Neocon Series: Cheney. A One Day Painting.

I will wager a guess on why his face is blue. Is it because he is seen as a cold-hearted person?

Keep in mind that the understanding of art is probably my weakest point as a person.

I'm actually of the opposite view. If Dennis were to tell you what all those things meant, he would be leaving little room for interpretation.

What do those things mean to you? That's far more interesting to me than what they mean to the artist. (Besides, I sort of have an idea about his take already.)

I'm not going to comment on the yellow swipes, just yet. I'll leave that for you.

I haven't read any further, but my guess would be the "other priorities" Cheney had for not serving in Vietnam....

Gotcha!

The yellow...the yellow is killing me, I just can't fathom as of yet

Yellow is usually asociated with cowards.

Yellow is also associated with friendship, like the kind between Cheney and Corporate America. He is a self-serving profit hawk. Perhaps green would have been better. Wait, does Team Halliburton have an official colors?

I didn't believe so pal...I may not have stars by my comments but length of string has to account for something.

Forest

Pelosi, I don't know too much about, but you would need a dark background for Clinton (Bill) and Jimmy Carter so their new found halos can show. They have done more for world peace and humanity post office than in office. The world has noticed. I liked Clinton as a President, not Carter though, but they are both rockin' now.

No offense, but the correct way to critique a piece of art is to comment on the piece of art itself.

If you don't like it, perhaps you could explain why. Is it too obvious? Do the colors misrepresent the subject?

There are any number of ways you could have started an interesting discussion of art and politics and you chose the boring (and rather obvious) route of:

"Yeah -- well, Clinton is worse!"

Haha! The comment police routine. Our tones match, so while I enjoy the parry, I will take it as that. If I were to commision a piece by Mr. McCann, I would go for a series on upcoming presidential candidates from both parties, done completely in gray.

Haha! The comment police routine.

Indeed -- but I wasn't responding to your comment. (It wasn't even posted when I started writing my response to Andrew's comment.)

I love this. Thanks for the clarifier Brian!

No, it is lovely work, I would just like to see how a clinton or pelosi would look in contrast to the ones you painted so somberly here

I dunno - that Clinton portrait looks like it has a halo to me; he has a glow all aroud him much like most religious paintings of saints seem to have - particularly when you contrast it against these Neocon paintings.

I have looked at 3 of Dennis' portraits now. I think they fit nicely into both politics and art. The color schemes are both violent and meaningful, while the protraits themselves convey a sort of pensive ambiguity in the faces of the subjects. What is politics if it is not pensive ambiguity. Kudos, Dennis.

pensive ambiguity

Sounds like the next PSA that some former member of congress will be seen in hocking a new medicine to cure it!

Good point, vicaxp! I may regret coining that phrase (I hope not though).

Dennis, didn't agree with either, but like this one better than Rumsfeld. That one seems like more thought, less emotion.

Dennis, if you put out such strong anti-Cheney works, I think you should also publish an article explaining your political position. Otherwise emotional works can negativel affect the discussion by increasing emotions and diminishing logic.

Dennis, btw, my name is Nikita. Niki is short for Nikolai :)

You know, I once saw Oliver Stone speak in Princeton after a screening of his "Looking for Fidel" (or the other pro-Castro movie he made - don't remember). He is an artist. And a good one at that. When he started speaking, he did a couple of jokes about Bush - the crowd, largely anti-Bush, cheered (70% or so if memory serves me right). And he kept going talking about how Castro is not really a bad guy, how sanctions are unfounded, etc. And it would have been all well if that were it - people would have taken from the evening a romantic notion of "Bush is an idiot. Castro is ok. US is a corporate state."

But that wasn't it. The place being Princeton, had a couple of very intelligent kids who knew the subject. And, among them, during the Q&A, a Cuban girl, barely controlling her tears, asked (I am paraphrasing) "How can you hold this position that Castro was an ok guy? How can you overlook the number of people whose lives he's ruined? My family, one of many..." and then went on to describe the suffering that her family has gone through - I don't remember the details, but it amounted to deaths, torture, her being smuggled out in some way.

