Michelle Obama Watch

This “artist” should be ashamed! Certainly he can’t think he is bringing substance back by attacking two, innocent little girls. The world would be outraged if this was Chelsea or any of John McCain’s daughters. I am outraged and hope the white, feminist activists that were supporting Hillary Clinton are equally outraged at a baseless attack on this man’s daughters. The biggest problem with racism in this country has been white man’s fear or jealously over the perceived sexual prowess of the black man, thus the shielding of white women’s tender womanhood and the abusing of black women for the white males sexual exploits. This is one of the highest forms of terrorism and the artist owes Senator and Mrs. Obama a personal, public apology as well as an apology to Sasha and Malia.

About Chelsea Clinton – I’m pretty sure he would have. Not ‘nappy headed’ but “dog/horse faced ho” or something.

The point is that it doesn’t matter. It’s wildly inappropriate no matter who it is, but YES, that he’s targeting young girls is extreme. And no ‘dialogue’ will come out of this beyond progressives rightly mentioning how wrong it is and racists/sexists saying we all ‘can’t take a joke.”

Sigh.

About Chelsea Clinton – I’m pretty sure he would have. Not ‘nappy headed’ but “dog/horse faced ho” or something.

Nancy is right. Chelsea didn’t have an easy time in the White House and continues to be a target of the weak-minded and cruel. I’m not sure why the poster brought her specifically into this.

This is unbelievable to me, and makes me nauseous. Thank Goddess you’re on it. Well done and I salute you and will do whatever I can to send more visitors to your wonderful (and beautiful) site! Congratulations!

I’m a white feminist who didn’t support Hillary Clinton, but who tracked the sexism and misogyny flung at her and Chelsea, on at least one occasion, during her campaign. I got here from Shakesville. And I am apalled, but not surprised. I’ll be back to watch for what the skunky press and blogosphere try with Michelle Obama and her daughters. Thanks for keeping everyone posted.

How cowardly. A person who would dare to pick on innoncent children as a means to spew hatred.

I truly believe in Karma, and cant wait to see this bite you in the ass.

Way to go please keep us informed

That just made me cry. And it’ll throw water on the wingnuts’ mills because, even if it’s ironic and made by a black artist with reputation, it’ll become disappropriated and cited in a non-ironic context.

I’m an artist and I am sick and tired of people calling whatsoever they will art. That is NOT art. That is crossing the line. This guy is obviously trying hard to get publicity. I agree that other things should be considered when assessing a work of art but putting a caption above two little girls referring to them as hos is extreme. I don’t care what your point it. It’s sick. It’s a shame and the art world should be ashamed. I know as an artist I am deeply, regretfully ashamed that the plights and arguments against art censorship have spiraled to a point that now allows artists to be disrespectful, thoughtless and cruel….and in some twisted way still have the audacity to call this tragedy art! Sasha and Malia, you are beautiful little girls and I would be honored to paint you as such!!!!

This artist is a coward to target innocent children. How low will people go? This is sickening

It was only a matter of time before this would happen. It doesn’t matter if this was suppose to be an “ironic” stance or commentary that ignites “conversation.” Increasingly, art has lost the ability to illuminate the everydayness of ordinary life. Instead, most of modern art has lowly stooped to shock value. How much artistic value or work did the artist actually do? The artist essentially reproduced the work of another and then ran commentary to it. Voila! Cheap art masquerading as something deep or introspective.

Isn’t interested how “nappy headed hos” has come to mean black women in general. And who began this? Black men; young black men who have raged against black women for years in hip-hop music and culture. Now, whites and people, like Don Imus, use the term with license because, after all, blacks (meaning black men) are saying it.

When people referred to Bill Clinton as the “first black president,” I said in a Salon posting, what does that make Hillary? “The First Bitch?” I was trying to be sarcastic. Then I read how a MSNBC reporter claimed that Hillary was pimping out Chelsea.

But you see, it is so easy for us men to be cavalier about these kinds of remarks. I was wrong and no one probably even knows about my obscure posting. But you see how cynical we have become when a candidate’s wife and children are used for political and so-called artistic purposes.

That exhibit proves what I’ve already knew: that art is dead.

And so is the soul of the person who produced it.

i would like to know the artists name so we can no longer help him profit from the garbage he called art.

He is no artist.

Just a racist attention seeking ne-erdowell.

He is to be pitied. I refuse to let him manipulate my emotions.

We must keep our focus on real issues at hand, and not be distracted by low level creeps.

