Misplaced Controversy

Oh, yes, Ron! My painting below was not originally named "Ballz" A designer hung it in a client's home and it was returned to me because the client saw male genitalia in it.
It's all in the eyes of the beholder and I ended up painting another one expressly for her instead....but I just had to rename it, in honor of the great story now attached!
It has a coveted place in my home since then....I didn't really wanna sell it anyway! lol.

Great story Marlene!

Ronald, yes I have had that very thing happen, it was with a series of sculpture that were meant to point out the suffering war causes. I would post it here but the last time I posted the image to more than one thread here even though it was on topic to the threads I was posting to, I was banned from posting for "spamming" of all things, for a week. So I will not post it here even though I think it would most certainly fit the topic you are discussing because I have it posted in another open themed image thread now. The Sculpture is titled "STOP" and can be seen in my gallery. I did make the series to be thought provoking, as that is what I think art should do at times, not just be pretty, but make a meaningful statement or convey something of truth regardless of it being the popular ideology of the day or not.Many things that were hailed in history as the popular ideology of the time are things that today are outlawed, so therefore I believe that there is a very valid reason that justifies art that has the potential to be viewed as controversial even if the controversy is not misplaced, if it further leads to positive change is society. That being said controversy in art simply for the "shock" effect to gain attention is a totally different thing.

Now here is another one that I to thought was just a fun piece and had no notion of it being controversial until I received a compliment on it that something to the effect of it being controversial. To me it only proves that people have different views on art as they do about any other subject under the sun.

Seems as if a quick look and hasty decisions often lead to the misunderstanding of a work of art.

Politics and religion - art - gonna have controversy.

@ Marlene: Does the paintings hang just below a portrait called Richard? :-)

Any art that invokes a heated debate has to be good!

It just seems to me that more and more things in society are being funneled into the categories of religion and politics when in actuality they don't belong there.

Drew?
sorry, i' guess there's a joke there somewhere but I missed it.

Mario, regarding your piece, if you include a Magen David, it's religion.

Marlene, but is it a Magen David as you call it ? or is it the symbol of intertwined equilateral triangles which are a common one in the Middle East and North Africa, and is thought to bring good luck. It appears occasionally in early Jewish artwork, but never as an exclusively Jewish symbol.

That is also the argument for a swastika....'but, but, but. it is also an ancient something or another.'
Magen David is a star of David,the shield of King David.... a most common symbol of Judaism..MUCH more than "appears occasionally in ancient Judaism" It is a MAJOR symbol of my faith TODAY, as it has been for thousands of years....so yes, Very controversial to use it.


And this is borderline religious talk which I don't want to see Ron's thread be closed over. ;)

:-) Yes, we probably are tip-toeing the lines. Please, there's so many other things we can discuss.

It would be controversial to use it in a controversial way, but please read what I wrote about the piece we are talking about in the other thread it should clear up any controversy, I was allowed to post the image but I was also advised not discuss it beyond what it is, a sculpture, so I won't. But if you feel more needs to be said about it Marlene, by all means Private message me about it and you will see exactly that there is no controversy about it, and if there is, it's gonna fall under what we are discussing here in this very thought provoking concept Ronald's thread calls "Misplaced Controversy"

I agree, and have nothing else to add to it.

@ Marlene: You wouldn't and what evs!
Why would one paint anything that was not a study; something not controversial? Controversy is what make good art great! otherwise, its just decorative and/or illustrative.You know..goes with the furniture and makes one feel warm and fuzzy.

Drew, it was your Richard comment that the' huh 'was attached to.

Mario, I just have one question for you to answer on your own, for yourself...IF you were using the Magen David as a symbol of good luck, why would you use the word STOP above it? That is what confuses. Surely you didn't mean to stop good luck....

I will not discuss here, but good question.

Drew wrote: "...its just decorative and/or illustrative.You know..goes with the furniture and makes one feel warm and fuzzy."

Seriously? All right, Drew, before my ornery and formerly nicotine-stained trigger-finger starts a-twitching, why don't you clarify that statement by giving us your definition of the word 'illustrative.'

That's precisely why I asked you to answer on your own, for yourself.....;)

Thank heaven you arrived, Patrick! My most favorite artists on faa, who have my eternal admiration started out as or are currently illustrators.

