HOME | DD
B0073D β
TheMachine
by-sa
Published: 2007-09-12 15:12:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 52494; Favourites: 1902; Downloads: 1233
Redirect to original
Description
I hate when people (or bodies of people IE governments etc) do things in Gods (or Allah or whatever you want to call him/her/it/them) name! Most of us have sort of forgotten whats going on over there in Iraq. That doesn't mean its not happening anymore. We've just started to get used to the thought. Whether we like it or not.Anyway, back to the topic:
I get frustrated when people (or governments) say they follow god and then do something like.... Invade a country?? This piece is dedicated to using God as an excuse for evil.
Just sick of people going out and doing things in Gods name....
And now i'm very sleepy!
*goes to sleep*
DD! WOW! THANKYOU SO MUCH!
Go check these peeps out!
THANKYOU!
I will try and reply to all your comments and such but it might take a little while...
P.S. It seems that some people are wondering how religion comes into play here. One of my main points in this argument is the official US motto. 'In God We Trust'. ( See here: [link] )
I do not believe that you can say such a thing, such a bold statement, without at least IMPLYING that everything you do is of god.
Once you begin to portray your allegiance (If you will) In such a way, you can no longer really separate the two anymore (State and religion).
But thats my belief anyway...
EDIT: Uploaded separate print version because I had to screw with the image to get it a little larger for print. See:
Related content
Comments: 1212
Exactly. You took the words out of my mouth!
π: 0 β©: 0
This is definitely something that needed to be said. The world is far too corrupted, I think. Nowadays, God and religion are the excuses for everything, even when one is committing evil. It reflects on the state of our society. If you're going to talk about God at all, then do what's right, not what you justify as "right."
Excellent job at bringing this concept to life, I commend you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Having said that, how do you know what is right?
Call me a pessimist, but I've always thought its virtually impossible to do the 'right' thing in these kind of sittuations. We just dont know what is right.
I guess my main gripe is that a body or government has the GUTS to say they are of 'god'.
Let alone do something terrible and claim it is gods will. Because lets face it, the world is too complicated to always know you're doing the right thing.
Thankyou!
π: 0 β©: 0
Mmm.... sometimes donΒ΄t happen my friend.
π: 0 β©: 0
Didn't realize that Government in General is represented by a cross...Clearly Iran would have to agree with that huh.
π: 0 β©: 1
It isnt. But im not portraying the government here. Im portraying the use of 'god' when something is quite clearly evil.
π: 0 β©: 1
"I hate when people (or bodies of people IE governments etc)"
"I get frustrated when people (or governments) say they follow god and then do something like.... Invade a country?? "
And as a question, when was the last time any Christian invaded another country in the name of Christianity? over a 100 years ago? How is this relevant today?
π: 0 β©: 1
[link] Please see my journal entry for clarification. I apolagize for my shortness I am just extremely tired...
π: 0 β©: 1
How does the US motto have ANYTHING to do with religion and war? Your taking two entirely seperate topics and putting them together to form some sort of political image or belief that isn't even at all accurate. I ask again, when was the last time any strongly Christian affiliated nation waged war another for the sake of religion? It has not happened in centuries. All wars in the last 100 years have been due to politics, economics, world domination, resources. The only people who are calling any kind of religious war are the radical Islamic Extremists, and they don't count because they are a loose terrorist organization, not a nation or a country.
You find the US motto offensive? That's fine, you have a right to find it offensive, but how does thate correlate to any kind of war based on religion? And you notice the US motto isn't In JESUS we trust, but in God, and as far as I can tell, Christianity isn't the only religion which believes in a God. There is also Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrusism, Sikhism, and Hinduism, the Bahai just to name a few. I find it offensive that you select, one, Christianity, and choose that as the symbol for all monotheistic religions. It isn't that I am christian, im not, it's just that of all the religions in the world, mankind has always used one or the other to declare war on each other, and you select this one in particular? That hasn't been used as an excuse for war in centuries? Come on. Be at least truthful in your intentions.
π: 0 β©: 2
Thats not true, many Israeli soldiers and right wing extremists cite Biblical passages as the pretext and their right to reclaim "the holy land". Its not just Islamic extremists. Christianity has been used many times in the last 100 years as an excuse for war and violence as well, such as the 3rd Balkan War and in the 1950's a group of Lebanese Christian extremists massacred a Palestinian refugee camp. And it isn't directed at governments he also says people or bodies of people which includes ANYONE who uses God as an excuse for violence, even "loose terrorist organization"s.
