Monday, April 27, 2009

D'Antuono: Really?

by Smitty

Mark Hemingway at The Corner updates us on the micro-flap surrounding 'The Truth'

I will now play a watered-down version of "Really?" from SNL's Weekend Update with the response.
D'Antuono: Apparently, I've upset a lot of people. And I've decided that's not what I wanted to do and I'm not going to display it in the park on Wednesday
Really? Given the previous blowback over religious symbology alongside the POTUS, you're surprised? Really? Did you think the way perhaps somehow paved, sir?
D'Antuono: is meant to be somewhat provocative but the religious element went way farther than I had anticipated.
It would be really, really, helpful if you explained. Maybe you mean in the sense of Hebrews 10:24 "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works." I shall cheerfully wish you mean that.

Mark Hemingway:
When I pressed him about the religious iconography at play, he did seem to indicate that he'd been genuinely naive. [D'Antuono] "I know, I know — I did put 'im in a crown of thorns, right?,"
Really, D'Antuono? And people that know anything about Christianity are to overlook the arms spread not unlike those of one crucified, and the head bowed just so, eyes closed? Are you really as clueless as the Secretary of the Treasury on taxes? Is this a play to be put in charge of the National Endowment for the Arts, or something? Really.

Mark Hemingway:
...knowing full well that his ignorance seems hard to explain. As for the rest of the explained his own artistic vision for the painting, it certainly seems like he was sincere in trying to make a non-partisan statement:
D'Antuono: There were a lot of elements and they just all came together. The black veil that he's opening – or is he closing? Is he creating transparency in the presidency or is he closing the veil and shutting out the Right, governing his own way?
Are we really to believe that you think the Presidency of the United States boils down to some dude, a disk on the wall, and a curtain? Given your non-command of religious symbols held very closely by a huge chunk of the population, I daresay you've hit the nail on the thumb here, buddy.
The importance of any individual to the office of the Presidency was well characterized in 1787. Note the way they all but dragged the man who'd be first President out of retirement to preside at the convention wherein the office was created.
All of you wretched ones who'd deify BHO to offer hope to an otherwise meaningless existence should look to the genuine article. The only good that may come of this crap is to galvanize the Christians about what a cheap mockery this and other perversions of Christian symbolism are. The country would be well served if BHO spent half as much time going after conservative pundits defending the Constitution, and devoted the attention to these fawning sycophants.


  1. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. (Mt. 27:51a)

    Obama: The way of entry for the common man into the Most Holy Place.

  2. Meh. The painting itself is trite and hamfisted.
    But worst, it plays the easiest game around, which is baiting religious types into an uproar.
    I truly don't understand what the big deal is.
    I see it as fodder for those who use images like these to create a controversy for their own benefit. Ironically this applies to both the artist and demagogues.
    It reminds me of Rudy Giuliani and the Virgin Mary painting, which, to the chagrin of many of you, was not made of elephant dung and happened to be made by a self-professed Catholic.
    In any case, I still can't see what offends you guys about this painting. Is it Obama striking a Christ like pose?
    I'd think it was more of a parody of your silly "messiah" name-calling than an actual attack on Christianity.Or maybe it's a case of idolatry vs. iconoclasm. And last i checked only one of those is an actual sin as per the ten commandments.
    If you're going to fight, you should chose your battles wisely.

  3. @Y4E:
    "If you're going to fight, you should chose your battles wisely."
    Would that your wisdom had fed into D'Antuono's sense of taste. In love, I'll gently mock his lack thereof. Nor would I wish to tempt him to incite violence. Still, as a thought experiment, would he ever do something so silly with the Prophet? Again, it's no dare, but a "just sayin'".
    My question to you is, why does this guy get a free pass, when, if the artist had done something attacking, say, a perversion of marriage, then it might have been called "hate speech?" Is anti-Christianity moving up towards anti-Semitism on the acceptable ugliness scale?

  4. I've heard that the painting will no longer be slated for display in NYC's Union Square.

    I have been in contact with the curators of Grandpa John's Museum of Fine Art and they have told me that they will receive and display 'The Truth' if it is suspended in urine or some other cool, cutting edge medium.