Jesus, Soldiers, and Children Over Here -- Satan, Liberals, and Darwinists Over Here

[filkertom]

The Huffington Post informs us about a painting by Jon McNaughton, inspired by a vision he had last year. "One Nation Under God" has some fascinating ideas on who would be associated with either Jesus or Satan, and why.

A slightly different interp of the same painting can be found here. There's also this one, showing what members of Jesus' team actually said about religion.

And then there's the Cthulhu version (gory).

Thoughts?

Comments

[ororo.livejournal.com]

I'm really tired of the media being called liberal. Some is, some isn't. Most is owned by Big Business, which is on the whole rather conservative. I very much like the alternate interpretations.

I wish we could rewrite the first amendment to include "freedom from religion."

[lizziecrowe.livejournal.com]

Why I am a founding member of the First Church of Leave Each Other The Hell ALONE.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I still love that "Pregnant Woman" is with Satan's side... even though she wants to keep the baby.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

No wedding ring. Preggers with no husband is a one-way ticket to eternal damnation in his book. After the baby is born, of course.

[allandaros.livejournal.com]

Eh. Guy had a dream, made a painting about it. Said guy has political and social views different from me, and you (and likely most of the readers of this blog). Understandably, said guy's political/social views will affect his work, if he's basing it off a dream with political/social content.

The Shortpacked version is good stuff.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

First thought:

I can split the figures in this painting into two types: Specific people, and generic representatives of a group.

Specific people are always viewed in a positive light. Generic representatives are the only source of negative figures. This reflects the artist's tendency to view people whose positions he opposes as caricatures, rather than individuals, and the general tendency of all people to do this.

[smittythesmith.livejournal.com]

Or how about these two categories? People who can sue for defamation of character and people (or non-people) who can't.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

I prefer the Cthulhu version.

Of interest to me are the competing lists of quotes from the Founders. The commentary on shortpacked.com gives quotes wherein the Founders are positive and reverential to the Creator, while the "Jesus' team quotes" point out that most of the same speakers held Christianity in complete disdain. Would that the difference was easier to explain to the average American.

[shrewreader.livejournal.com]

I'm actually -most- appalled by the way that this guy's 'one nation' is all white -- except for a single black soldier, and a single black astronaut type person.

Apparently no Asians, hispanics or native Americans need apply to enter the melting pot recipe in Jesus' cookbook.

*gags*

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

No, no... the blacks are very, very hidden in the far back.

It's really easy to miss Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, the "Black Union Soldier", and Sequoyah.

[tomreedtoon.livejournal.com]

The recent Real Time with Bill Maher had a New Rule about it. To quote:

"New Rule. God needs to inspire better artists. Y'know, the Lord used to inspire people like Michelangelo and Rembrandt. Now, He inspires cheeseballs like John McNaughton, whose latest masterpiece depicts Jesus handing America the Constitution as a bunch of dead patriots look on. It's like Where's Waldo for Wingnuts."

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

Oh a lot of thoughts. I'm still waiting to have some big wig explain to me where the separation and church and state is. (Or do I have that part wrong) I've mostly gotten over the idea that the Constitution is somehow divinely inspired.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

It's the merger of ideas like "non-establishment of religion", "equal treatment under the law", "no religious test for public office", etc that you will find in the Constitution and related official documents.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I am appalled at how conservative christians think they are the only real Americans and patriots. The same people who claim that conservative philosophy embraces individual rights and freedoms. Right, as long as you exercise them in ways they approve of.

But why would a Union soldier side with Jesus? Jesus believed in slavery and the Union opposed it. Jon McNaughton needs to read his bible.

Right, as long as you exercise them in ways they approve of.

[bruinson.livejournal.com]

It is not just the christians or conseritives.

I commented on a couple posts here and in I got challanged for defending his views (which I never did). I guess since I was not jumping on the bashing trend on the art, man, his religion, other religions, race, etc. it was taken a defending his views. If I would have posted, "It sucks, hang the nutjob!" I doubt I would have gotten a comment.

On the other hand. Jesus knew slavery was a part of the world at the time he lived. He talked a couple times about the relationship a slave and master should have. But "believed in" as in advocated is a stretch. Besides people that have believed in Christ (or at least professed to) have done a lot of things (often to other Christians) that Jesus spoke against.

[cernowain.livejournal.com]

McNaughton is a Mormon. If he can believe that Jesus gave a divine book to the Native Americans, then he is capable of believing that Jesus gave the Constitution to the Founding Fathers.

Even though historical evidence shows that the Constitution was actually a work of human compromise, its his religious right to believe otherwise.

It's not only offensive to people of other faiths (and those of no faith), the work is a total figment of ignorant imagination.

I give it five pukes out of five.

bb,

Cern

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

What I found funniest was the Professor's resemblance to Bill Kraus (http://www.mckellen.com/images/5006.jpg) from the film And the Band Played On.