π: 0 β©: 1
But why use the Cross as the symbol?
π: 0 β©: 1
It was my take that it was just a representation of religion as a whole, if he had used the star of david someone else would have been just as upset. and using all 3 major symbols may have taken from the simplicity of the image. personally I don't see it as mattering what symbol or if he had used all 3 as making any difference the message was still clear to me.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh but it matters quite a lot. He could have used a symbol that represents a religion, but not any particular religion. A Sun symbol for example. He could have just as easily put a tiny bit more into creativity and put together a symbol of his own design that represents all other faiths on earth. He didn't. He chose the symbol of the cross. It isn't that I am offended by that it is a cross, I am offended that he would raise Christianity to the level of a Global religion, that, religion as a whole is represented by a cross.
π: 0 β©: 1
Had he used like you suggested a sun or some other symbol the message wouldn't have been as clear. I think sometimes message should come before semantics. Using some combination of the 3 symbols probably would have avoided any offense but I don't think its something to get offended over.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well obviously, his message isn't clear to begin with, since I cannot tell whether or not he means Christianity is behind all the wars in the name of God, or does he mean Christianity symbolizes global religion? I understand it is the most recognizable of all symbols, but it is also the most over-used, and frankly, over-rated, symbol. You got to be a propagandist to use it.
π: 0 β©: 1
He clearly says all religions. I have no idea where you could get the idea that he meant Christianity causes all religious wars. No over using something makes it Cliche not propogandist. A propogandist is someone who only tells one side of a story sometimes with the distortion of facts in order to persuade or bring people to their view point or gain their support.
π: 0 β©: 1
Goddamit, it isn't what he said that matters, are you that inept in visual presentation? In his piece, in his 3d Rendering, it clearly shows Christianity. What he says is completely, COMPLETELY, irrelevant.
π: 0 β©: 1
NO its ENTIRELY relevent. Although you can interpret a piece any way you want the artist clearly explains his intent and what it means to him. It can mean something different to YOU but you can't force your interpretation back on the artist.
π: 0 β©: 1
Then it's not art. If it needs the artist to explain his piece to you it clearly shows A) He's not good at putting his vision into a medium that can easily be explained, or B) It just plain sucks. And yeah, I can force my interpretations on the artist, because that's what art criticism is all about.
After spending years in art school you very much learn the hard truth that if an average joe cannot understand the intention or the visual meaning behind your art work in 15 seconds, it's pretty much going to only sell to t hose few art collectors who eat a lot of shrooms.
And frankly, outside the intentional meaning behind this particular piece it is weak. It shows no skill in modeling, texturing, layout or otherwise. A junior student in modeling can recreate the same exact image in 2 hours if not less.
π: 0 β©: 1
It doesn't need the artist to explain it, you're obviously just too dense to grab the meaning in 15 seconds. Most artists explain what a piece means to them. And no that not what art criticism is about at all. Its about being critical of a work and interpreting what it means to you, you can't say that it unequivoclly means one thing for every person thats just assanine. And alot of art has nothing to with trying to sell the work.
The actual quality of the modelling isn't what we were discussing but feel free to continue digressing off topic if it makes you feel better.
π: 0 β©: 1
"It doesn't need the artist to explain it" exactly my point. The art piece needs to be self evident and self explaining, otherwise it's just lines on a piece of paper that a squirrel can take a piss on.
"Most artists explain what a piece means to them." Because they aren't good artists to begin with. it's like a comedian trying to explain to you why his joke is funny, even though you didn't laugh.
"Its about being critical of a work and interpreting what it means to you, you can't say that it unequivoclly means one thing for every person thats just assanine." In terms of abstract art, maybe. But this isn't abstract in any sense.
"And alot of art has nothing to with trying to sell the work." ROFLMAO!
"The actual quality of the modelling isn't what we were discussing but feel free to continue digressing off topic if it makes you feel better." Im not getting off topic, I am just pointing out even the bigger fallacy of it all. That outside the intentional meaning this art work would never have been a DD. In fact, I guarantee it. I guarantee that if didn't even use the cross, but made some arbitrary symbol like the sun, it wouldn't be a DD.
π: 0 β©: 1
That image IS self explaining, you're just about the only person I've seen so far who doesn't understand it.
Its not the same thing. Art is always open to interpretation, jokes aren't. Jokes only have one way of being understood.
How many people do you know who's intent in everything the draw, paint, sculpt, etc is to sell it? No one. Alot of art is just meant for personal enjoyment or to make a statement.
You are getting off topic. I agree it isn't great modelling but we were discussing its meaning not actual substance.
π: 0 β©: 1
"How many people do you know who's intent in everything the draw, paint, sculpt, etc is to sell it? No one. Alot of art is just meant for personal enjoyment or to make a statement."
UH! HMMM:
[link]
[link]
[link]
Even Deviant Art has a selling feature.
That statement alone shows what a complete ignorant self-righteous moron you are. It's why your talents are going to be completely wasted. Goodluck and God speed.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never said nobody ever sells their art did I? No. I said there is alot of art that isn't intended to be sold. You really have no understanding of art as a concept. If all you can see is exactly whats shown and can't find any deeper meaning then you are the ignorant one. And if you can't find any other purpose for art besides selling it then I wish you the best with what is probably going to be a very sad life.
π: 0 β©: 1
Right I have no understanding art as a concept, yeah, I guess I should just go set my art degree on fire then.
π: 0 β©: 1
Probably since you obviously can't put it to any use with your head so far up your rectum.
π: 0 β©: 1
oh right because your the epitome of all that is wisdom and knowledge on what is and isn't art. Your the everlasting gobbstopper of art criticism, and the purpose, and meaning behind art. Right on, just keep imagining yourself on that invisible pedestal, at least I don't praise an artist' bullshit and inability to explain his meaning or purpose in the medium he chooses, in this case, a shitty piece of 3d rendering.
π: 0 β©: 1
you keep putting words in my mouth and drawing conclusions out of thin air. I never praised him. You're the only person who didn't understand the piece so just stop your whining already, and once in a while let your brain have some oxygen by pulling your head out of there and taking a few breaths.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I understand what he intended, I am criticizing his rendition of conveying that meaning. It is fail.
And I only formed my complaint, I gave reasons why that is, and it seems to me, that the only one REALLY whining about anything here is you. Yes you, you had to respond to me about it, you had to debate every part of it even though I provided sufficient reasoning for my dissing this piece of garbage. I gave it a critique out of my own personal knowledge of 3d Art, and how it can be used. I gave it a critique out of knowing how commercial art, which is most professionals art, is viewed and understood. And each time, you took greater and greater offense to it, so , you, are the whining little chicklet here. Furthermore, if you actually stop about everything I say you'd realize how awfuly worded your last statement is. What am I suppose to pull my head out of? What does that have to do with my brain getting some oxygen?
I submit to you, that you're an anti religious wacko who takes offense to when someone who isn't at all religious, like myself, takes offense to an anti religious piece of "art".
Now then:
π: 0 β©: 1
Honestly you are probably the most dim witted person I have ever spoken to. As you obviously haven't been able to read and comprehend a single comment I've left. Just..wow. Not to mention, "..that you're an anti religious wacko who takes offense to when someone who isn't at all religious, like myself, takes offense to an anti religious piece of "art"." is an entirely contradictory statement. Please go slap whoever let you graduate from highschool.
π: 0 β©: 1
how is it contradictory?
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry I completely misread that.
π: 0 β©: 1
anyway.. this whole argument has gotten pretty out of hand so I'll say the intent of the piece was pretty apparent to me and I guess I'll just leave it at that.
π: 0 β©: 0
If you look at the history of that phrase, Christianity was intended.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's intention is irrelevant. It's wording is.
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay. The intention of the constitution originaly was for an extremely limited government. You say that to anyone these days and they look at you like your some sort of a nutjob. Especially the ones that just love to vote in these politicians that have nothing but hunger for government expansion and reliance. Intention is and has always been irrelevant. The wording, the actions, and the results therein is what matters.
Throught history some of the most tragic events occured under the best intentions.
π: 0 β©: 0
Totally agree. Reminds me of Gandhi's quote: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
π: 0 β©: 1
I keep seeing that quote!
Thanks for reminding me!
And thanks for the
π: 0 β©: 0
I realy like this picture it gives a meaning in a classy way. Can I ask is there a reason why all the people look like cardbord cut outs?
Also Killing in the name [link] ... would be a good song to go with this pitcure.
Keep up the amazing work!
π: 0 β©: 1
I didnt want to give the people too much character. They needed to be bland, almost blind.
Does that make sense?
I love that song...
Thanks for the support!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you I understand well what you said, and also what you did.
π: 0 β©: 0
man i hear ya, this is a really good political art this should so be in a magazine or news article.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow! Thanks! lol, What magazine would use this though... lol.
π: 0 β©: 1
i have no idea, but this is a great political illustration
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow, what a powerful message... Nice piece of art!
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>