway, at the movies one evening and I saw a friend of mine and started to hail him over. My girlfriend turns to me and says, "Is this a friend of yours?" I said, "Yes." I didn't know why she was so upset. He had a picture of Stalin on his shirt. I had no idea what it was, but she told me. It was a side view done in pop art. Black and white shadows kind of. My friend FLIPPED OUT. He came over and she just out and out confronted him, "Why do you have that man on your shirt? Do you know what he did? Do you admire him? Do you think it's cool?" It was quite the scene.

751 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:18:27pm

re: #729 The Sanity Inspector

I'm more of a Max Beckmann fan, of artists from that style & era.

Expressionism! I like Schiele most because he had this virtuoso anatomical understanding of figure work that stretched into expressionism, and at my heart I just love drawing contorted figures. Beckmann more orchestrated these giant oppressive scenes. BIG paintings in their energy. They're pretty intimidating to look at. They feel like it hurt him to paint them.

752 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:19:49pm

re: #747 Walter L. Newton

I'm an art slob, I like what I like, can't always tell you why, and Linke is amazing, go do some research on him. He was the "visual" inspiration for me when I was writing my Holocaust play "A Field of Buttercups."

Nothing wrong with just liking something! I analyze art to death because I'm in the biz.

753 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:19:57pm

re: #730 Walter L. Newton

A decade can be defined by bad music. There was nothing musically original or unique about the band, and the musicianship was bland, repetitive and juvenile.

As an entertainer, he made some points. That's it. If those two songs are remembered for anything, it will simply be a bullet point for explaining where pop music started to go wrong in the 90's.

Doesn't have to be good or bad. It can simply be about being at the right place at the right time. Hence Warhol. Cobain. I don't think either of them are the top geniuses in their field, but they created art that resonated with people and that's all it has to do.

754 webevintage  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:21:25pm

re: #583 Ojoe

OK what weird ornaments do the lizards put up?

I search for vintage elves and santas to put on the tree and over the fireplace, but they can't just be elves and santas, they MUST have that extra special creepiness that you sometimes find.
Serial Killer smiles, black eyes, Satan's minions ect.
I know it is odd, but they make me laugh.

755 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:22:11pm

re: #753 marjoriemoon

Doesn't have to be good or bad. It can simply be about being at the right place at the right time. Hence Warhol. Cobain. I don't think either of them are the top geniuses in their field, but they created art that resonated with people and that's all it has to do.

That's what I was saying.

756 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:22:49pm

re: #746 Walter L. Newton

I was pointing out a you can't claim a decade is defined as good or bad by one band, I thought we were talking about Cobain. If I was to use Cobain as the metric, yes, his music sucked.

The genre refined itself, with no help from Cobain.

It is true, we were. I think Cobain was a great songwriter, but there's not a lot of craft to his guitar playing. The guy has things to say, said them, the country listened. He reached a lot of people, and people still find his music important to them. But in terms of raw technical ability, the guy in the band with the chops was Grohl. And he proved it after Nirvana ended with the Foo Fighters, playing every instrument and just kicking ass all over the place.

757 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:23:13pm

re: #753 marjoriemoon

Doesn't have to be good or bad. It can simply be about being at the right place at the right time. Hence Warhol. Cobain. I don't think either of them are the top geniuses in their field, but they created art that resonated with people and that's all it has to do.

The Pixies, on the other hand.

Genius.

Youtube Video
758 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:24:34pm

re: #734 Walter L. Newton

His "style" was called "glam rock," it was not punk in the least. And Jagger really had that style going for him first, but not as well defined. Bowie defined it, refined it and sold it big time.

I was a huge Bowie fan. The orange spiked hair, the space age jumpsuits, punk was darker looking, but Bowie was really dark lyrically. Man Who Sold The World was depressing as all hell. War, death, meaningless life. It wasn't until he married Angie that he started perking up a bit, but first couple albums were bummers. Perfect for teenage angst.

Glam rock label came later when people started copying him.