After this, there was little anybody could add. He could not respond. The crowd was humbled after their previous ovations. Mr. Stone's gross ignorance was exposed. Were it not for those few people who knew the subject and personally suffered, the crowd would have listened to what Mr. Stone said and would have agred with him. Why? Because he is a great artist, a big name, a charming fellow. Were it not for that girl, nobody would see through him and recognize a political moron who, while he may have the best intentions, chose the wrong position.

So I think that if an artist chooses to express him/herself in the realm of politics, specifically because their work can influence people's thinking and thus have an effect, they must demonstrate knowledge of the subject and be open to criticism and re-evaluation of their position. And it's impossible to criticise art, let alone when it's good.

Dennis, I understand what you are saying. But do you not see how your artistic expression can affect politics thus making you responsible for what you produce? For example, let's detach from the present conflicts and talk abstractedly for a second: let's say you have a leader X who engages in extermination of people Y. Then we have an artist Z paints X as an angel. Then we have people who say "Look, Z likes X, so may be X is ok." This helps X exterminate Y.

If we make art for the sake of art and keep it from people in a dark room a la Dorian Gray, then I agree, art is just art. But the moment it enters a social medium and can influence people's decisions, it turns into a political statement.

So I am saying that as an artist, you have no obligations. But you do have an obligation to society as a member of this society.

And I would not limit this to art. I realized just how much it applies to me after I saw The Motorcycle Diaries. I realized that, as someone who does not know enough about Che, I can not and must not judge him - it would be irresponsible and counterproductive. If I were an artist, for me to draw an unflattering picture of Che would be a grave mistake no matter what suspicions I have about his character. That is, until I learn enough to have a position on the subject.

I think that this world would work best if people who don't know acknowledge as much and try to minimize their effect while they educate themselves on the subject. And if they do decide to participate, regardless of the form in which they choose to do so, they should take responsibility for their expression and constantly question whether they are promoting the right course of action.

BTW, apology accepted :)

Dennis, you are starting with your intentions and this being art. I am starting with the consequences this piece would have. Would you agree that, regardless of the medium, we must take into consideration consequences of our influence? For example, if you are an artist and you got a list of undercover FBI agents, it would be irresponsible to make this list available to the public even though it could be an act of art.

I am not suggesting that expression should be stifled. I am suggesting that every artist should ask themselves whether it is beneficial to introduce a work of art into an area where it will have a political effect.

if you are an artist and you got a list of undercover FBI agents, it would be irresponsible to make this list available to the public even though it could be an act of art.

It would also be an illegal work of art. I think artists should be free to make any political statement -- no matter how harsh -- so long as it is within the law.

I would also say that there are obvious exceptions to that rule. There are times when civil disobedience is warranted if it is for the greater good and the world of art is a great medium for that cause.

Dennis, you missed/disregarded my point. You are still looking at things from the perspective of "your intention as an artist", which is innocent, rather than from "how your work will be perceived". Do you understand what I mean?

In art you express yourself thus telling people your thoughts. And if people have respect for you and little knowledge of the subject, it influences what they think.

You are trying to absolve yourself of responsibility for the political impact your art has on society.

Pardon me for steppin in here.. but good grief, how much longer you gonna flog this horse? You ever heard of "artistic license?" Are you asking Dennis to say he doesn't like Cheney? I think thats obvious.

You are trying to absolve yourself of responsibility for the political impact your art has on society.

Thats absurd. If his art makes a political statement, it's because of how you interpret it. Absolve himself of responsibility? You make it sound as thought he had ordered the invasion of Iraq or something. He has political leanings just like a singer, truck driver, disk jockey, and average joe. So what? What the point your trying to flog into this "dead horse?"

NikitaB, don't confuse art with journalism. For the latter there is the expectation of "objectivity" or "fairness and balance". The former, whether it takes the form of painting, poetry or literature, is an expression of something within the artist that also triggers an independent internal reaction in the viewer or reader. No one is absolved of responsibility, but I think the burden of responsiblity is different when comparing journalism to art.

