Morbid fascination with Obama’s assassination now warrants its own art exhibit
posted at 3:15 pm on March 5, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’ve stayed away from this meme just because it’s so unpleasant but Protein Wisdom has been plugging away, from the coverage in the Times to the panic over the security lapse in Dallas (Dallas!) to the obligatory Blackwater conspiracy theories at HuffPo. Fittingly it’s Karl who spots this latest excrescence, which must be seen to be believed. The nuance here lies in the fact that the “assassination” of the exhibit is supposed to be metaphorical, which doesn’t quite explain the painting of RFK looking over Obama’s shoulder or the, um, noose graphics, but may explain the enormous black phallus covering three walls. From the press release:
In a take no prisoners fashion, Arboleda makes bold, unapologetic statements that reflect the extreme judgments and characterizations placed on the first competitive African American presidential candidate. For Arboleda, the statements and re-appropriated imagery in his installation are in direct response to the daily accusations laid on Senator Obama by everyone – the media, the electorate, the society at large – and attempts to make us all aware of the lasting effects of this process. Whereas everyone is responsible, no one – and no group – is safe in this highly evocative and controversial exhibit. In the all-encompassing installation that explores the themes of sexism, racism, ageism and religious intolerance, one questions to what end we are willing to go to tear down our leaders in the process of electing them.
Follow the link and see for yourself. Genuine concern for the safety of a minority candidate + creepy cultish fascination with the sacrifice of the leader + irresistible historical resonance with other saintly American politicians (Lincoln, MLK, JFK, RFK) + sublimated fear that Obama’s election might indeed destroy the old paradigms of racial victimhood = Obamartyrdommania!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Shitty art. A damn doily has more artistic merit than that entire exhibit.
Dr. Manhattan on March 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Wow. That was a waste of museum space. And “Once you go Barak”….Ugh.
darii on March 5, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Umm, is it just me or does RFK look like he wants to gnaw on Obama’s shoulder in that one picture?
MarkoMancuso on March 5, 2008 at 3:23 PM
The whole exhibit just seems racist to me, but I suppose it’s free to hide under the false label of art.
Esthier on March 5, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Andy Warhol never did anything quite like this.
Tasteful way of saying “loser artist has crush on Obama – makes rest of world suffer.” Where, exactly, was the “artistic” part of this ‘exhibit’? I’m pretty sure I could do something like this, given a copy machine, the internet, and about fifteen minutes. Mine would be minus the cockpit, but still.
emailnuevo on March 5, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I meant to say “printer,” not copy machine.
emailnuevo on March 5, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Pity it wasn’t done by an under 50 y.o. Brit, otherwise it could be up for the Turner Prize (i.e. a p.o.s. “art” exhibit).
I wonder, and hope not, that one of Obama’s followers thinks he has to be the assassinated messiah. This thing (I hate to call it art) is downright creepy.
rbj on March 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM
If this guy gets in the oval office, we could all experience death by black
mambaobama.OkieDoc on March 5, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Note the statement in the lower right hand corner of the Art Gallery screen: “Viewing by appointment only.” Not only is it utter crap, but you have to make a flippin’ appointment to look at it!
Here’s a simple rule of thumb that will help you determine with near infallibility what is art and what is crap: if it’s something you or someone else could do, it is NOT art.
Thus, Buonarroti’s Pieta is art; Andy Warhol’s Soup Can is crap.
NemoParticularis on March 5, 2008 at 3:29 PM
What’s with the GAP and Budweiser adverts?
Vizzini on March 5, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I thought that might be too bizzare for you to pass up.
Karl on March 5, 2008 at 3:31 PM
The unrecognized, so little mentioned, growing CRISIS is Hillary getting whacked by some outraged Obamanist if she “steals” the nomination.
Dusty on March 5, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Just to remind people, you can crap on a plate and call it “art”.
Her art is uninspiring and boring.
Geronimo on March 5, 2008 at 3:32 PM
You know I think to some of these people Obama can only fulfill his destiny to be their god by dying.
If he lives, he has to run for office, win, govern, be a part of the process, have a record…at some point he becomes just another man.
Sick. But of course there’s no telling that to them.
Typhoon on March 5, 2008 at 3:32 PM
To prevent rightous vandalism.
As for the inclusion of the “enormous black phallus”, I suggest the artist’s own insignifican unit might be the reason…
pseudonominus on March 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM
This is the epitome of the Left. Note that there is no questioning of the existence of said “themes.” They exist. This is America. There is no discussion.
