I really have no words for how blatantly and vacuously you have failed to understand the message of this art. Oh wait, it's "art". This reminds me of a blogger I once read who was criticizing Lord of the Flies for a negative portrayal of fat people. Turns out literalists aren't very good at interpreting art.

I think it does exactly what good art is supposed to do. We aren't supposed to go "oh, what a pretty picture." Art is supposed to touch something human, start a dialogue, a really good piece is political, social, and human all at the same time.

I think it does exactly what good art is supposed to do. We aren't supposed to go "oh, what a pretty picture." Art is supposed to touch something human, start a dialogue, a really good piece is political, social, and human all at the same time.

I remember Rudy Giuliani closing down an art exhibit that featured a work that many Catholics found insulting. He was widely criticized on First Amendment grounds, as well as having no artistic bone in his body.

I am unsure if this exhibit flirts to dangerously close to incitement to violence, which would be a legitimate reason to shut it down as opposed to mere political distaste, but I am wary of censorship in any form.

I believe that the best response to objectionable speech is more speech (from the opposing point of view) rather than less speech.

But I no fan of art which is exploitative, either.

david

I really have no words for how blatantly and vacuously you have failed to understand the message of this art. Oh wait, it's "art". This reminds me of a blogger I once read who was criticizing Lord of the Flies for a negative portrayal of fat people. Turns out literalists aren't very good at interpreting art.

And do we need to grab a dictionary for you so you can look up the different definitions between "assassination" and "character assassination"?

Whoa, those are some awful pieces of "art." I don't see how they're anything other than the large scale portrayal of offensive stereotypes. Ugh.

*goes to scrub eyes*

Whoa, those are some awful pieces of "art." I don't see how they're anything other than the large scale portrayal of offensive stereotypes. Ugh.

*goes to scrub eyes*

That is really messed up. How can anyone seriously put this up in a public place and call it art? It is very very dehumanizing. The noose is a symbol of hate and they seem to glorify it. The giant penises and the "Once you go Barrack...." it's all really really offensive. Calling little girls nappy headed hoes is terrible. While all of this is offensive he has the right to freedom of speech as do we but what he is doing is just slander. It's sad that people call that art!

When will everyone learn that feeding people's basest bigotries back to them isn't thought-provoking? The images shown from this exhibit are hateful and hurtful.

Imus had said (and allowed to be said) a lot of racist and sexist shit before the Rutgers comment; it was only the work of Coach Stringer that put this in the spotlight.

Therefore, the picture of Senator Obama's daughters is a juxtaposition; they are about (God willing) to occupy the White House in a country where a large percentage of the population listens to and defends Imus.

In short, I am not a fan of the critique proffered in the main post.

Tofu.mon.amour...

It's a good message - I think it's important to address and discuss the racism and sexism in the media surrounding the current election.

But the artist went about this all wrong. How is labeling Obama's children "nappy headed hos" sending a positive message? The artist claims that he was reflecting how the media is portraying these political figures, but I cannot recall once seeing major media channels calling Obama's children "nappy headed hos." So where is this phrase coming from? Because it certainly has not been "portrayed in the media" like he claims.

Also, I understand it was about character assassination, but the artist did not clarify that on the front of the building that he held his exhibit in. It simply said, "The assassination of..." And the word "assassination" is extremely scary to a lot of people, especially during the current election when a black man and a woman are in the spotlight. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I have to wonder if he even stopped and thought about how this would make others feel.

GOOD art shouldn't rely solely on shock factor or invoking fear in people. a GOOD artist doesn't have to throw out scary words and paint giant black penises to get a message across. GOOD art makes you think about the message behind it... but what does this do? It offends people. It outrages them. It perpetuates stereotypes that he claims came from the "media" but really came from his own head. He claims that there's a deeper message behind this, but I don't see it.

When will everyone learn that feeding people's basest bigotries back to them isn't thought-provoking? The images shown from this exhibit are hateful and hurtful.

Tofu.mon.amour...

It's a good message - I think it's important to address and discuss the racism and sexism in the media surrounding the current election.

But the artist went about this all wrong. How is labeling Obama's children "nappy headed hos" sending a positive message? The artist claims that he was reflecting how the media is portraying these political figures, but I cannot recall once seeing major media channels calling Obama's children "nappy headed hos." So where is this phrase coming from? Because it certainly has not been "portrayed in the media" like he claims.

Also, I understand it was about character assassination, but the artist did not clarify that on the front of the building that he held his exhibit in. It simply said, "The assassination of..." And the word "assassination" is extremely scary to a lot of people, especially during the current election when a black man and a woman are in the spotlight. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I have to wonder if he even stopped and thought about how this would make others feel.

