what do you think of this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_re_us/people_angelina_s_painting_1
2007-01-06 22:43:39 · 12 answers · asked by pianitta 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
well its for a modern and contemporary art,so that is the artist
perception of a 'modern-'virgin Mary'-and this is how she conceived,she has 3 kids -probably meaning her real mother side
and spiritual side,because 2 of them are her sons but adopted
and the one she had herself, is a nice portrait,
2007-01-07 17:26:33 · answer #1 · answered by Byzantino 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it quite is too undesirable the artist did no longer have a sparkling sufficient imaginitive and prescient to truly imbue the portray with a message. The portray is like notes jotted interior the margin...a jumble of suggestions that circulate nowhere. And...the artist never meant to make a right away assessment to Angelina and the Virgin. Angelina's pretense interior the portray is her own and not in any respect indicative of Mary. Being interior the clouds and donning childrens does no longer propose that she's meant to be mary.
2016-12-12 05:57:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think of any painting of Jolie as the virgin to be kitsch at best. I would put more ummmph behind my feelings on the matter ,but I dont have the energy. Until the history of men is seriously alterred and a very large book is written that changes how humanity functions henceforth I will refuse to consider Angolina as anything other than a self absorbed billboard face. Curses to the artist that painted her as anything but (how limited his/her mind).
2007-01-09 13:52:06 · answer #3 · answered by Gary P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No where did Kate Kretz say she portrayed Jolie as The Virgin Mary.
Oh--- by the way, Arlene, she is an accomplished artist. Her work goes on tour across the country in art shows and exhibits, etc., so this isn't just something to get attention. I bet there are a lot of very good artist that you have never heard of... (and me too for that matter!)
2007-01-06 23:59:08 · answer #4 · answered by Edith Piaf 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think it is nothing unusual, Celebrities usually end up in nativity scenes.
I remember there was a painting of an year or 2 ago which had Beckham, Victoria and their son as Joseph, Mary and Baby Jesus, and Hindus in UK had protested when a painting showing posh as Parvati, Beckhamas Shiva and their son as Ganesha had been displayed in a London Art gallery. Mind you, Ganesha has the face of an elephant. Poor child! PAinted as an obese god of auspicious beginnings.
I wonder, I heard something like, lies becom legends and legends become faith. or somethinglike that. A thousand years from now, when people unearth that painting, they might take it as a real photo of virgin mary or something like that.
2007-01-06 22:58:04 · answer #5 · answered by shrek 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The artist indicates she was trying to make a point about the public's 'worship' of celebrities. The painting show talent, but I think it's just another attempt to get attention. Who'd even heard of her before this? And now she's getting all kinds of buzz. I guess if I were Catholic, I'd be offended, but lots of artists in history have done stuff to offend people. I think it was just an attention getter.
2007-01-06 23:52:17 · answer #6 · answered by Arlene06 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I hate it! She is far from being a saint. I know what the artiest is trying to do by showing how people worship the famous but all I felt when I saw this panting is anger. I feel that it is blasphemies.
Virgin Mary...My ***.
2007-01-07 05:24:08 · answer #7 · answered by toniawengel 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
if it was a painting of AJ as a virgin she must have been about 10.
2007-01-06 22:46:26 · answer #8 · answered by BUSHIDO 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I doubt Mary had plastic surgery
2007-01-06 22:48:31 · answer #9 · answered by webby 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stop posting about this stupid painting. There are already 3 other posts about it. The half-wits sure come out when it's something about Wal-Mart.
2007-01-07 01:08:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