Peace & out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He ain’t worthy of our ange

I agree it’s tasteless, but I find the caption crowing about the limits of free speech to be more than a little disturbing. Free speech is free speech, no matter how tasteless. Of course folks have a right to say whatever they want in response, as long it’s not “you’re under arrest.”

here are photos of the entire exhibition:
http://www.theassassinationofbarackobama.com/

here’s part of the curatorial statement:

The installation explores the figurative, but highly effective attempts by the American populace to assassinate Barack Obama’s reputation during his historic candidacy for president. Reflecting the sentiment that no one is without blame or responsibility, Arboleda shows the extreme effects of a society intent on castrating anyone in power.

it should be clear to anyone viewing the images that the artist deliberately took things he saw in the media to an extreme TO MAKE A POINT about obama’s treatment in the media.

i do agree with the commenter above that the image with the little girls could be misappropriated by the right. and it was probably a bad idea for the artist to use that image.

but the hysteria with which this exhibition has been greeted by presumably obama-supporting commenters is ridiculous and shameful.

@ ngard1035

Free speech is NOT an absolute. If you read the First Amendment, the constitutional protection of free speech means that the government cannot curtail your right to political speech. Just as you cannot shout “fire” in a crowded room, there are limits to free speech. I’ve always find it interesting that when it comes to demeaning black women, people who appear to be members of the hip hop generation (“ngard” as “nigga”?), always hind behind the First Amendment.

As a writer, I don’t believe in government censorship, but the F.A. isn’t an absolute and communities have a righ to express their outrage. Even if that means saying, “You’re under arrest.” So, what you’re saying, Ngard? Is that it is okay to trash another man’s children for the right of free speech?

Is it any wonder, as been reported by the media, that there is a high rate of abuse, domestic violence, against black women. Why? Because they are “nappy headed hos.”

Excuse me, but let exercise some free speech. Free Speech has become the banner of cowards in this society, especially on the Internet. It took no serious thought or artistic execution for the alleged artist to trash a father and his two daughters. Why? Because of free speech. With freedom comes responsibilty. Where’s the responsibility? Just what was this suppose to convey? What dialogue? What conversation?

People like myself are getting tired of gutless artists trashing innocent people. Oh, the Obama girls will probably not have to deal this in their lives, but I know there are countless girls who get trashed because they have proscribed as “nappy headed hos,” “hood rats,” “skanks” by the men in their lives: fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, lovers, not so lovers, and given how warped people are, they are probably called this by countless women who have internalized these same values protected by free speech.

When free speech began as a concept it was ushered by people who wanted to say things in the public sphere as form of self-correction, but where prohibited by the power of the state or by common mores. Free speech has just become another trite phrase in our cynical postmodern time, much like “diversity.”

But no, free speech, which I support, is now a convenient banner for unimaginative, nigorant cowards to hide behind. As I said before, it’s questionable if the “artist” even produced the work. More than likely, he just copy the photo and then sprayed the legend.

Why? Obama is soooo current, and why not trash a father holding his little “nappy headed” daughters? The artist will get his notice and rep, right?

After all, he’s protected by free speech?

This is just really bad, and the First Amendment has nothing to do with it. This guy is just not a good artist. By going way overboard with the offensiveness of the pieces in the show he has effectively killed his alleged artistic intent, to “raise substantive dialogue”. Rather than use comments and things that have actually been used against Obama, he beat everyone to the punch by going lower than anyone in the media ever could. He makes the subtle, insidious racism that has run throughout this political season seem inconsequential and unimportant – hey, it’s not so bad when you compare it to this stuff, right? I went to art school, and in a lot of my work I really did try to “raise substantive dialogue” about my subjects, by using their own words to illustrate the disturbing undercurrent of their messages and philosophy. (Click on my name to see my work for examples, and you can judge for yourself if I’ve actually succeeded in doing that.) I made a conscious decision not to use my own ‘interpretation’ of what they meant or add anything to their ideas – it completely defeated the point.

This is not sour grapes. At the moment I’m not really interested in pursuing a career as an artist. I’m just appalled that this fame-whore of an ‘artist’ would do something like this. Here’s a hint – if the subject of a piece like that is TOO YOUNG TO COMPREHEND YOUR ARTISTIC INTENT and the various complexities therein, DON’T USE THEM. Find someone else to demonstrate your horrendous lack of taste on. If I had presented this show to people at my college, they would have ripped it to shreds. (Figuratively, at least.)