Oh, Ian McKellen, you were kind of hot in that movie.

Love the Shortpacked version. Think I will be sharing that on Facebook. Thanks for the links!

[amazingadrian.livejournal.com]

I think this is a sign.

I think it portends the end of America.

[bruinson.livejournal.com]

Beacuse an artist painted a picture with symbolism you don't like?!?

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

What surprises me is that the image of Jesus makes him look northern European. As far as anyone knows, he looked like a present-day Middle Easterner--black haired, a bit dark skinned. Like an Arab, in other words. Aesthetically, what I find odd is how much of the symbolism of the painting cannot be comprehended visually--without the artist's explanation, or extensive study of current US culture, no-one would know what the artist meant, even after long study of the work.

[bruinson.livejournal.com]

Did you look at in and not think that guy in the center is Jesus. If so than you understood what he wanted you to. I find it funny that you get nit picky about one of the artists symbols, a symbolic representation of Jesus though ethnicly wrong commonly reconized in America, but then complain that you needed other explained.

So an artist should only use universal symbolism? Popycock. If you don't get it so what. I wasn't going to count the stars to know that there were 50. He wanted to make sure you recognised Jesus, he probably didn't care if you knew there were 50 stars or knew why the tree has seven branches.

[salkryn.livejournal.com]

Wait, I'm a liberal Darwinist soldier...where do I go?

[misterseth.livejournal.com]

A few questions come to mind...
-Why is Lincoln kneeling like Al Jolsen?
-It's bad enough that Douglas, Tubman, and the Union soldier are in the back, but the artist failed to include King, Malcolm X, or Rosa Parks!
-Some stars shine brighter than others? That reminds me of Animal Farm...
-Christie McAuliffe. I have no objection to having her in the painting per se, I'm just upset that the other six astronauts who perished during the Challenger disaster were not included (one of them, Gregory Jarvis, grew up where I lived)

There is more, but this is all I'd like to point out for now...

[bruinson.livejournal.com]

Actually if you read his explainations he originally had MLK Jr but had to paint the soldier over him due to the King Foundation and copyright issues. Probably inspired the Lawyer counting his cash.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Meh, it can't all be Norman Rockwell.

[jenrose]

I just love how the handicapped child has ZERO written below it, it serves only as something for the pregnant woman to point at. WTF.

I found it rather asinine.

[caraig.livejournal.com]

Blasphemy.

Complete, utter, total blasphemy. This painting, while technically well-done (and in a past life, would have been quite inspiring) is... it's....

A moment. I feel the sudden urge to gnaw my internet connection off at the demarc. Thank heavens I looked at the Shortpacked version instead of the original....

[caraig.livejournal.com]

P.S. Whoa, 'gory' doesn't even begin to describe the Cthulhu version!

[dragon-avatar.livejournal.com]

<3 to the Cthulhu version. Kidnapped and will be used for future icon goryness.

[bruinson.livejournal.com]

Its a painting. There are thousands made every day. It has religous and political symbolism so people are going to bitch if it doesn't closely match their own views. The only difference about this one is somehow it got media exposure where millions of others don't so there is more bitching. A lot of the commenters IMO are being overly dramatic.

[cernowain.livejournal.com]

Why are you defending this distortion of history? I agree he has the right to express himself, but you don't think we can be critical of his lapse from reality?

I actually think many of the comments here are tame.

bb,

Cern

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

Honestly I'm not terriblly comfortable with most paintings of Jesus in the first place. Many of them have overlooked the fact that Jesus was, aside from the Christ, a Jewish carpenter and rabbi. He would have worn the prayer shawl, and had the other visual cues of this. (I don't really know any others aside from the long sideburns)

Things like the seven periods of dispensation are a matter of debate within the Christian community and I can't really speak to that.

The central theme that God has blessed the United States is one I can get behind, though that really shouldn't surprise anyone. Most Christians feel that way about America and a lot of them express it artisticly, whether through song, poem, story or painting.

There are always going to be disagreements over things like Darwinism, Supreme Court decisions, and the like. What's important is that we not denigrate and insult one another just because we have a point of departure on a given issue.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Most US Christians...

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

This art is totally up there with such religious iconography as "Crucified Santa Claus" (Japan) and the "'Choose Life' Elfquest" elves (some pro-life Elfquest fan).

...Yeah. It's hard to believe that the same God that inspired "Amazing Grace," the gorgeous architecture of mosques and the Sistine Chapel ceiling is the same God that caused people to write "Butterfly Kisses," build Heritage USA and paint "The Adoration of White American Jesus."

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't think I could tell the difference between divine inspiration and a potassium imbalance, and I don't think much of my ability to tell the difference between a prophetic dream and eating too much pizza the night before.

This may explain some of the differences in quality.