GOOD art shouldn't rely solely on shock factor or invoking fear in people. a GOOD artist doesn't have to throw out scary words and paint giant black penises to get a message across. GOOD art makes you think about the message behind it... but what does this do? It offends people. It outrages them. It perpetuates stereotypes that he claims came from the "media" but really came from his own head. He claims that there's a deeper message behind this, but I don't see it.

sorry but i'm with tofu.mon.amour here. art is supposed to start a dialogue and this one does. the artist is making a statement about the treatment of the candidates in the media with regard to race and gender. these images are SUPPOSED to disgust you. it's shocking, yes, but i also think it can provoke a meaningful discussion of these issues. i think maybe a lot of commenters here either don't see a lot of contemporary art, are interpreting this from far too literal a viewpoint or both.

i think that it is really hateful and hurtful, but i think that is the point. it actually does come from the media, amy - he is referring to the Rutgers/Imus incident and connecting that to political character assassination. the artist is showing that calling black women on a basketball team hateful terms - which maybe people have defended - is no different from calling innocent, beautiful young children those same hateful terms. it is meant to shock and shame Don Imus, who first said it, as well as the people who justified his words. the image hurts to see - but i think the artist wants people to hurt as they look at it and to think twice before they shamelessly slander political figures and their families based on race and gender. "feeding people's bases bigotries back to them" by showing the implications of those bigotries - especially when they haven't thought them through - can actually be very thought-provoking.
at the same time, i hate to think of how those kids would feel to see this. i know they will have to face a lot of racism in their life, and certainly already have, but such strong terms applied to children is so painful. i guess that is the artist's point. and it has certainly succeeded in drawing outrage, which was undoubtedly the idea.

If good art is supposed to touch you then this is just that. I looked at the picture of his kids and the label and cried. I am not a teary flake. That picture made me incredibly sad.
good art but what a price. They are kids for God's sake.
Incredibly sad....

The first ammendment has it's limits.

What kind of dialogue is this supposed to incite? A gigantic penis is art now? Calling children "nappy headed ho's" is art? Nooses are art? What isn't art then?

I don't know what the artist's intent was, but he went to far. Perhaps, of course, that was the intent. If this exibit had not been shut down, would as many people be talking about it right now?

Maybe he intended to incite outrage, but it's too dangerous to try to predict people's reactions to work like this.

The artist has very definitely failed here in that the message and context are so unclear. I looked at those images unable to decide if the artist is reducing obama to black stereotypes, or trying to criticize the media for reducing to stereotypes. His comments seem to make me think he intended the latter, but he obviously failed to make that point coherently enough, so it really comes off as him just doing the stereotyping himself.

Basically, he either sucks because he's a bigot, or he just sucks really bad as an artist.

This is the thing about art- what is it exactly? or what isn't it? I took this particular exhibit as a satire- I believe it was meant to be a satire. Of course it's going to be over the top and offensive- most satires are. I think this exhibit is largely misunderstood from what I've seen posted here.

There is no such thing as "good" and "bad" art. If you try to stop what you think is bad art you're not only supressing free speech but also supressing art. Next thing you know they'll be stopping feminist artists that use mestrual blood. And since shock values = bad (apparently) then tough luck for anyone who makes and or enjoys shock oriented art. If you don't like it then don't go see it. It's that easy.

I'm actually kind of surprised by this post. I feel there's a big "missing the point" going on here.

I understand that this is art and I do think he is trying to make an interesting point here...Barack Obama is a public figure, and free speech is free speech. but...putting his young daughters up there with that headline just seems really crossing the line. They're just kids. I dont know, but personally it offends me.

sorry but i'm with tofu.mon.amour here. art is supposed to start a dialogue and this one does. the artist is making a statement about the treatment of the candidates in the media with regard to race and gender. these images are SUPPOSED to disgust you. it's shocking, yes, but i also think it can provoke a meaningful discussion of these issues. i think maybe a lot of commenters here either don't see a lot of contemporary art, are interpreting this from far too literal a viewpoint or both.

Also, consider the title: Character Assassination of: Obama/Clinton. He has already stated his focus- he wants to illuminate what the media has done to both of these candidates. His images and subject matter are racy and tasteless- he goes to the lengths the media wish it could go to. The media has been public enemy number one in this election cycle, when it was always meant to be the defender of democracy. I think his exhibit is an excellent commentary on the degradation of our media and free press and what we can expect in the future if we don't stand up and demand change.

jro, well put!

Um, whoever is complaining about this art being offensive has not been exposed to five minutes of the NYC art scene. Huge black penises? Yawn. Murder? How passe. Juxtaposition of childhood and profanity? Might pass for profound in high school, but otherwise is pretty toothless. There's so many worse (real) things out there to be offended by that one crazy broke-ass "artist" is not going to get the job done for me, no matter what taboos his images violate.

Still, just because the art is schlocky at best is no reason to call the thought police. Once you start saying people shouldn't write "assassination" on a wall, then you get people being arrested for using the word "bomb" at the airport, for being Wyclef Jean and/or for distributing anarchist punk rock show flyers.

Art doesn't have to be good to be protected by the 1st Amendment. Art isn't "supposed" to do anything. Artists don't have to be good people who care about other people's feelings, and usually, they aren't. I don't have to like, say, a statue of the Virgin Mary covered with excrement, but if it's being presented as a result of the artistic process, then it counts as being worthy of subjective appreciation. Just because you or I don't have that appreciation doesn't mean it should be shut down.