“There’s so much media time spent on superficial things — like celebrities. My point is to bring substance back.”
Really, Mr. Controversial Artist? Because instead of discussing the issues here, we’re talking about you. And something tells me that’s exactly what you wanted, regardless of what your artist’s statement may say.

I’ve read all of these comments before. I’ve read them on conservative blogs about artwork they don’t like. It seems overwrought and out of place when conservatives do it and it seems overwrought and out of place when I see it here.

Nothing is new under the sun.

Scorn and condemnation will probably not change this artist or his future work. Reacting like this, most likely, simply teaches him that he has struck a nerve in a serious way and should seriously consider doing more work in this vein. Oh, it will take on a slightly different form or select a slightly different subject but you are currently feeding the fire of what you dislike.

“Too dull/unoriginal to comment on..” followed by praise of different artist is usually the best way to react to an artist or artwork you despise.

As to the free speech point, we only have a right to free speech as it pertains to government actions to curtail speech or punish us for our speech. It has nothing at all to do with private actors. So, it is no violation of this artist’s right to free speech for the gallery to close his exhibit or for people to express outrage or even to argue that the artist should not have done what he did. If the government shut down his gallery, then an argument based on the 1st amendment would be justified.

That said, I think often artists are in their own little bubble and do not understand how to communicate. I believe the artist here may have been trying to make a valid point about the media, but his execution was all off. I think the mark of a good artist is being able to communicate your message and having that message understood. If your delivery of that message causes unintended outrage and offense, visceral disgust (as in the case of the Yale art student who purportedly videotaped herself inseminating herself and inducing abortions and later put the results of those abortions in plastic as her “art”), or is plain not understood by anyone, you are no better than a teacher speaking Urdu to a class of English only speakers—completely ineffective.

It is unfortunate that this artist is allowed to get away with copyright infringement. The photo of the Obama children did not originate with this artist as the photographer. In defense of U.S. Statute Title 17 which outlines the crime, the punishment and remedies for this violation, a lawsuit should be considered by the original photographer who is considered the copyright owner if he did not sell or give the rights away.
Nevertheless, the only way to stop this madness is to take legal action and maybe it will deter the next idiot from trying to perpetrate such evil as art. May the artist beware and the thieves get their just do!

This guy is a perfect example of all that’s wrong with the art world. It’s just talentless, vicious attention-seeking.

Stop excusing bad behavior! You don’t mess with people’s children unless you want a good old fashioned beat down fool! If you read the responses on his website you see a few from folks who claim to know him and think pretty badly of him.
Being and “artist” doesn’t give you free rain to attack somebody’s kids! If his a– comes to my town with an exhibit, I’m going to take a picket sign out in front and do my part to blast this fool!

Hey everyone, this artist didn’t really put any of this in a gallery and the so-called gallery at the exhibit website is fictional. The artist made the whole thing up.

See this article:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/assassination-artists-trail-of-deception/

These pictures of the girls, the book cover, the other stuff is something he put up after the fake websites. He bought storefront space (not a real gallery) and paid for it himself to put this up for two days and draw attention to himself as an artist.

When I first saw it, the message I got was “racism is alive and well and no Black girl or women is ever outside of it–even these daughters of a powerful Black man.” I thought the artist was sort of trying to say that, but mostly trying to get attention.

Turns out he was pretty much exclusively trying to get attention. I am a complete supporter of freedom of speech and what not, and I think the best thing to do with something like this is give it the bad review it deserves as somewhat unimaginative and egomaniacal.

I too am the mother of young, Black daughters and yes, it just hurts to see that picture. It even hurt when I thought the artist was probably trying to be sympathetic (in an albeit painful way). Now that I know it was more or less a publicity stunt by a mediocre artist, it makes me mad.

Still, it’s really nothing but bad art. We shouldn’t let it distract us from actually working to change the country for the better for the women and girls who are such easy targets for uncreative people.

One more thing, how did this not get any press? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the condemnation? Where’s the mainstream media? If this were the Bush twins or the McCain kids or Chelsea Clinton (remember all hell broke loose when her appearance was mocked on Saturday Night Live) there would be a national outcry.

My hope is they refrained from giving this man the press he so obviously craves to stick it to him. I’ve noticed the media being very careful not to let some of the viler expressions of racism get the limelight, probably wisely. We haven’t seen such discretion from the press since the years before Nixon.

Now that I think of it, I’m glad they aren’t reporting it more widely, it can only hurt Obama to be seen as a figure of fun. There is no upside for him with this story getting out and the artist in question really is small potatoes. But revenge is sweet and now the “artist” is still anonymous and a pariah, well done jackass.