However, I should also point out that "Amazing Grace" is over three hundred years old, and that by this point, I'd expect that most of the bad music of that era has probably faded from memory. Three hundred years from now, people might remember the Beatles. Hanson, on the other hand, is probably not going to be so lucky.

Most buildings are cases of hiring the best artist available, rather than finding somebody who claims to be divinely inspired. And again, the unimpressive art isn't going to survive the centuries as often as the good stuff does.

Even assuming that your examples of dubious quality really were divinely inspired, it's reasonable to assume that God looked at the results, and muttered something about artistic interpretation ruining a perfectly good divine inspiration.

Don't like my painting? The problem is you.

[fredhuggins.livejournal.com]

I of course loooooove the way McNaughton chides US for interpreting his sacred painting "the wrong way." Like it's our damn fault. With all due respect Mr. McNaughton (in other words, none), fuck you. You are an artist, not a lawmaker, and part of the territory of art is that people WILL interpret your work however the fuck they want, and thus, in your estimation, MISinterpret it. If that REALLY bothers you, try making your work so simple that the dullest of dullards knows what's going on - many would consider that watering it down, while others consider the formidable feat of making EVERYONE feel the emotions you intend the height of artistic accomplishment (the Pixar films, for example, do this beautifully). Either way, the choice is yours, but you can't do both. Adding disclaimer-laden commentary to a painting that ALREADY HAS EXTENSIVE COMMENTARY runs the serious risk of underlining just how shitty an artist you are for not being able to express what you REALLY felt, if anything, through the art alone. That you were unable to explain your intended feelings in the wordy accompanying text is weaker still. Trying to force the "correct" emotions with a crowbar is unpleasant, and will more likely ALIENATE those who *thought* they agreed with you, and make your detractors detract even more.

Of course, the third option is to become confidently artistic enough to reach deep into your subconscious and pull out some ideas that even YOU don't quite know how to interpret. Listen to some They Might Be Giants lyrics and you'll know what I mean; I assure you that John & John are just as confused about the meaning of "Particle Man" as we are. That way, NOBODY'S interpretation is wrong, because the artist has become a vessel of expression, not an ego clamoring for Attention But Only The Good Kind Because You're The Specialest Little Boy Yes You Are.

I for one interpret a treacherous common thread in the painting - McNaughton doesn't seem to like people who think for themselves. Every revere-able figure in the painting is either Christ, a non-specific occupation ("the American soldier") or a historical figure of Christ-like legend. Nothing even the slightest bit controversial. Not even anything as silly as one single ENTERTAINER, one who might subtly preach the power of freedom through expression (unless you count Reagen, but he's not exactly there because of the monkey movie). People like Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Frank Zappa all mean far, FAR more to me about the true meaning of American freedom than, say, Teddy Roosevelt does, but I guess my viewpoint isn't important here. In your painting, Mr. McNaughton, the ENTIRE business of creativity, nay, of IMAGINATION itself, is represented only by the heartless corporate bastard who sees such imagination only for profit. The fact that you choose to completely ignore the contributions of the artists behind that profit (profit, by the way, in this case means the American people FUCKING LIKE IT) makes YOU every bit as detestable as the executive you depict. In this painting, any blind belief of the arbitrary laws of the Invisible Man In The Sky is rewarded, and any questioning thereof is punished. But funnily enough, this ONLY applies to God's ARBITRARY laws - you seem to have no problem at all with the soldier whose job is to violate that whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill" thingy.

Now, Mr. McNaughton, if you REALLY didn't want me to feel that "wrong" way, maybe it's your own damn fault for painting such images and expecting an instant mind-meld. This is America and you can paint whatever you want, but be a fucking MAN. Stop giving a shit what detractors like me think if you don't wanna hear it. Don't be a weak little bitch with your "no you didn't get what I was going for." BE. AN. ARTIST. And until you do, you have not earned my respect. To quote one of those Hollywood movies you hate so much, nut up or shut up.

Speaking of which, for a FAR more effective work of art about the power of religion upon humanity, I highly recommend you all go see "The Invention of Lying." I'm serious. You can't tell from the trailers and TV spots, but the second act of that movie is, bar none, THE greatest and funniest cinematic deconstruction of religion since "The Life of Brian."

[saganth.livejournal.com]

Tom, that Cthulhu version is about as nasty as the Zombie Last Supper painting:

http://www.cyberphobias.com/jesus_supper_zombie.jpg

[misterseth.livejournal.com]

Compare that to 'The Last Breakfast!"
http://www.howardhallis.com/bis/aub/aublastbreakfast.jpg

[smittythesmith.livejournal.com]

This kind of art, and art criticism, would be brutally stamped out if this was China. I'm glad we're not in China. For those of you posting from China (as if) I hope your anonymous proxies are working well. Praise God for America I say.