And BTW, those stereotypes do come from the media. How many times has the nappy headed hos thing been reported? Whether or not stereotypes also inhabit the artist's head is irrelevant. The point of the 1st Amendment is not to allow only clean scrubbed PC minds to express themselves, but any filth that exists.

Hooray for filth, and feminism, and scary words, and stupid art, and the people who are outraged by it.

Um, whoever is complaining about this art being offensive has not been exposed to five minutes of the NYC art scene. Huge black penises? Yawn. Murder? How passe. Juxtaposition of childhood and profanity? Might pass for profound in high school, but otherwise is pretty toothless. There's so many worse (real) things out there to be offended by that one crazy broke-ass "artist" is not going to get the job done for me, no matter what taboos his images violate.

Still, just because the art is schlocky at best is no reason to call the thought police. Once you start saying people shouldn't write "assassination" on a wall, then you get people being arrested for using the word "bomb" at the airport, for being Wyclef Jean and/or for distributing anarchist punk rock show flyers.

Art doesn't have to be good to be protected by the 1st Amendment. Art isn't "supposed" to do anything. Artists don't have to be good people who care about other people's feelings, and usually, they aren't. I don't have to like, say, a statue of the Virgin Mary covered with excrement, but if it's being presented as a result of the artistic process, then it counts as being worthy of subjective appreciation. Just because you or I don't have that appreciation doesn't mean it should be shut down.

And BTW, those stereotypes do come from the media. How many times has the nappy headed hos thing been reported? Whether or not stereotypes also inhabit the artist's head is irrelevant. The point of the 1st Amendment is not to allow only clean scrubbed PC minds to express themselves, but any filth that exists.

Hooray for filth, and feminism, and scary words, and stupid art, and the people who are outraged by it.

Persephone - the first amendment does have limits, and suppressing art is DEFINITELY not one of them.

CalliopeJane - What are we supposed to say to this? The meaning of this exhibition isn't at all unclear, and the picture posted at the top of this page should send your irony radar shooting off the charts.

A lot of people here have commented that this exhibit is nothing more than a racist artist's glorification of stereotypes. Even if this is true (which it clearly isn't), discussion of stereotypes is much more complicated than "we need to ignore them". Racial AND sexual stereotypes have some basis in reality and the only way to come to terms with them is to start a discussion on it. Irony, even if it is "shocking", is an excellent way to begin that discourse.

>>

um, well, jasper johns, robert rauschenberg (r.i.p!) and marcel duchamp taught us all that the THING or the representation of the thing isn't the art, but instead the thought of the object created/appropriated by the artist. therefore, yes, this is art. (now, whether or not it's interesting, thought-provoking, ground-breaking...all of that is up for debate—however, no one's talking about that).

this is such elementary art theory/visual culture. as an art lover and creative person, i am finding these critiques merely one step above "my kid could fingerpaint that!" in their level of intellectualism. why the artistically uneducated find it no problem at all to declare "THIS ISN'T ART!" is beyond me....after all, i don't go around saying "THAT ISN'T BRAIN SURGERY!"

>>

um, well, jasper johns, robert rauschenberg (r.i.p!) and marcel duchamp taught us all that the THING or the representation of the thing isn't the art, but instead the thought of the object created/appropriated by the artist. therefore, yes, this is art. (now, whether or not it's interesting, thought-provoking, ground-breaking...all of that is up for debate—however, no one's talking about that).

this is such elementary art theory/visual culture. as an art lover and creative person, i am finding these critiques merely one step above "my kid could fingerpaint that!" in their level of intellectualism. why the artistically uneducated find it no problem at all to declare "THIS ISN'T ART!" is beyond me....after all, i don't go around saying "THAT ISN'T BRAIN SURGERY!"

As someone who makes political art, I can say that there are a lot of people who are over-reacting and/or not understanding this work.

Yes, you SHOULD be offended, however the source of your offense should not be the artist, but rather the media that he(?) is quoting. Be angry, say "hey! that's racist!" but don't get mad at the artist because he had the audacity to point out and make blatantly obvious the kind of messages that are being relayed far more subtly in the media. The artist isn't calling Obama's daughters "nappy headed hos" he's quoting someone who is a known racist and making the connection between young black girls and the Imus quote: something that most people aren't going to do on their own.

The thing about art is that it shows the viewer a new perspective. So while a lot of people are getting upset about this show, they're also being forced to confront a perspective (blatant racism) that they don't see everyday. Just showing someone a message doesn't mean that the messenger agrees with what is being stated, and that is especially true for political artwork. Quoting someone doesn't mean you agree with them.

This show is offending people for the wrong reasons. They're getting offended that someone would just come out and say in a blatant way the things that the media has been saying in a polite and subtle way for the last 16 months. This is something that often happens with political art, people get upset because the images say something that isn't supposed to be said OUT LOUD, but only thought quietly in the privacy of one's own head.

