http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070105/480/wxs10301051909
by Kate Kretz-- She expresses how the public worships celebrities. I think it is an excellent analogy and an eye opener. This painting reminds me that celebrities are not Gods to be worshipped. I think that is the point she is trying to make in this painting. No where does the artist suggest that Jolie is the Virgin Mary. What she is trying to point out is that people worship celebrities as though they WERE worthy of praise like God. So, if when you saw this painting and immediately thought it was a portrayal of The Virgin Mary, maybe you better check yourself, too!
2007-01-07 00:11:15 · 12 answers · asked by Edith Piaf 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
PLEASE READ BEFORE REPLYING!
2007-01-07 00:48:57 · update #1
*sigh of relief* you are my hero...all night i have seen nothing but questions about how the woman who painted it was disrespecting the virgin mary and everything else....thank you for having been one of the only ones to take the time and read and understand what the painting was about.....
2007-01-07 00:15:14 · answer #1 · answered by dreamzindigital_20 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is an ey opener. Yeah she was strange for a while but she has always helped out other places before she adopted her son from Cambodia. I really think that the things she does are good however when the entire world is anticipating her first biological childs birth and waiting every moment and making it like it is the event of the century then there is a problem. They wanted privacy not to be the center of attention. Of course she took that oppurtunity to donate to charity. The first family pictures were taken and the money that was given to them was donated. Which I think is strange because shouldn't they be paying the photographer? Anyways I think it's great and in no way disprespects God or the Virgin Mary (which we shouldn't be worshipping anyways, respect yes pray to no) and for her to be above a wal mart is even better it just kind of puts things into perspective. I think it says this is cheap worship of a person who is not worthy of praise.
2007-01-07 00:24:18 · answer #2 · answered by WINGS 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The next callogen treatment will render the painting obsolete.
Seriously, I disagree with you. We don't really worship celebrities, we are voyers. The types of magazine and tabloid articles that actually sell are the ones that are continually showing the faults and embarrassments of celebrities.
(I wonder why the painting chose the baby adoption thing rather than a picture of an epic battle between Angelina and Jennifer complete with swords and armor and Brad standing in the wings as the prize?)
2007-01-07 00:48:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
in accordance to a piece of writing written by applying the painter: On her blog, Kretz, 40 3, suggested the portray addresses "the celeb worship cycle." She suggested she chosen Jolie for the subject "via fact of her unavoidable presence interior the media, the international anticipation of her toddler, her 'inconceivable' attractiveness and the sturdy that she is doing interior the international with the aid of her occasion, which provides yet another layer to the already complicated questions surrounding her status." The painter believes those features deem her equipped to the Virgin Mary discern interior the portray. in spite of the shown fact that, it quite is greater to coach the ridiculous compliment, time and obsession the final public has with celebrities and different such figures.
2016-12-12 06:01:06 · answer #4 · answered by fechter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, We have to think ...the only reason we like celebrities is because they are in a place we all wish to be. As for angelina Jolie..and her 'humanitarian' ways...PLEASE ok...the only reason she started doing this is because she KNOWS the media will react around her like so and keep in mind...she was a MESS and a media nightmare for years. Sure she is a beautiful looking woman....BIG deal...she wore a vial of blood around her neck and made out with her brother and all of a sudden she adopts her first kid from Cambodia ....and BAM....the virgin Mary...
2007-01-07 00:16:07 · answer #5 · answered by Jene 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it is a cute editorial cartoon, but of limited artistic merit. Look at it once for a minute and you have gleaned every possible nuance from it.
This "art" might have graced the august pages of Mad Magazine, but asking $60K for this daubing is absurd.
2007-01-07 00:22:43 · answer #6 · answered by Grendle 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Now when the "Virgin Mary" became a semi-goddess?
Why in John 2:4 Jesus calls Mary simply "woman", He never calls her as queen,virgin, goddess or a recognized person.
2007-01-07 00:32:05 · answer #7 · answered by Cranberrydude 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Although I've read what the artist has to say about it, I still think it's gaudy and cartoonish. Certainly not worth the asking price.
2007-01-07 00:22:42 · answer #8 · answered by Patricia S 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
is a beautiful painting no doubt, but i find it disgusting that one would paint something that they know is going to get media attetion, the probably did it for a profit..reading in yahoo news that they're planning to sell the painting for 50 thousand dollars.
2007-01-07 08:46:06 · answer #9 · answered by orange 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a piece of crap and why oh why are the idiots giving it even more publicity?
2007-01-07 01:07:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