Skip to main content

View Diary: Cover for TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" vs. Original Photograph. Note the Glaring Difference? (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  jeebus! WHERE do you folks come up with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal, Lestatdelc

    "vilify"?!?!?  

    that poster is ART! it is representative of ALL protesters, NOT just the woman on whom the poster was based!

    art means imagery. art is evocative.  art inspires thought.

    how about those on this site trying the latter instead of whining that the poster makes that poor girl look MEAN!

    this is NOT "propaganda" - it represents protesters around the world - and is very effective in including ALL protesters - even those who were willing to die for their causes.

    PEOPLE!  THINK!  define "ART" - look at the bigger picture and apply some brain cells! PLEASE!

    Is GlowNZ back yet?

    by edrie on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:10:39 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  oh, footnote: cindy, this isn't directed at you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla, SwedishJewfish

      personally, but to the totality of those here who have missed the big picture.

      i was in theatre for years - am an artist - understand full well the taking of a particular person, instance as a jumping off place for a greater point.

      this is one of those places where you and everyone else is supposed to expand your vision and apply it to a wider scope of understanding of exactly WHO is the "protester".

      symbolism.

      examples:  "waiting for godot" (godot is not a person, godot represents "god")

      "madwoman of chaillot" - the madwomen aren't just crazy killers, they represent the people and those they send to the basement are the "businessmen/corrupt businessment" who are stealing from the working people.

      "the neverending story" - the "great nothingness" represents apathy in hitler's early takeover of germany.

      that is just for plays and films - for "art" - look at great paintings and you won't find the name of the models on them, instead, you find the name of the inspired work.

      get out of the house, leave the computer, go to a museum and look at some paintings BEFORE you all start excoriating fairey, please!

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:15:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This "artwork" removed "99%" Marketing uses art (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo, Marie, splashy, prfb, LeftOverAmerica

        to sell ideas.  

        Time magazine et al. sold us the Iraq War by not questioning the lies and not covering the multitudes of protesters who took to the streets to prevent it.

        I have learned to not trust Time to tell us the truth, and this "art" job is no different.  There is no question that the woman is made to look angry and there is no question that her message, 99% of us are being bamboozled by Wall Street/1%/banksters/fraudsters, was removed for a reason which had absolutely nothing to do with art.

        I suggest that you think.

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:28:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And "99%" is very much an OWS "branding" (6+ / 0-)

          Do you think the person of the year should have been OWS? If that's the case, say so. Otherwise your comments make no sense to me. The subject here was the PROTESTOR, it did not specify what protestor, or what they were protesting against.

          R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
          October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

          by SwedishJewfish on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And that sign in the upper left corner (0+ / 0-)

          that reads PEOPLE POWER NOT IVORY TOWER that's just there to make us think Time is on our side when it's really against us. I think I understand your "thought process" now. Oh, and I think I used the quotation marks correctly.

        •  dear, i don't know how to break this to you, but (0+ / 0-)

          NO one is under the obligation to "tell you the truth" - it is YOUR obligation to do the research to FIND that truth - that means going to many sources, entertaining many opposing points of view as well as those you hold to be true - and THEN finding the common thread among them.

          that common thread is often where the truth lies... not in one extreme position or the other.

          lesson ended now... got to get back to work.

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 11:02:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  this "art job" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SwedishJewfish

          Your ignorance on Shepard Fairey and his "art job" has led me to an hours worth of reading Shepard Fairey articles and reviews... so for that I thank you.

          You're not the first one to criticize him for "marketing" his art, so I hope you don't believe you're criticism is remotely original. Here's what he wrote when asked about a sponsorship from Absolute Vodka.

          My theory on the hyper-scrutiny of sponsorship within the art community has to do with the idea that true art has no master but the artist. With art, the viewer wants purity, free of compromise, which is difficult to find anywhere else in society. Since the introduction of Pop Art, and the entrance into the Post-Modern era, the only distinction between “fine” and “commercial” art is not style but intent. The idea that art is the artist’s personal vision in no way tainted by a corporate agenda is central to the definition of “fine” art. Most artists would probably prefer to avoid sponsorship and the related issues it raises. Some artists have no choice but to use sponsorship to facilitate a project that could not happen otherwise. Artists are compelled to produce their work by any means necessary.

          And, as long as we're talking Fairey, feel free to support the Occupy Movement via his own website. http://obeygiant.com/...

          •  236 recommended this diary, so I'm not alone in (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy

            agreeing that there is a difference between the actual photo and the "arted" up protester, whose 99% message was expunged and whose eyebrows and eyes were made up to appear angry.

            You can point to the small print in the foreground all you want, but her message that she wore on her scarf was deleted.

            Period.

            I really don't understand why you are so angry about this discussion, which is a healthy one.

            Sorry if the facts don't conform to your myopic interpretation.

            I'm not gettting angry with you nor am I insulting you.  I am making logical points and arguments.

            Why are you getting so upset?

            Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

            by CIndyCasella on Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 12:14:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  This is a VERY interesting thread. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla

      The range of reactions is really quite diverse but I think you make a good point here I tried to elsewhere: Art.

      Art is interpretive, artists use models and appropriation, and if we can't accept that on it's own terms what we are left with is unretouched photos (or blank paper, the ultimate negative space).

      And to mention PS, through which all cover photos pass these days.

      But I'm willing to bet if the cover had been presented not as a Time cover, but simply as "What do you think of this protestor portrait?" we might be having a slightly different discussion.

      What I often find quite ironic here is the (actual) vilification of the MSM on one hand, and in the next comment or paragraph, the citation of the same MSM when it is saying what one likes - instant credibility!

      Not to defend Time as a paragon of journalistic integrity, but they did use the issue and the cover to recognize the importance on the protest movements (and sell a few magazines - but if protest sells that says something too).

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 06:42:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site