Oh! And a sidebar here - a coworker saw this picture and I told her about the exhibition and she said that she "wouldn't disagree" with the assessment of black women as being, well, nappy-headed ho's. But she is Native American, who I've learned from working here tend to be about the most racist group around. So maybe their is a need for this shocking but kind of pedestrian art if people are that blatantly racist.

I'm not sure how to feel about this, really.

On the one hand, I think it is important for art to be controversial and invoke a strong reaction in its audience. I also think the reaction to this exhibit was over the top, interrogating the man? Really? I know we live in a post 9/11 world, but I just can't agree with that kind of response.

On the other hand, I would not say this art is very effective. It isn't saying anything new. It's lacking another layer of commentary to make the pieces truly thought provoking. As someone else said, taking the stereotypes already present in the media, distilling them, and throwing them back at us... not so much.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

??????

The "nappy headed hos" is juxtaposed with a picture of his two beautiful, smiling daughters who are so obviously anything but that the point isn't very subtle. The artist is trying to show how stupid these stereotypes are.

But the big dick thing was just.... well, stupid.

I'm interested to see the Clinton stuff

I'm really appalled at the hubris applied in some of these comments. The exploration of these attitudes, whether the exploration is deep and insightful or facile and cartoonish, has value. You don't have to like it, you don't have to approve of the medium, but who the hell are you to determine what is art for everyone else? Don't like it? Don't go to the gallery. Talk about why it's a bad installation. But this "it should be banned" attitude is dangerous and narrow minded.

Assassination is a real -- not a theoretical -- threat.

Well, shit, so's rape: Clear the Met of all those old masters' renditions of the rape of Danaë!

And um, what exactly is a theoretical threat, anyway?

I have to agree with whoever it was that said they were suprised by the post. I also think its missing the point a little. Also a little surprised by the comments I guess. But its a good lesson that just because you agree on certain things like reproductive rights, doesn't mean you'll agree on everything.

I don't think there should be any limits on first ammendment rights outside of yelling "fire" in a theatre where you have a very clear and solid example of why that is so dangerous.

That said, I feel like I see what the artist is going for. Especially with the "Nappy Headed Hos" example. Applying it to those children only highlights how awful and ridiculous it was for Imus to think it was an okay and normal thing to do to apply that term to those Rutgers students.

The only thing I will nitpick is that from what I can see I think its called "The Assasination of..." not "The Character Assasination of...," the latter of which, were I his teacher I might have said was a better title, not only for clarity but because talking about the assasination of anyone who has secret service protection is not a smart move.

I have to agree with whoever it was that said they were suprised by the post. I also think its missing the point a little. Also a little surprised by the comments I guess. But its a good lesson that just because you agree on certain things like reproductive rights, doesn't mean you'll agree on everything.

I don't think there should be any limits on first ammendment rights outside of yelling "fire" in a theatre where you have a very clear and solid example of why that is so dangerous.

That said, I feel like I see what the artist is going for. Especially with the "Nappy Headed Hos" example. Applying it to those children only highlights how awful and ridiculous it was for Imus to think it was an okay and normal thing to do to apply that term to those Rutgers students.

The only thing I will nitpick is that from what I can see I think its called "The Assasination of..." not "The Character Assasination of...," the latter of which, were I his teacher I might have said was a better title, not only for clarity but because talking about the assasination of anyone who has secret service protection is not a smart move.

You guys might want to put a NSFW warning on that link...

I'm with Amy and la pobre here. Just because an image is disturbing doesn't mean it's thought provoking. I'm so sick of the it's art/satire defense. Simply throwing out a bunch of stereotypes with no critical commentary isn't clever, it's offensive.

I'm also tired of the "it's free speech" red herring. An artist's right to free speech has nothing to do with a discussion on whether or not that art is offensive.

The image isn't thought provoking _because_ it's offensive. It's thought provoking because it's a minimalist reflection of a pervasive and acrimonious strain of thought in modern society.

The only way you can argue that this is promoting misogyny or racism is if you truly believed that the artist was acting out of racism or misogyny. If so, that's fair, but I would have to argue that you are missing the point.

The pictures are not pretty. They are not comfortable. They are offensive and provocative. Much like life--nobody needs to remind us of this.

And I have to disagree with WheresTheBeef. The Free Speech invocation is important here. As individuals in what is supposed to be free society we have no right to censor expression. If it's offensive, then look away.

Much as I dislike this art, I dislike more that the artist was led away in handcuffs! Good lord!

But she is Native American, who I've learned from working here tend to be about the most racist group around.

Excuse me, you just got unintentional irony all over my keyboard.

When I first skimmed the picture and the post, I thought this was going to be something positive about the art exhibit. I got the message right away. Then, I was surprised that it was so misunderstood (IMO).

The pic included in the post made me sad. Imus was referring to women who did not fit his standards of beauty. However, when I heard the words he said, I immediately thought of the impact that hateful speech would have on young black girls. It's like when my grandmother starts telling me "those people" don't work hard (or whatever). She's speaking in generalities, but I'm immediately thinking of my friends who she has lumped in with whoever "those people" are supposed to mean. I'll bring this up, and the response is, "Well, I don't mean her."

