President Bush as groping fratboy
» Just Plain Funny
The photograph confronts anyone walking through the lobby of Lehigh University's humanities building: a man who could be President George Bush's identical twin smirks for the camera, his left hand touching a woman in a negligee.
Groping 'president' sparks fury
In an essay accompanying the exhibit, called "The Forbidden Pictures, A Political Tableau," Fink makes clear the target of his satire. He says the 2000 presidential election was stolen, criticizes the "fundamentalist neoconservative conspiracy" and calls Bush a "frat boy with charisma."
Students object to art exhibit at Pennsylvania university, claim liberal bias
The artist’s statement about the exhibit, which is located in Maginnes Hall and on the brochure for the exhibit, explains that the pictures were originally going to be published in The New York Times Magazine on September 16, 2001. Due to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the photos were pulled. Fink attempted to have the photos published elsewhere had no success.
Maginnes artwork stirs nationwide controversy
[Neil]Hoffman also criticized Fink for depicting women as ''sex symbols.'' He particularly objected to a picture of garish, dazed prostitutes at a table scattered with miniature elephants, intended by Fink as a parody of the Republican Party mascot.
University Republicans protest Bush satirical exhibit
Comments
I think free speech is great; and art as a medium of communication fantastic. Unquestionably, you have passion, and I salute that.
I despair at the downward spiral in our nation in which mud and innuendo seem to be winning over truth and conviction. And the approach is the same on both sides of our polarized political system, and in your presentation.
In my opinion, your views lose all credibility as they pivot on a lie. It is not our president in the photo, and claims that “Everyone knows that” notwithstanding, isn’t doesn’t your exhibit depend on the deception to draw viewers? As you are exposed to the same pseudo-facts masquerading as news as I am, will you not reconsider the validity of your complaint, or at least its presentation, if it is founded on sensational, but untruthful, content?
The freedom that we share in which you can express your passion is a wonderful thing. But can good ultimately come from political (social and economic, too) platforms based on falsehoods? Does the end justify the means?
Don’t we end up in a situation where the best liar wins? If you divorce yourself for a moment from the controversy surrounding your display, what do you think?
-Ian
Posted by: Ian | February 26, 2004 9:10 AM
But the best liar DID win, and he’s sitting in the White House. :) I think this exhibit is very savvy to the idea of political debate being contaminated by lies — or being a playing field where the best liar / manipulator wins — and that’s its main comment. How could we not recognize this when televised propaganda is ever more crudely Photoshopped together, like the images of Palestinians “celebrating” the 9/11 disaster broadcast on CNN that were actually borrowed from a completely different event.
I get so tired of these discussions of negative depictions of Bush (as in the news article) that fail to acknowledge he is a public figure who wields enormous power over others — not your next door neighbour’s mom who drives a forklift. And lots of artists made (deserved) visual fun of Clinton, like Public Enemy.
What makes this picture funny and very telling and standing reality on its head is that the Bush team routinely construct images for propaganda purposes, but we have this one exhibit with this one image and people are outraged, shocked, scandalized. It’s just not propaganda in the direction we’re used to hearing it.
Censuring the artist for biased propaganda is calling for unilateral disarmament. Republicans should know better.
Posted by: Oxygen Smith | February 27, 2004 7:34 AM