This is the same kind of Marxist rot that destroyed the fabric of French society, prior to WW2. The message? Until such time as America becomes a Marxist society, it is not worth defending.
This is the message that the American children are being indoctrinated with.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM
You people are so cynical. Those works are just going to fly off the wall…
shaken on March 5, 2008 at 3:36 PM
An HA cull thread? I’m headed someplace safe.
Limerick on March 5, 2008 at 3:36 PM
What a total pile of arse
LimeyGeek on March 5, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Today, anyone can be an “artist”. Just do something mind-blowingly creative … like putting the word “promises” on an empty jar, or hanging giant dark penises on a wall, call it art and hey, you’re an artist.
Oh, the more sexually suggestive the better, it shows one as “edgy”.
darwin on March 5, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Who is supposed to kill him? hillary?
The only danger I see is if he wins the dem nomination and he picks her as a VP..
Chakra Hammer on March 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I must admit, when I see a art like this, I get emotionally… erect.
The Ugly American on March 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM
My mind has been soiled.
ninjapirate on March 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Shouldn’t “ART” have at least SOME thought behind it?
ronsfi on March 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Hello? This is America. We should vote people out of office not want anyone killed over politics. It’s been 27 years since a president was shot and I hope it never happens again – ever – to either party!
Branch Rickey on March 5, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Tell that to the dork who signed his name on a urinal and got it into a museum in Paris.
Just so you know, the guards don’t appreciate performance art at that exhibit. I did feel a lot better after I expressed myself, though.
James on March 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM
It seems to me that the left subliminally wants Obama to be assassinated — to fulfill his role as the Messiah if you get my meaning. Also it would allow them to freeze him in time like JFK. They fantasised about Bush’s assassination for a different yet equally irrational reason.
aengus on March 5, 2008 at 3:50 PM
That is crap and the “artist” is a racist hating PIG. I hope someone assasinates his arse!!
ihasurnominashun on March 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Someone hand me the brain bleach. This is so wrong on so many levels, I don’t even know where to begin…
RedMindBlueState on March 5, 2008 at 3:54 PM
It would also allow them to continue the myth that “racism” is alive and well in the US.
darwin on March 5, 2008 at 3:54 PM
The whole thing is tasteless, but I did enjoy the empty “Promises” jar.
Kid from Brooklyn on March 5, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Rudy, where art thou?
Kid from Brooklyn on March 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM
AP, You’ve nailed the real goal of the Obamanics. Their insanity has a twisted logic to it.
If they can convince voters that Obama faces* a unique threat of martydom–>then they hope to create a link in the voters’ minds between the reputations of those famous political icons and Obama. Hence, his extraordinary status
among mortal beings and divine right to wear MLK’s and JFK’s mantle
*unique by placing the threat to him at a much higher threshold than normally always exists for our presidents and major presidential candidates. Considering the nasty threats posted by ranting BDS commenters at leftwing sites; if anyone deserves that status today, it would GW. Its a dangerous job for anyone.
rags
Ragnell on March 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM
This is supposed to be PRO-Obama? Is this guy insane?
Typhonsentra on March 5, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Four things came immediately to mind.
1. Does this guy love or hate Osama-bama
2. Bud & The GAP?
3. Not the Nappy Headed Hos label on the kids
4. Wow, now that is soooooome penis. I’m looking at Obama – mama with newfound respect.
Alden Pyle on March 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM
What? The? F….?
flipflop on March 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Hey, I thought the Bud/Gap/Obamas-as-Benetton exhibit was kinda incisive.
Cuffy Meigs on March 5, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Given the empty promises jar at the end, I think its hate or dislike perhaps.
That is one mighty large penis though.
lorien1973 on March 5, 2008 at 4:06 PM
In poor taste — towards Senator Obama and especially his little girls. I suppose the upside is that any outrage over it could get him some sympathy.
D2Boston on March 5, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Is this a prank of some sort? Look at the Wiki article for Naomi Gates Gallery (where this exhibit is supposedly mounted): Naomi Gates Gallery Wiki
The photo on the Wiki page looks exactly like the photo on the Obama “assassination” exhibit site. Same bluish tone, same car outside the window, light falling in the same places on the floor. You can even see the same exact shadows on the wall from the lights hanging down from the track lighting unit. The only difference is that the wall in the Wiki photo is blank.
It looks like to me like the Obama “exhibit” is a Photoshopped creation. Same with The Assassination of Hillary Clinton, the “sister” site. The two exhibits are by the same artist, Yazmany Arboleda, and look very similar.