This is similar. When Imus made the comment, it resonated. And while he may not have meant the Obama girls, they're still lumped into that hateful speech. It's shocking and sad for me to hear that kind of racism because my mind pictures the total impact. This artist seems to react similarly and wants to create something that provokes shock in people who wouldn't normally think of two lovely girls as being lumped into the phrase Imus used.

As for the rest of the exhibit shown. Meh. I'm not nearly as provoked as the picture included in the post here.

it is kinda silly to be so offended by artistic satire, when REAL hate crimes happen everyday.

"I'm also tired of the "it's free speech" red herring. An artist's right to free speech has nothing to do with a discussion on whether or not that art is offensive."

The artist should not be legally restrained from making such statements. Period.

Whether it should be said or not is a different question.

But she is Native American, who I've learned from working here tend to be about the most racist group around.

Excuse me, you just got unintentional irony all over my keyboard.

But she is Native American, who I've learned from working here tend to be about the most racist group around.

Excuse me, you just got unintentional irony all over my keyboard.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten that only individual white people are racists.

To quote Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, "I don't know art, but I know what I hate." And I hate this exhibition. It's unspeakably offensive. However, I support the right to free speech. I don't support whatever genius gallery manager saw this and thought it was worthy of sharing. Personally, I wouldn't call it art, but this a**hat has as much right to say what (s)he thinks as anyone else.

Misspelled, why is that ironic? From what I've been told by Native American friends, many Native Americans are very racist - against each other at least.

I agree with several other people's assessments, that getting upset at the artist is silly and missing the point. Art is a reflection/refraction of the greater culture as distilled through the viewpoint and capabilities of the artist and then interpreted by the audience; there are any number of steps in the artistic process that can be evaluated negatively here, but it is incredibly simplistic to say it is racist and misogynist and therefore sucks, period.

Of course you're offended. That's the point. But you're also supposed to think about why you're offended, and why these things would be seen as offensive, who would find them offensive, where they come from in the first place, etc. It's not the artist's fault if you stop at the first reaction.

I would add that I do think this is "bad" art - the meaning is so blatant, it's boring, and the art itself isn't interesting or creative enough to save it - but to suggest that it's bad art because you don't like/understand/agree with the artist's methods of getting his point across is silly.

Don't minors get any protections from their images being used as such?

And the other "shock" elements from the rest of the display, e.g. the nooses and the big black cock, are tired tired tired. I guess the only consolation is that this imagery isn't being marketed as masturbatory material or as part of a video game plot.

For fuck's sake. Racist is racist, and statements like, "I've learned from working with [ethnic group] that they tend to be [characteristic]" ARE RACIST. "But my personal experience told me so!" and "But they say it themselves, all the time!" are not legitimate defenses.

This isn't a new or complicated idea. In fact I seem to recall learning something very like it in elementary school. So I don't really see where the need for explanation comes from.

Here's the thing that (I think) is so difficult about being a compassionate liberal: you want people to squeeze every possible liberty they can out of the Constitution, but it pains you when such liberties are legally manifested in ways that aren't nice to other people.

If you look at what makes speech not okay, it's not your personal views, but a bevy of Supreme Court precedents. In Miller v. CA, we see that it's up to communities to determine obscenities. This exhibit would not fly in a really conservative community, like my home of Williamsburg, VA (probably the big penis would be the tipping point) because people would feel that it has no artistic value. New York City, however, is a pretty progressive little town.

This art doesn't seem to be inciting imminent lawless action, per the precedent of Brandenburg v. OH. Despite what some people have said in comments, the art is neither libelous nor slanderous.

(I'm really skimming over a lot of case law, but I just wanted to give enough to get the point.)

It simply shouldn't be censored! It is painful to look at some of the parts of this exhibit: the nooses, the juxtaposition of Imus' comment and Obama's daughters, etc. But that's the point!

I think that the artist would be really interested--probably pleased--to see us debating this on a cool website.

"If you don't like it then don't go see it. It's that easy."

No it isn't. One could say that about life. Or what offends feminists. What are people doing visiting Urban Dictionary, anyway, when they know such sites have been tainted by (organized) misogyny? Do not see: Donkey Punch, a link to Bronco Ride.

"There's so many worse (real) things out there to be offended by . . . "

Ditto. "Nappy headed hos" is not REALLY offensive, cuz there's worse. Nice. I must simply be imagining things, cuz I'm neither female nor African-American.

so i think i'm going to catch some disagreement here..but hear me out..

I like it. And I will tell you why. Many of us have spent the past couple of months attempting to draw attention to the sexism and racism that has existed in the presidential primaries. The "iron my shirt" atangonists, the controversy surrounding Obama's church and the allegations of reverse racsim ect. This display, though it may be uncomfortable, exposes stereotypes in a way that forces us to create a dialouge. Isn't that dialouge what some of us were seeking?