Ronald, here is a link to a very interesting article about Misplaced Art Controversy which lead to censorship even in a well know museum.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/a/me080630.htm

Marlene , I already know the answer, but it's you who does not or are curious or already formed an opinion about it, like I said private message me if you really want to know and I will explain. You will be pleasantly surprised.

Marlene, the name "Dick" is short for Richard, I think that's what the joke was about lol, so if your your "Ballz" piece was hanging below a picture of a man named Richard.....well you get the jest.

I'm not certain what's going on here, but it does seem a bit...controversial; and by the way, thanks, Marlene! You're a peach!

Oh for (insert generic non-deity)'s sake! We wouldn't want anyone to actually say anything interesting!

Gee Marlene, as artists we tend to think close to home and about our environment. However... a few years back when China was on a purge against the Falun Gong they sentenced an artist to prison for painting... a flower. In some way this represented resistance against the Communist State.It is difficult for most of us here to think of controversial art that doesn't contain elements of sex, politics, or religion.

Methinks Doctor Drew's brain-droppings are as cryptic as his artwork; 'tis a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

No doubt, he has put the Type 40, Mark 1 d'TARDIS to much good use. ;-)

Patrick, you really need to stop hounding. Your obsessing dude! Your IP address has left it's mark all throughout my portfolio. Take ten deep breaths (not near the turpentine ) and say to yourself Alm......Alm. .....

Sorry you missed the humor, Drew. Perhaps I may have been too...cryptic?

PS: My sincere apologies, Drew; though I tried not to track too much mud through your portfolio as I went in search of some artwork that I might acquire, alas...there was none for sale.

Here's a design that appears in my new film that is intended to be controversial. As Ronald suggested, there's lotz of room for interpretation.

BTW: Patty, you're still hounding!

Yes, Kevin, however this discussion started based on the OP question of our own personal experience. ;)

Ron, I have no problems at all with layers...it's the mainstay of several of my series, just to clarify m previous comments. Lots of confusing layers just make for more confusion.

Well, in my personal experience I have never done jail time for any art I made. Though perhaps I should have. Eh, eh.

When it comes to art, one man's confusion is another mans enlightenment. We can't say we are for freedom of artistic expression and then as soon as we encounter art we don't like or we find personally offensive we attack it or cry foul or discredit the artist or worse request that the art be censored or banned.

Kevin, what are you in for?

This is one that I had a comment on on another site. Actually an unfriendly email. They thought the middle was a drowning baby?

Nice work Dan! Wonder what they were drinking!?

I have noi idea. And to manipulate a fractal like this takes time, and examining every detail. This was the first fully manipulated fractal I did.

It's in my nature, Drew, as I am most definitely a Bluetick Coonhound who, like you, has learned a great deal about the dynamics of figure drawing by studying the work of Burne Hogarth.

I'd have to go in for the crime of making bad art.

I don't believe that for a minute Kevin.

Sorry Kevin you would get time off for good behavior.

My wife thinks I violate the laws of nature by painting myself. Sigh.

Isn't that dangerous?

Maybe if you painted her too, she would be more accepting?

Yes, some see the image below as an anti war piece....Hey, I didn't write "All Quiet on the Western Front."

Robert you crack me up.lol

Robert, I love that image. Dan I have painted my wife many times starting 41 years ago. Some she likes, some not so much. I love her 50th year portrait, she does not. For some reason, which she can not explain my own self portraits as famous people irritate the dickens out of her. Go figure.

Abbie, I am working on one you are sure to identify with. Stay tuned.

Robert,

I know some Marines that probably wouldn't care for the title you've assigned to the image.

Titles are interesting. I think you can take an innocent image and title it in such a way as to create major controversy. Image is the same, title changes perception.

Ronald, you are so correct. Because of your thread I have given this a lot of thought. The images and the titles of much of my work are often based on 3 things: art history, literature, and popular culture. This leads to the fact that if one has no understanding of those 3 things, then they can only respond to the image on its own. In a way it is like showing a full format movie on TV with the sides cut off, it's still a good movie, but you miss a lot.

And Greg, Robert did not create the person, he merely captured the moment. If the Marines were to become upset, they should reach out to her and not be irritated with the art.

Ronald, so true!

Closing this thread think it has died out. Thanks everyone, gave me a lot to think about!