Also, I’m not a Wikipedia expert, but it appears that the Naomi Gates Gallery article was created within the last couple of days. Same with the article for the Leah Keller Gallery (where the Clinton exhibit is supposedly being held). It looks like those entries were created on the same day (March 4) by the same Wiki user, NaomiGates. The two Wiki entries look almost identical, too.
If the two galleries are working together on these exhibits, it would make sense that the two websites and Wiki articles would look very similar. But they still look Photoshopped to me. Take a look at the two photos I linked and see what you think.
The “appointment only” (both exhibits) thing is fishy, too. This is some sort of contemporary art put-on, I’m sure of it.
Missy on March 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM
If they can convince voters that Obama faces* a unique threat of martydom–>then they hope to create a link in the voters’ minds between the reputations of those famous political icons and Obama. Hence, his extraordinary status
among mortal beings and divine right to wear MLK’s and JFK’s mantle
Ragnell on March 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM
They will fail miserably. People are already starting to “wake up” to the fact that he is just another bloviating politcian. By Nov, he will be washed up.
kcd on March 5, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Didn’t seem that big to ME. Har har.
I got nothing.
Enrique on March 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM
All looked photoshopped to me. Nice neat drop shadows. The jar especially so.
Limerick on March 5, 2008 at 4:18 PM
That’s not a phallus. That is a cock.
Alex_SF on March 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM
I thought it was JFK looking over his shoulder? Someone had way too much time on his hands to come up with this “art.”
Torch on March 5, 2008 at 4:21 PM
“Hillary: The antidote to Niggeritis” sign in the Hillary Gallery is, uh, not art. The Cigar Room was funny though.
Alden Pyle on March 5, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Isn’t it funny that an “artist” (almost all are very liberal) can peddle porn, smut, call people the “N” word, etc, ect. and they get a pass because they are “artists”? Think for a moment. If HA done a web page with all of this stuff on it and called it the assasination of Obama,can you imagine how many liberal heads would be exploding as we speak?
kcd on March 5, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Well, hopefully someone will cut Michelle Obama a break the next time she runs her piehole, now that we see the source of her post-concussion syndrome…
Kid from Brooklyn on March 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Well, hopefully someone will cut Michelle Obama a break the next time she runs her piehole, now that we see the source of her post-concussion syndrome…
Kid from Brooklyn on March 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM
LOL!!!!! HAAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
kcd on March 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Michelle O. will, of course, complain that the phallus isn’t big enough.
29Victor on March 5, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Rectitude of judgment?
Entelechy on March 5, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Wow Missy, great Wiki-Fu! Those are indeed the same rooms, the same lighting… the same magazine on the table in Hillary’s Book Cover room, the same car outside the Gates Gallery.
These two artistic endeavors only have life on the Internet, they have no existence in the real world. Nice catch.
Mr Michael on March 5, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I’m torn between
“What the Heck is wrong with these people?”
and
“My cat could do better art than that.”
Capitana on March 5, 2008 at 5:01 PM
I actually do worry about Obama (or Hillary) being assassinated if elected.
Not due to racist / sexist reasons but because they’re freaking Socialists who seem committed to ramming ruinous and destructive programs down our throats.
While I recognize their theoretical necessity, I am strongly against ‘rooftop recalls’. Still, like the ability to nuke the planet into a glowing cinder, a politician thinking that someone up to a mile away might be looking at them through a scope has a certain deterrent value.
KCSteve on March 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Pathological self-absorption is the order of the day, I guess. And what crappy art it inspires, too.
spmat on March 5, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Let’s hope this
trashart didn’t receive a penny of federal funding.Logic on March 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Ohhhhhh, Benetton. I didn’t recognize it as such. It gave me a creepy feeling like the family was being viewed through a rifle scope or some such.
mikeyboss on March 5, 2008 at 5:39 PM
One of my classes to a field trip to NYC last year to take in both of these galleries, plus a few more. They all were in one building that used to be some type of factory/warehouse that was later sold & divided up for this reason. They’re all line one side of a street in Chelsea. The “art” was terrible, & I said so (I did see one show that I liked, however). This kind of thing is normal for these little spaces. There’s a reason why they’re where they are & not in the big galleries like MOMA or the Guggenheim.
artlover on March 5, 2008 at 6:16 PM
“The Painted Word” strikes again.
If you have to add so many qualifiers to “explain” the “Art”
(age-ism, sexism, ad nauseam-ism) it has pre-failed to be artistic, and is simply superfluous semiotic sludge posing as inspiration.
Mau-mauing the radical chic, redux.