I'm not trying to take an "ends justify the means" type of stance. I'm just trying to say maybe there can be positive effects. Someone stated the display is dehumanizing. THAT is the point; sexism and racism are dehumanizing. Every stereotype shown in that display is something that we are all familiar with, why not name it? Why not turn the disgust into motivation for action?

This art exhibit is offensive, and intentionally so, but it's also pretty good.

The juxtaposition of media portrayal of Hillary and Barack with the stereotypes and phrases used either consciously or subconsciously to describe them in order to make this portrayal more visible and blatant is a terrific goal. I thought most people on this site were offended by campaign coverage of the two candidates.

Well, this exhibit shows just that, albeit in an artistic manner. The "nappy headed hos" thing has already been explained, and the nooses seem to show latent hatred against African Americans. The "once you go Barack" thing is a portrayal of how sexualization of black men is ingrained in our culture through stereotypes ("once you bog black", etc.), and that this influences how people view Barack, whether we like it or not.

All in all it's pretty thoughtful and thought-provoking. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Feministing, even if you missed the entire point.

The title is offensive, sure, and it's meant to be, in order to make us consider the tragedy that is character assassination through media portrayal. It can literally change how we perceive a human being, which in a way can be killing at least parts of a person.

This art exhibit is offensive, and intentionally so, but it's also pretty good.

The juxtaposition of media portrayal of Hillary and Barack with the stereotypes and phrases used either consciously or subconsciously to describe them in order to make this portrayal more visible and blatant is a terrific goal. I thought most people on this site were offended by campaign coverage of the two candidates.

Well, this exhibit shows just that, albeit in an artistic manner. The "nappy headed hos" thing has already been explained, and the nooses seem to show latent hatred against African Americans. The "once you go Barack" thing is a portrayal of how sexualization of black men is ingrained in our culture through stereotypes ("once you bog black", etc.), and that this influences how people view Barack, whether we like it or not.

All in all it's pretty thoughtful and thought-provoking. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Feministing, even if you missed the entire point.

The title is offensive, sure, and it's meant to be, in order to make us consider the tragedy that is character assassination through media portrayal. It can literally change how we perceive a human being, which in a way can be killing at least parts of a person.

so i think i'm going to catch some disagreement here..but hear me out..

I like it. And I will tell you why. Many of us have spent the past couple of months attempting to draw attention to the sexism and racism that has existed in the presidential primaries. The "iron my shirt" atangonists, the controversy surrounding Obama's church and the allegations of reverse racsim ect. This display, though it may be uncomfortable, exposes stereotypes in a way that forces us to create a dialouge. Isn't that dialouge what some of us were seeking?

I'm not trying to take an "ends justify the means" type of stance. I'm just trying to say maybe there can be positive effects. Someone stated the display is dehumanizing. THAT is the point; sexism and racism are dehumanizing. Every stereotype shown in that display is something that we are all familiar with, why not name it? Why not turn the disgust into motivation for action?

The viciousness in which the artist displayed the racism/sexism is refective of the media and public. The artist did not create the "nappy headed ho's" comment, he took it from the media. He took it and used it in a way that forces us to realize how utterly innapropriate it is, and how we cannot forget that commments such as that are part of our daily lives.

"And I have to disagree with WheresTheBeef. The Free Speech invocation is important here. As individuals in what is supposed to be free society we have no right to censor expression. If it's offensive, then look away."

You're not getting what I'm saying here. If I say, I don't like this exhibit and I find it offensive, it doesn't make any sense to respond with, "Well thats the artist's right to produce it." What does the fact that the artist has a legal right to produce this work have to do with my liking it or not liking it?

so i think i'm going to catch some disagreement here..but hear me out..

I like it. And I will tell you why. Many of us have spent the past couple of months attempting to draw attention to the sexism and racism that has existed in the presidential primaries. The "iron my shirt" antagonists, the controversy surrounding Obama's church and the allegations of reverse racism ect. This display, though it may be uncomfortable, exposes stereotypes in a way that forces us to create a dialogue. Isn't that dialogue what some of us were seeking?

I'm not trying to take an "ends justify the means" type of stance. I'm just trying to say maybe there can be positive effects. Someone stated the display is dehumanizing. THAT is the point; sexism and racism are dehumanizing. Every stereotype shown in that display is something that we are all familiar with, why not name it? Why not turn the disgust into motivation for action?

The viciousness in which the artist displayed the racism/sexism is reflective of the media and public. The artist did not create the "nappy headed ho's" comment, he took it from the media. He took it and used it in a way that forces us to realize how utterly inappropriate it is, and how we cannot forget that comments such as that are part of our daily lives.

so i think i'm going to catch some disagreement here..but hear me out..

I like it. And I will tell you why. Many of us have spent the past couple of months attempting to draw attention to the sexism and racism that has existed in the presidential primaries. The "iron my shirt" antagonists, the controversy surrounding Obama's church and the allegations of reverse racism ect. This display, though it may be uncomfortable, exposes stereotypes in a way that forces us to create a dialogue. Isn't that dialogue what some of us were seeking?