I thought about this a little, and came up with the following three categories. Each category is identified by corresponding written and visual manifestations:

Journalism -- Non-art Photograph
Consumer trusts the presented information to be objective fact independent of creator's subjective opinion. Creator has primary responsibility for accuracy. Consumer has some responsibility to question/verify, but less than the categories below.

Example: An article reporting Cheney's shooting of Harry Whittington — the journalist cannot write that Cheney intentionally shot Whittington unless he/she had proof, but can report than someone else said that they believed so.

Op/Ed -- Political Cartoon
Consumer sees the creator's subjective interpretation of facts/events. Both creator and consumer have more or less equal responsibility — since it is understood to be subjective the consumer has a responsibility to not automatically believe the interpretation.

Example: A political cartoon of Cheney with his scope aimed at the face of Whittington, who is depicted wearing a turbin and other Iraqi Muslim garb.

Poetry -- Fine Art Painting
Consumer has subjective interpretation independent of the creator's. Consumer has primary responsibility for whatever interpretation his mind comes up with.

Example: Dennis' painting above.

Guys, you are missing the point I am trying to make. I am saying that we, as human beings, as members of this society, should take things more seriously and more carefully. ANY expression that has an effect in the social/political medium should be evaluated for its effect, not for its origin. Dennis, if you showed me the picture personally and we discussed it, then it could be just art and seen as such. But it stops being just art as soon as it becomes consumed by the public and can help form people's political position.

And this covers not just art, but journalism, discussions, etc. Look at how many people both on the left and on the right have no clue about the issues they so adamantly discuss!!! And every drop of information, be it emotional or analytical, has an effect on the system.

Do you understand what I am saying?

NikitaB, are you saying we shouldn't have freedom of speech for fear of...what?..having influence? Isn't the value of free speech that we are exposed to a variety of opinion and thought? Isn't that how we become educated? I wonder what it is that you are afraid of? We should be careful of our discussion, speech, words, expression, ideas? Why? I understand the need for coherence but cannot believe that anything an artist might paint should be taboo. Discussion stimulates. Art stimulates. Can there be too much stimulation? Is there too much information? I might agree with you on some aspects of that. I think of the I Ching speaking about unlimited choices not being good for man. I want to understand you better 'cause I think I'm missing your point, and I think your point is important to understand.

Let's say you have 100 people on a spectrum from A to B. Let's say A is the correct position and you have 10 people who educated themselves and chose A as their position. Let's say the rest, the 90%, are distributed in a bell curve. This way you have the majority somewhere in the middle and the number of supporters gradually diminishes as you get to either extreme.

Now let's see the influence of an emotional art piece that is anti-A. It will not influence those who are educated. But it may influence the 90% shifting their position slightly towards B. Now let's assume that you have fashion among the artistic elite to make anti-A works. So now you have constant bombardment with messages, which causes a significant shift of the bell curve towards B and, while no single artwork can be blamed, the net effect of irresponsible artistic expression of a fashionable position results in affecting the political situation. This is the primary flaw in democratic systems (albeit correctable if the average person educates themself).

Consider that I am right for a second: Bush = A, anti-Bush = B. Then when artists express anti-Bush sentiment, since there is a lot of anti-Bush art, the balance is shifted. And this would be ok if even half the artists actually knew enough about him, but almost none I met have a well-thought out position.

To turn this around against me: let's say that I supported Bush blindly in his taking funding away from stem-cell research. Let's say that, if I educated myself enough on the subject, I found out that he was undercutting research that would bring about a cure for cancer within 5 years if present level of funding was sustained. Well, I could write a song about how pointless stem-cell research is to me (despite my ignorance) and move people to support redistribution of funds and the net effect would be that this area would be underfunded when it should not be leading to a net negative effect. Personally I believe that there may be reason why he is correct in reducing funding for the academia, but I should be very careful about my position and maintain an open mind.

Redruby, I am not against discussion. I do think that instead of providing the public with an artistic monologue, every artist should also open themselves up for discussion and justify why they have chosen a specific position. I am saying that choosing a position and producing art that promotes this position must be done responsibly taking into account effects on society.

In this particular case, btw, I think Dennis' work is good if only because it created this discussion. However, if this work hung in a gallery without an opportunity to provide feedback, I am afraid that it might have a net negative effect. And I am here to make Dennis aware of this position.