759 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:24:43pm

re: #757 obdicut

The Pixies are pretty great :D

(You're not going to like them, Albusteve, I guarantee you)

760 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:25:26pm

re: #10 lawhawk

So, just because Andy Warhol decided to make pop art out of the leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history

"Pop art" doesn't mean "art intended to be popular". The leader of one of the most heinous regimes in history is exactly the sort of subject one would expect to see rendered in that way.

He painted them for the same reason he painted them for the same reason he painted Elvis, Marylin, and Campbell's Soup cans. He was depicting these iconic images that popular culture attaches so much meaning to as essentially just images images advertising a brand-name commodity.

761 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:27:29pm

re: #759 WindUpBird

My favorite band.

With Tom Waits-- another absolute genius-- as my favorite songwriter.

Simple lovely songs:

Youtube Video

and pure insane wonder

Youtube Video
762 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:37:05pm

re: #760 negativ

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

There are not enough updings for you!

763 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:56:07pm

re: #655 Walter L. Newton

"No one cares who Picasso fucks... not even Picasso." Have you ever seen the play "A Picasso" by Jeffery Hatcher? It was the last show we did before the current Xmas show that just closed. A fictional history of a meeting between Picasso and a female German Cultural Attache who wants Picasso to validate 3 sketches. She needs "a picasso" to include in a public burning"

Very clever play built around quotes and sayings of Picasso and how he would have reacted to this. Two people, 1 hour 20 minutes, one act, no intermission.

Both our actors have been nominated for best actress/actor awards for the show in the local Denver awards.

Were I Picasso, I would have done her a beautiful portrait of Hitler for the fire--but then, I suppose that brings us back around to the beginning of this debate. And poor old Botticelli, who haunts me so.

764 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 6:00:31pm

re: #706 Escaped Hillbilly

Ferris Beuhler's Day Off: 3 friends visit the Chicago Museum of Art, I think the one you're talking about was featured. It was beautiful.

That's the one that Cameron goes into a trance in front of? Yes, it's beautiful.

765 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 6:06:05pm

re: #750 marjoriemoon

Ok, how's this. I don't know Warhol, but I know what I feel ?

Simple images can stir the emotions, talking about emotions.

I had a Cuban friend whose father was the mayor of Santiago during the revolution. Her house was shot up. It was quite the story. They were taken by the Communists. Eventually they made it to the states.

Anyway, at the movies one evening and I saw a friend of mine and started to hail him over. My girlfriend turns to me and says, "Is this a friend of yours?" I said, "Yes." I didn't know why she was so upset. He had a picture of Stalin on his shirt. I had no idea what it was, but she told me. It was a side view done in pop art. Black and white shadows kind of. My friend FLIPPED OUT. He came over and she just out and out confronted him, "Why do you have that man on your shirt? Do you know what he did? Do you admire him? Do you think it's cool?" It was quite the scene.

I once heard a talk from a book artist, American woman, whose Hungarian husband came home from the grocery store one day, wanting to know why there is a brand of American tea with Stalin on it. "There isn't," she said. He showed her. "That's Colonel Lipton, honey."

They actually did a series of collage pieces based on that conversation.

766 simoom  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 6:08:13pm

re: #466 Guanxi88

I still want to know - who sent the Mao ornament?

I hope that information never gets out.

The last thing that school and especially that student [child] needs is the full unhinged rage of the wingnut-o-sphere to be pointed in their direction. All for what appears to be some magazine clipping used in a lacquered over découpage layer. I'd be very surprised if the student had any idea that image would be controversial as they pasted it on (either because it was used without any deep consideration, or because they didn't even recognize who was depicted).

767 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 6:14:12pm

re: #756 WindUpBird

It is true, we were. I think Cobain was a great songwriter, but there's not a lot of craft to his guitar playing. The guy has things to say, said them, the country listened. He reached a lot of people, and people still find his music important to them. But in terms of raw technical ability, the guy in the band with the chops was Grohl. And he proved it after Nirvana ended with the Foo Fighters, playing every instrument and just kicking ass all over the place.

It helps to have been young at the time. For me, most 90s rock was just one long expectoration. Once you get past 35 or so, something terrible happens to music.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
4 weeks ago
Views: 960 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0