I'm not trying to take an "ends justify the means" type of stance. I'm just trying to say maybe there can be positive effects. Someone stated the display is dehumanizing. THAT is the point; sexism and racism are dehumanizing. Every stereotype shown in that display is something that we are all familiar with, why not name it? Why not turn the disgust into motivation for action?

The viciousness in which the artist displayed the racism/sexism is reflective of the media and public. The artist did not create the "nappy headed ho's" comment, he took it from the media. He took it and used it in a way that forces us to realize how utterly inappropriate it is, and how we cannot forget that comments such as that are part of our daily lives.

"Here's the thing that (I think) is so difficult about being a compassionate liberal: you want people to squeeze every possible liberty they can out of the Constitution, but it pains you when such liberties are legally manifested in ways that aren't nice to other people."

Mmm. My frequent comments about freedom of choice. Even with comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception and legal abortion, people are free to make family planning decisions (or have a form of sexual expression) you may not agree with. Abstinance? Five abortions? Five kids? Single mother on the dole? Not my business.

err...sorry for the gazillion posts..

In case anyone is wondering what the Clinton ones look like...go to http://www.theassassinationofhillaryclinton.com/

and keep pressing next on the link above....

You know what, I liked what I saw of the exhibit from these images.

Yes it's unpleasant, and yes it's offensive and triggering. But it makes people think and question things. No one wants to admit it, but there is an image many people get in their mind when they hear the phrase "black man", and it's usually prefaced with the word "black" and it's usually not a well-heeled guy like Barack. These are the deep-seated stereotypes and unquestioned passing thoughts the exhibit tries to address. (I can offer as a personal anecdote that, after acquiring a boyfriend that was black, I got asked by so many people, "so is it true what they say?" As sad as it is, this is what people wanted to know, this is what they saw of this person who had so much more going on than the junk in his pants.)

Now, this kind of art isn't meant to make you feel good. I mean, it's entitled "The Assassination of", right? But to shut something like this down can serve to perpetuate all kinds of stereotypes that we might never even question otherwise. Additionally, I think we're much more at risk of this happening precisely because it's so un-PC and off-limits to even address race, that many times, discussions never get to happen.

I'm curious what they had up for Hillary.

I'm an African American woman who feels insecure about her hair and who is offended by how women of color or repeatedly sexualized and dehumanized. I do not take offense to this at all. It is akin to the riot grrrl movement where women scrawled "slut" on their bodies and clothing to force people to face all the characteristics and reality of the people they were labeling.

The only thing that I disagree with is that children were used for the artist's message. Like a "This is someone's child who you are calling these names" message. Adult African American women are adults; this shouldn't make them less protected.

I know people on this site are above telling me that I should be offended. I would like them to ask themselves if they would be offended if an African American woman were the artist.

I can understand where people like MissMay12 are coming from. And I can comprehend what Tofu.Mon.Amor is saying in their "Hello, it's art!" message.

I'll preface this with the notion that I know art is what one makes it and what one interprets it to be.

That being said, however, I must side with folks like Amy, and say that this particular exhibit doesn't make me think, it makes me wonder if the artist put thought into what s/he was concocting.

To add to a conversation, one must not simply repeat what has already been said. That's all that has happened here, to an alarmingly disappointing extent.

Take Nappy-Headed Hoes, which is simply a caption for a photo. Make it more than just a photo of Obama's daughters (and I thought Michele getting pulled into the media spotlight was bad enough. Geez). Make it them winning an award (if there is such a photo), or at school. Anything to make the caption ironic.

Or take "Negro President" and make that exhibit something that makes people aware how few African American leaders we have had (no clue on numbers). It would be a greater impact if I walked into a hall entitled, Great African American Presidential Candidates, and saw one photo on a large blank wall.

It's what's not there that would make me think.

Wow, this really pisses me off. I'm not sure how I feel about the exhibition because I cannot say whether I think it was done well from a collection of pictures.

What I can be pissed off about it a bunch of people trying to tell me that if it's art it's sacrosanct. Get fucked. If I think art is actually glorified fucking racism then I'm going to have a problem. No, I wouldn't close it down. But I would be disgusted and it wouldn't be for lack of "getting it".

P.S. tofu.mon.amour? Quotation marks do NOT represent emphasis

this particular exhibit doesn't make me think, it makes me wonder if the artist put thought into what s/he was concocting.

I agree with this statement. It (IMO) doesn't seem like the artist is drawing attention to what the media has done with the campaigns or the candidates, but is joining in on snickering at Clinton and Obama in a really derisive way. Especially the framed "Would you have sex with her...Neither would Bill." part of the installation on Cllinton's side of the exhibit. That could have been an uncomfortable jab at how we think of women and politics and women in politics, but the execution changed the context for me. I felt the whole exhibit could have been much cleverer, and just didn't hit the mark.