Are you saying that every writer should include a study guide with their book? That every songwriter should interpret their song, in case someone takes it the wrong way?

Yes, to the best of their ability. Or they should always try to balance perception and art.

You think you do not have an effect. I am telling you you do. I would have trouble quantifying this effect, but you could probably do this yourself by asking people who view your work whether them seeing you present political issues affects their position.

It would be an interesting experiment to take a group of people and then offer them free passes to museums and, after 1 month, see how their perceptions have changed. I am willing to bet that, if the experiment is executed correctly, you will see that art does indeed affect political perception.

NikitaB --

You happen to be the only person I've ever met on the face of the planet who would argue the position you're taking.

What you are suggesting negates the point of art with a message.

I keep reading what you say to try and figure out if I'm misreading your commentary and I keep coming back to the fact that you don't think people should say things that might change others perceptions.

That's the friggin' point!

You think you do not have an effect. I am telling you you do.

Thank god! On the other hand, you have the right to interpret art any way you see fit and if it doesn't change your perception, good for you.

What's the point in making a political commentary (in any medium -- be it a speech, a song, etc) if you don't intend to make people re-evaluate their position?

I really don't get what you're saying, but I think it's because I sort of get the impression that you're dancing around what you really want to say:

Artists should be held accountable for producing work that might offend (or challenge) someone's perceptions.

That's the point of art! Art isn't about what the artist feels -- it's about how the artists emotions at the time of creation create reaction amongst an audience. If you need to be spoon-fed the story behind every complicated work of art (of any medium) I feel as though you've missed the point entirely.

You may be arguing what -you- feel art should be, but as someone who's been through an extensive number of art history courses -- you're not arguing what art "is". If you don't like that, that's fine -- but what you want it to be is wrong.

I am saying that free speech should be used responsibly. If you don't get it, I don't think I can help you.

Propaganda or art?
Guenrica, Raft of the Medusa, Statue of Liberty, Garden of Earthly Delights, Landscape with the Fall of Icarus. I don't think the line is very clear, but politics often enters into the most famous works of art (Halucinogenic Toreador?).

I'm not sure this qualifies as propaganda.

Is it a political commentary? Yes.
Is it trying to convince me of anything? Not that I can see.

I think commentary can be made (even if it's negative) without falling into the realm of propaganda.

(I would also mention that a lot of early political propaganda focuses more on Design than on Art. Propaganda doesn't exist to make you think -- it exists to do your thinking for you.)

I've never disliked anyone enough to take the time to paint them in an unflattering way.

I find art is a reflection of the artist more than it is the people they paint. The choice of topic and the depiction of the subject rests entirely on the painter. Unflattering paintings would expose me in a light in which I wouldn't want to find myself.

But, we're all different. Art is simply in another direction for me. "Participation" has a totally different meaning.

I've never disliked anyone enough to take the time to paint them in an unflattering way.

The eye of the beholder I guess... I thought it was very flattering. Notice how Dennis omitted the horns... and how the flesh tearing canines look like normal teeth... Indeed, the most flattering image of Cheney I've ever seen. Excellent job Dennis!

Like I said, I've never let hatred distort my vision enough to see ugly pictures that aren't actually there.

While it may purge some inner turmoil to describe or paint such hateful things, I personally don't believe displaying ugly inner visions for all to see is all that valid artistically.

It certainly reflects more on the mindset of those who see distorted visions than it does on their subjects.

Just because I can paint huge set of knockers on a Kate Hudson portrait doesn't magically make it reality. All it would do is show I had a warped perspective on what makes a woman attractive.

I'd love to join. I'm always anxious for more ways to talk about art with other artists. :)

Me too?

Painting, drawings, and metal sculptures (gimmie a torch and a TIG welder and I'm in heaven). Haven't done anything lately (though you've inspired me). I'll see if I can find some pics of my old work to post. I did draw this a few months ago. Unfortunately my scanner sucks. It doesn't look as good as the original. Ironically, the piece is about Cheney. How strange is that?

Dick in a box — funny coincidence! Or was it?