...to you. I couldn't care less, personally. Idolizes socialism? I made a post explaining that the image used is one painted by Warhol aimed at criticizing and ridiculing socialist beliefs and propoganda. It's a pretty well known series of paintings, and its satirical nature is widely accepted among art analysts and critics. I'm not sure how an image can both ridicule and idolize the same thing at once...
No it was not, the Health care reform will be the largest socialist action in history, Tarp was the biggest "waste" of tax payer money in history if a private sector company fails, let it. It is called free enterprise.
TARP was passed. Health Care Reform has not yet been signed into law. So, my statement stands as accurate and yours does not. rrr:
Very well could be that that was Warhol's intent. Who am I to argue with what is generally accepted by art analysts and critics. Lord knows that group is infallible and does not like to be questioned. But how certain are you that the Obama group was aware of Warhal's intent?
Warhol has openly expressed his intent in various interviews and discussions. There's no doubt that critics are fallible, but I'd trust the artist to know his own intent. I can't say for sure, but Warhol's intent has been the same throughout most of his work and his work is pretty easily identifiable (the mao pieces included). It wouldn't take much to notice it. How certain are you that the Obama was even aware of the Mao presence? My guess is that some white house interior decorator or lowly intern just threw most of those ornaments up and then they take a few cute pictures of the couple in front of the tree for media purposes. It's not like Obama was sitting there pasting on the mao pictures himself.
Given that all art is open to interpetation by the viewer, no matter the intent of the artist, would not a Socialist view this ornament and what it might represent much differently than a Capitalist?
Of course it's open to interpretation. What isn't? It's pretty clear that the interpretation is even varied among Capitalist MINI owners who frequent MA. That's sorta my whole point? Why does it matter that it's on the tree when it's so open to interpretation? Some can interpret it as super offensive, some can interpret it with Warhol's intent in mind. It's just a silly ornament made by school children... why read ANYTHING into it? It's hardly something to get worked up about.
The issue isn't with the art itself or the intent of the art but the poor taste (at best) of having an ornament depicting one of the greatest Communist leaders of all time adorning a Christmas Tree in the White House where the leader of the United States resides at tax payer's expense. The United States being a country that has represented and fought for Freedom and Democracy for more than two hundred years now... Is it a big deal? Maybe not, but it does demonstrate little concern for the fact that we have been a Democracy and thousands of Americans have fought and died to protect it from the likes of Chairman Mao...... PS: I'll also add that if Chairman Mao was the leader of this country, we would not be able to have this debate in an open forum.
Again, it's only in "poor taste" if you interpret it as such. If one interprets it as satire (as the original image's intent would suggest,) it's far less inappropriate. If you interpret it as was mentioned in the original art synopsis I quoted, the image would be CELEBRATING the things Americans have fought to protect/achieve.
Whaa? Obama didn't decorate the tree himself? How very un-Christian of him. Maybe there is credence to all those Muslim rumors. :ihih:
Hmmm. Certainly signed by GWB (disappointing). But, as I recall, some other party actually controlled the house and senate at the time....
The real Inconvienent Truth? During the last two years of the Bush presidency, everything coming out of both houses including the budgets were approved by a Congress and Senate controlled by the Democrats.....:shocked:
As I said... Bush's fiscal behavior was a major disappointment, at least for me (and minimark). But the Executive branch can do very little without congressional support... and the Democrats were more than willing to support Bush, "the socialist", when he started behaving that way. Record Shows Obama Was on Board With TARP in September, and Every Bit As Socialist As He Claims Bush Was | NewsBusters.org
just funny when you guys call Obama a socialist when your man was one as well, factually speaking. pot, meet kettle.