Hmmm. The sexism and racism involved in media coverage of the presidential contest should be challenged and resisted IMO. However, I'm not convinced this art exhibition is the way to do it, given the openness to a variety of interpretations. It's good that it's generated some criticism, but the criticism seems to be more of the art than of the sexism and racism in the media and responses to the candidates. The art seems to be drawing attention to itself as much as the issues.

Also it seems to perpetuate the media focus on personalities and 'race' and/or gender identity rather than on the policies and capabilities of the candidates. By focusing on the candidates as "characters" it shifts the focus from the fact that one individual cannot, on their own, change the system that they operate within. There's a whole team working with each candidate, they have to work with and within the political system and powerful organisations that dominate US politics.

I have to agree with tma on this one - some of the best art I have seen has been that which utterly disgusts me, such as Dali drawings of knives cutting off breasts. Truly disgusting, I wanted nothing more than to withdraw my eyes and pretend I'd never seen it before. Instead I took a photo, because true art is intended to provoke reaction and thought. That's exactly what that piece of art in the photo is doing, it's taking a photo that most of us would go "aww" at, then putting in an extremely racist headline in order to make those who might have those views stop and go "hang on, that's not what I meant!" and then think about what they're doing when they say something racist/sexist. Personally speaking, for those of us that do not hold racist/sexist views, the art reaffirms our position, it doesn't stand against it. This artwork SUPPORTS our position AGAINST racist and sexist labels, it is intended to point out how harmful they can be and how they can affect the young. As well as that, given the context of the exhibition it's also a statement on the use of children and sexist/racist stereotypes against a political candidate and his family, where obviously none should exist (in an ideal world).

Basically, I completely disagree with Ann that this perpetuates stereotypes. It does quite the opposite. This art is bringing out into the open a lot of the slogans and lines used mainly by conservatives against the democratic candidates. The artist didn't think up these lines by himself, he's reflecting that which has already been said and done and putting them into a context where people can see how derogatory they can be when amalgamated. Basically the exhibition is acting as a physical space for that which the artist sees to be the mental space, our brains. As we hear each racist/sexist line or joke, it gets put away in our subconscious. This is a way of bringing it all out and showing what a harmful and disgusting ideology it is which uses these lines to get into our heads.

I have to agree with tma on this one - some of the best art I have seen has been that which utterly disgusts me, such as Dali drawings of knives cutting off breasts. Truly disgusting, I wanted nothing more than to withdraw my eyes and pretend I'd never seen it before. Instead I took a photo, because true art is intended to provoke reaction and thought. That's exactly what that piece of art in the photo is doing, it's taking a photo that most of us would go "aww" at, then putting in an extremely racist headline in order to make those who might have those views stop and go "hang on, that's not what I meant!" and then think about what they're doing when they say something racist/sexist. Personally speaking, for those of us that do not hold racist/sexist views, the art reaffirms our position, it doesn't stand against it. This artwork SUPPORTS our position AGAINST racist and sexist labels, it is intended to point out how harmful they can be and how they can affect the young. As well as that, given the context of the exhibition it's also a statement on the use of children and sexist/racist stereotypes against a political candidate and his family, where obviously none should exist (in an ideal world).

Basically, I completely disagree with Ann that this perpetuates stereotypes. It does quite the opposite. This art is bringing out into the open a lot of the slogans and lines used mainly by conservatives against the democratic candidates. The artist didn't think up these lines by himself, he's reflecting that which has already been said and done and putting them into a context where people can see how derogatory they can be when amalgamated. Basically the exhibition is acting as a physical space for that which the artist sees to be the mental space, our brains. As we hear each racist/sexist line or joke, it gets put away in our subconscious. This is a way of bringing it all out and showing what a harmful and disgusting ideology it is which uses these lines to get into our heads.

Hey Fenriswolf: "Get Fucked".

Hey Fenriswolf: "Get Fucked". Am I using them correctly?

Hah, and has anyone read the comments on that truthfighters page? That group is 100% fucktard at its finest.

Do you really find this offensive? The artist is clearly anti-racist and anti-sexist, and nothing's there that hasn't been bandied about during the primary process. You might disagree with the mode or the aesthetic, but it's totally off base to accuse the artist of being an uncritical racist. I think we should be focusing much more on the ghoulish shutting down of an art exhibit by the police. Gestapo much? You can see the whole exhibit here, along with press release: http://www.theassassinationofbarackobama.com/. As someone noted above there is also http://www.theassassinationofhillaryclinton.com/.

I am reminded of an old anti-smoking flyer. It had a picture of an old, wrinkled, yellowed man with bad teeth and a cigarette. Underneath it said, "Smoking is sophisticated." I got the irony, and I was 15 at the time. I see the "nappy-headed hos" poster as anti-racist and anti-sexist.

it seriously offends me that any of you are suggesting that this should not have been allowed to be created just because you disagree with it.

fascism is fascism, i don't care if it's in favor of equality or whatever or not.

and also, to say that this is racist is to miss the point.

"Do you really find this offensive?"

Yes. And I was 11 or 12 when I saw the same antismoking posters the last poster mentioned, and was also able to see the irony. The one I remember is "Smoking is very glam