Or is that reflux?
profitsbeard on March 5, 2008 at 6:16 PM
I tend to agree with you. The drop shadows on all of the framed pieces looked pshopped. There are jpg artifacts on the Hillary stand up poster. Also the penis and a few others look like they were superimposed.
Also there is no mention of the medium used other than referring to the “re-appropriated imagery.”
Art is like sex. If it doesn’t feel good to me, your explanation probably won’t help.
The Race Card on March 5, 2008 at 6:34 PM
kcd on March 5, 2008 at 4:13 PM
kdc
At the initial launching of Obama, I expected voters to reject him based on his inexperience and lack of achievement. Certainly, I laughed a year ago, at claims that a three-year senator could become a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
So–”The opera ain’t over until the fat lady sings”–I won’t dismiss Obama or his crazy worshippers until this election ends. What should never be dismissed is the potential to harm through the irrationality of true fanatics.
This season revealed a new ingredient within the American political environment. Frankly, I found this change alarming. At first,the idea of large numbers of our youth becoming involved in their government appeared to be a healthy change. Involvement, however, morphed into a stream of lemmings dashing towards the cliffs.
Perhaps I was naive, but I never expected to see the rise of political messiahism in the United States. We lacked the serious problems which allowed leader-worship to sprout in other countries. I’m specifically referring to the numbers of hysterical youths mindlessly chanting during their Obamamessiah trace and the rage expressed towards non-participants,
Their mob frenzy response towards anyone who rejects their blind adoration is reminiscent of some dangerous youth movements in history. What has changed? Educational backgrounds? The decline of rational thought? At one point,I was reminded of those old film clips of the young Red Guards chanting during Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution. People reaching that “mob frenzy” state will harm others.
This phenomenon may disappear for the moment, but something very ugly has been spawned in our country. They may lose their messiah of the moment, but will be waiting for the next one to light their fuse.
Ragnell on March 5, 2008 at 6:47 PM
In all fairness to the artist, it’s quite possible that the Web pages were constructed prior to the artwork actually being installed in the studio, which would necessitate a digital mockup.
That being said . . . [full body shudder!] Obamamania is taking a serious turn for the weird if there are “artists” already fantasizing about his assassination just so they can revere his memory. At least, that’s what I assume this exhibit is about; it’s either that, or some wicked satire.
Ransom on March 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Could be, but that’s a lot of work to do when a simpler way would be to just wait and take real photos after the stuff was installed. Plus the “appointment only” thing is still hinky, too.
The paranoid side of me worries that part of the “concept” is to put up the “exhibit” and then record media and blog reactions for posterity. ;)
Anyway, thanks y’all for confirming I’m not crazy. Commenter malaclypse at Protein Wisdom actually caught it before I did, but silly me didn’t read that thread until after I posted.
Missy on March 5, 2008 at 8:29 PM
When did freedom of speech become freedom to be openly offensive? There was a time when we legally recognized “fighting words” and I say this Arboleda guy is due. I guess its fortunate that its so tacky – no violence necessary. A self-extinguishing fire.
blankminde on March 5, 2008 at 8:42 PM
No crucifix. No urine. How can they call it art?
snaggletoothie on March 5, 2008 at 9:11 PM
This whole assassination thinking is sick. It is like the libs would rather use Obama as a martyr than actually have him stand on a record, thus keep him as a romantic ideal like RFK and JFK. It is a way to keep control–and I also think it is racist. God protect him!
p40tiger on March 5, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Professor Blather on March 5, 2008 at 9:44 PM
That is one of the lamest exhibits of “art” I’ve seen in some time. Talk about cliche. So the giant black penises are supposed to do what? Get your attention?
YAWN. Then the whole assassination thing, puleeeze!
4shoes on March 5, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Trust me, you’re not. Besides, I don’t think most of these jokers make any money doing “art”.
4shoes on March 5, 2008 at 9:54 PM
It’s always included that. If there weren’t the freedom to be offensive, it wouldn’t be “free speech.”
Or are you one of the people calling for legal sanctions against the publishers of the Mohammed cartoons? Because that’s the argument they use.
There is no right not to be offended. Period.
We still do recognize “fighting words.” The definition is that they’re directed to and likely to cause an imminent breach of the peace. That means getting up in someone’s face and calling them an ethnic slur, or yelling at an agitated crowd that they should start throwing things at the police or breaking stuff. This isn’t even close.
Alex_SF on March 5, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Where I come from we don’t call that art… we call it “vandalism”.
Immolate on March 6, 2008 at 7:19 AM
Comment pages: