HOME | DD
jark β Why Did Angelo Hurt You?
Published: 2005-08-02 08:52:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 94622; Favourites: 1364; Downloads: 18195
Redirect to original
Description
*UPDATE*: The image has been updated to one modified by *lorrainemd which helps depict the emotion much better. I can not thank her enough for the wonderful help she has provided me in allowing the statement to have that much more clarity.why have you been hurt by the guy from Los Angeles , who taught me a few Greek words while he was welcomed in our home in Japan, and stayed here for a week which ended up with him befriending me, only to stab you in the back?
... was it business?
... was it personal?
... was it for money?
... was if for power?
... was it greed?
... was there an honest reason?
... why have you been hurt?
... all i want to know is why, daddy?
your pain is too much for me to handle and i can not keep it inside any longer ...
*DISCLAIMER*: this deviation is in no way to be considered a personal attack on any of the parties involved in "this situation." it is merely here to depict the unintended consequences of ones actions; those that are never considered when decisions are made and implemented. this image is not staged and is not intended to be used as some way to rally the masses; art is emotion and this is nothing but pure, raw, emotions pouring out of someone affected by this severity of the situation.
Related content
Comments: 1704
Well, don't get so annoyed at me for assuming when you did the same to me. And didn't I say in my first comment that it would have been nice if not for the(assumed) circumstances? I could've sworn I said something along those lines.
And just out of curiosity, why is it that out of the other three or so comments I've seen besides mine that said basically what I did, you only got angry with me? I'm not annoyed about that, just wondering.
Anyway, yes, it is a nice picture. A very nice picture. Just, as said before, the fact that it wasn't staged disturbs me a little...maybe I am just overreacting, as you seem to be trying to tell me. Oh well. SoSo, as I said before, sorry about that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Am I the ONLY person who finds it rather disturbing that; when your child was in tears you got a camera, took a photo and put it up on deviant art just to make your former friend feel bad?
o.O
I mean I am assuming, since you said the photo wasnβt staged that you didnβt have a camera to hand, therefore you must have had to go and get one, turn it on, point and aim and take a photo, all while your son was in tears....
O.O
On a side note, I am neither on your βsideβ or his βsideβ I could care less about who runs DA as long as I have a place to put art, so donβt take this as some stupid βanti-jarkβ attack.
Itβs not so much an attack as more of an observation of just how twisted this photo is to meβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
would you relax?
You don't know the situation...
there maybe have been a camera in the same room, just a couple meters away... Jarks not feeling the best right now, take it easy on the guy.... man.
π: 0 β©: 2
was the child not feeling his best now? was he not feeling the effects of his fathers' problems? shouldn't his father have you know, simply asked him if he wanted to be taken a picture of? and don't tell her to relax. you're just being rude, unjustified, and simply ignorant. don't you realise that jark was being a little out of hand in doing this? god, the complete and utter ignorance of people. and i agree with you *pinkfairylotus. you're right. as for jody-mits, i don't want to come off as a total jack-ass, but you just need to step back, and take a good look at the situation. i'm sorry if i called you ignorant, but that was slightly ignorant. and jark if you're reading this, please realise that the only reason i am not for you, is because of this. and that's what you want don't you? people supporting you. with this, you've lost a lot of support. goodbye.
π: 0 β©: 1
Am i fighting with parents here? I'm 18 years of age for God's sake.
As far as I can tell, Jark took the photograph of his son crying. That is completely true. His son was crying because his father, Jark, or Scott, lost his job. I think this would be the perfect time to take a photograph and show others how his son feels about the situation.
Who said Scott didn't cuddle and talk to his son after taking the shot, which must have taken a minute at the most?
WHY MUST YOU COMPLAIN SO MUCH ABOUT THIS ONE PHOTOGRAPH. Do you not trust that Jark, aka. Scott, talked to his son after taking the photograph? You guys are crying as if Jark just left his son to cry, took the photograph, and left the room.
Again, you guys are taking things way too seriously.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm sorry but if someone takes a photo of their child while they are in tears that disturbs me. I don't care what is going on between jark and the other admins but children aren't toys to be used to make people feel guilty.
π: 0 β©: 2
you're taking things way to seriously.
You're making a big deal out of something so little, yet jark just lost his fucking job.
again, I think you're over exadurating.
π: 0 β©: 2
fair enough, thats a fair opinion.
I still stand by my humble opinion that using children in such immature ways is wrong.
π: 0 β©: 0
lol, most of the site is over exaggerating if ye havent noticed, but it wasnt actually about this topic, so hey, I welcome the change
Pookie x
π: 0 β©: 0
well said dude, nice one...
lol, reading all these comments though, we're heavily out numbered...
Pookie x
π: 0 β©: 1
heh well I don't really mind that people are taking a stand for something they believe in, even if choosing between jark and angelo when noone knows the real deal seems illogical to me.
I just find the use of a childs emotions in such a sick manner tasteless and wrong.
Thanks for the comment though.
π: 0 β©: 1
i agree totally with you.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've gone and looked into everything that happened everywhere I could, because these events took place while I wasn't here, and because I don't like to make an opinion until I have all of the story. When I finally found out what happened, it made me feel very sorry for you. 
I think that using a child to depict emotion is a good idea. Children express a very raw emotion, I find. Your poor son, thats really sad that he was hurt too. I know just how painful it is for someone that you trust to suddenly turn on you, so I really feel for you. Here's letting you know that you've got folks on your side!
And perhaps I should shut up now...
π: 0 β©: 0
Why would you take a picture of your son crying and then put it on the internet?
π: 0 β©: 1
dude, look through the rest of these comments...it seems this man only replies to comments that he could increase his popularity from lol
and he could just reply with *look at the artist comment*
*shrug*
Pookie x
π: 0 β©: 1
lols, very true
π: 0 β©: 1
lol, oooh, ur right btw- X&Y IS amazing
hehehe
Pookie x
π: 0 β©: 1
lols, thanks.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wait a minute, wasn't this picture up in a different form before all this backstabbing, moneygrubbing, corporate crap?
π: 0 β©: 1
I thought I had seen it before. I recognized your son's image and that expression. Seems like it was sometime back. I may be mistaken though. Maybe it's just deja-vu, but if so, it's very strong deja-vu.
π: 0 β©: 1
i've posted pictures of my son but not of him crying.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is really an amazing photo. It really is very emotive. It is shot very well. It's a shame that the situation that made you feel this way happened but if the only good thing that comes out of it is this photo then it's good enough. It's a bold statement because you don't use bold words or pictures... but a powerful emotion.
This comment probably feels like I only comment because your the famous jark or because I feel sorry for you but from an artists point of view this is a truely amazing photograph which has really stuck in my mind.
I maybe no one but I still hope things go better, and I hope that you don't have to feel like the picture again... but that certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't stop submitting your fine art.
π: 0 β©: 1
Congratulations - you have just been manipulated.
Scuse the sarcasm, but seriously, can't you see how out-and-out manipulative this picture is? And that disclaimer is just pathetic, as if paying lip-service to the letter of the law exempts anyone from tact or good taste (It's on a par with 'No offense but [ insert offensive remark]'). The fact of the matter is that good art should not require an explanation or accompanying words to invite (or, in this case, enforce) an interpretation. While good art attests itself, all art allows itself to be understood by the viewer. If art needs explaining, it's not art.
This is just read, one-to-one, no room for manouver. As art, bereft the words, I think it's shabby. As propaganda, words attached, I think it's ham-fisted.
I would never, never, never make use of the emotions of another human being in distress to create art of this kind, especially when the intention is to manipulate an audience. This photograph implies that jark considers his position re:dA to be more important than his son's emotional well-being; at the very least, that the two don't occupy separate arenas of his life. It's an uncomfortable thought.
π: 0 β©: 3
1 I think it is a good piece of art, with words or otherwise. The picture is emotive and has been manipulated in a subtle manner to accentuate the emotion.
2 This is an art site. Many people use art to express their feelings. A good artist will help people to understand the ideas behind a work by explaining the background. Take Mahler 5 for example. If you understand what Mahler was going through @ that time of his life, the art takes on a whole new dimention.
3 Photography is about capturing moments. A very large proportion of all photographs (specifically journalistic photos) that have been taken capture the emotions of other people.
π: 0 β©: 3
i agree with you that this is a good piece of art. but using his own son, to make people feel sorry for him? isn't that a little unfair?
π: 0 β©: 0
My main problem is with 2. Expressions of feeling differ entirely from a willful 'pressing' of that feeling onto other people. The difference is between a sponge and a bucket - poor art is the latter, throwing emotions and concepts liberally around until everyone who comes near is thoroughly doused with the stuff. Good art is the former, drawing forth and retaining emotional residues from within the viewer. This is, admittedly, simplifying drastically and a poor analogy to boot: that aside, which would you say this is?
Certainly, art should never drive those emotions, acquired by whatever means, towards a specific goal - it shouldn't tell people what to do, but expose them to the possibility, the potentiality, of an alternative. It does not direct; it never could. Art follows at the rear, its nature requires that it can only do this. Could Goya have painted his depictions of the Spanish massacres before the event? Of course not. Art doesn't direct, and it follows that art can only expose; the revelation of potentiality, not the direction of it. This isn't a moral viewpoint, but a definitive one. Quite simply, if art does that (that is, attempts to direct, to impel or to close potential avenues of meaning, interpretation, discussion, all of which this piece does - look at the title for starters) it ceases to be art - it becomes an advert, or propaganda. Like this.
π: 0 β©: 0
says the man with the pro jark avatar
π: 0 β©: 1
Your point is ...? If you read my comment you would note that the comments I made try to be dispassionate. The fact that I don't want jark to be 'forgotten' in a hurry, hence the avatar, does not mean that my post is neccesarily biased.
π: 0 β©: 1
sorry dude, hit the wrong reply button...jeez...I had like 7 windows open at that point
pure fluke I managed to actually hit one by accident which HAD another jark avatar, and yeah, fair play, you stayed neutral so...
*applauds*
Pookie x
π: 0 β©: 0
your comment would be a fair one if it wern't for two things
1. This whole thing between Jark and Angelo is none of my concern. I don't know all the details so who am I to judge either party.
2. I saw the picture on Jark's page so when I first liked this photo I hadn't even read the description. In fact I saw the picture before i even knew about this whole thing. After reading a lot about jark in other people's journals and stuff I went to his page to find out for myself. I saw his picture under recent deviations and liked it then. After I read some more into what happened I came back and commented but I can assure you that if I would have commented as soon as I saw the picture it would have been a simular comment.
I merly left a comment on art that I enjoyed and was glad the artist shared, which I thought was the whole point of DA. I don't enjoy the politics you are forcing on other DA users. I enjoy art, not finger pointing and argueing. You complain of him trying to use his photo as propaganda but you are attaching your own words to it, giving an interpretation of your own again the artist.
Maybe you have a grudge or maybe your just petty but I don't see the point of you preaching to people who only care about the art. And no matter how much you state it isn't it, in my oppinion it is. Stop dancing around with your petty words trying to get people to hate jark/jark's art and go straight to the problem because frankly, sir, I don't give a damn.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for the response - I've already put a counterargument on this thread, I think.
'Maybe you have a grudge or maybe your just petty'
No grudge - I don't even know Jark. Petty? Pedantic maybe. Not petty. Important things are a constant - what is important in assessing a piece of art by an unknown is important in approaching da Vinci.
Nor do I want people to hate Jark - that's simply unfair. I actually offered my support to Jark at the start of this whole affair. I have become annoyed with the whole thing of late, so matters are different now, but I have no reason to bear a grudge or anything like it.
Petty words. Hmm.
The distinction between art and propaganda is one of the most important distinctions there is to be in art, especially today. As I said elsewhere, art exposes, while propaganda directs. Art is reactionary, and offers a reaction to a spectacle whose persuasiveness is proportional to the artists ability in visually communicating; propaganda, by contrast, precedes action, and seeks to modify behaviour to fit a specific purpose. I haven't derived these thoughts from Jark's picture, but are things I hold true (and pretty fair definitions, though you can, of course, disagree with me), which Jark's picture exemplifies. If you wish to argue then fair enough, but please argue the points I made, rather than misinterpreting my criticism of this image as being a personal attack on you.
If you enjoy art, question what it is. Out of sincere curiosity, no sarcasm: what is art to you? What is your conception of it? What is its shape, where are its boundaries? If you have no conception of art beyond the mundane (eg. painted image = art - that's an example, not an accusation) how can you enjoy fruitfully?
If this is art, and you enjoy it as such, then tell me why it is art, and then why you enjoy it. A simply 'I like the photo and didn't notice the description isn't an argument. It's an excuse. Argue with me; I would welcome it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Absolutely brilliantly said dude, nice one *applauds*
Pookie x
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks mano - I appreciate it!
π: 0 β©: 0
Hmmmm... IDK what to think. on one hand, it IS emotionally packed, but the composition could be better. Though using it as a catlyst to a raging argument was used to great effect. What you are essentially doingis selling your idea to these people, and yo do it really well. The art of selling is exactly that; an art. I'd give you an A+ for that, but an A for the picture. And anyone who gets mad at this JUST for him using his son like that, get used to it. EVERYONE uses ANYONE they can. I'm not trying to offened anyone, but it's true. If you're still offended, TOO BAD!
π: 0 β©: 1
Strange that you should use people's inherent humanity against them, as if its wrong to feel uneasy about the 'use' you acknowledge in this photo.
If people are offended, I suggest that you get used to it.
π: 0 β©: 0
O_o now i get what is going on.
Jark-san, something odd has been going on with this website. pls explain?
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm intrigued by this shot. On the one hand there are a lot of people who may be offended or put off by this. They may feel that it's beyond the pale to take a picture of your child when they are unhappy and so upset. On the OTHER hand, it shows the human cost to the actions of others. Something we very often forget, or more often just ignore.
I can't say it wasn't odd to take a picture of your child when so upset. I also can't say that you didn't comfort him after the two seconds it took to take the picture. I can't say that it didn't break your heart to see him this way, and that you didn't take the shot so that others could see that human cost I spoke of.
What I can say is that it touched my heart, and I don't think it's sick or twisted for you to have taken it. My parents have pictures of my brother screaming his fool 5 year old head off on Santa's lap that they have proudly displayed in a photo album for all to see for the last 20 years. He was terrified, but it's all part of the history of our family, and no more or less important than the happy times.
π: 0 β©: 0
its such a sad and cute picture. nice effect with the yellowy green tinge kind of like an antique, very cool
π: 0 β©: 0
Whatever it was, he'll get his eventually. Whoever, whatever, whyever....
And please exuse my sig. 
I'm sure I know how you feel- kindof. I know what it's like to have your back stabbed(in fact I'm tired of it, its happened one too many times), but I have no idea how it would feel if it was anything like DeviantArt. As in, so global, so huge, so... whoa. You know? I'm quite angry that this happened, and I'm even angrier that of all people, you don't even know why. Don't you have that right? ALL things considered.
At least... we do know one thing, this is your site just as much as his. He may hold so much stock, yet who cares? You helped build this place from NOTHING. Nothing, as seen by someone like the person we, the Devs, have made Angelo out to be.
He may be some sort of leader now, wherever he;s taking the site(I once said, I'm sortof afraid of what the site COULD become), yeah, but you're JARK.
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful. I salute you, the father of dA and the ONLY favourite yellow alien we will ever appreciate so much!
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh wow... Well, the community supports you!
π: 0 β©: 0
without any connection to the 'whole situation here' this is a very good photograph. with connection: i feel for you - and your photo makes me do that even more.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow Awesome, really nice captured Jark.
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>