Or, satire vs. sacrilege? Blasphemy vs. prescient social commentary?
I followed a link from Yahoo today, as did many, many other people, some with not-so-good sentence composition and spelling skills (see comments on this entry), to a story about an artist's painting that is raising lots of questions about our society's deification of celebrities.
Kate Kretz created a painting of Angelina Jolie, appearing in the likeness of the Virgin Mary, hovering over checkout lines at a WalMart. She is holding her child (the one from Brad Pitt) and is surrounded by her two adopted children, au naturel. There is no question that the image is Jolie; the artist has even included tattoos.
Beneath the apparition, WalMart shoppers gather near the celebrity gossip magazines -- Jennifer Anniston and Oprah are recognizable on covers.
Source: jpg of painting at Artist's blog. Definitely go look at the larger version of the picture, called "Blessed Art Thou."
Kretz's comments on her painting (which were obviously NOT read by most of the commentariat) made me appreciate subversive and prescient nature of the work (insert smug expression here.) I, of course, consider myself immune to the cult of celebrity (insert recognition of likely self-righteous, self-deluded status here.) I'm glad folks are making this sort of art.
From the artist:
This painting addresses the celebrity worship cycle. The title, “Blessed Art Thou”, is taken from a line in the Catholic prayer “Hail Mary”: “…blessed art thou among women”. Our culture is deifying celebrities, but in the bible (sic), it is the meek who are blessed, so the title presents a question for the viewer to ponder.For those of you who are wondering, the commentariat here at the House of Chez Casa suggested "Angelina Holie" as a painting title, before wandering into the kitchen singing "Jolie, Jolie, Jolie..."
I chose a setting where the cycle begins: psychologically oppressive environments like this one are one of the feeding sources for the consumer, hungry for “information” about the celebrity's private life. I am interested in the psychological ramifications of celebrity worship, particularly as they relate to class.
Angelina Jolie was chosen as the subject because of her unavoidable presence in the media, the world-wide anticipation of her child, her "unattainable" beauty and the good that she is doing in the world through her example, which adds another layer to the already complicated questions surrounding her status.
The "Virgin" and Zahara figures are loosely based on a Van Dyck Virgin painting, and the Maddox figure's pose is borrowed from a Raphael painting.
Posts
5 comments:
I'll leave it to the fertile imagination of those who know the O'Cayces' Texas connection to sort out whether the J in "Jolie, Jolie, Jolie" should be pronounced as the J in jolly ot as the J in jalapeno.
Izzy
probably going to jell
I posted an encouraging comment on the artist's blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howdy, Kate.
Like everybody else in North America today, I followed the Yahoo links to your blog and got to see the painting. Wow.
Unlike most of my fellow countrymen, it seems, I also read your explanations for your iconographic choices.
I, too, was struck by the ridiculous level of anticipation generated in the celebrity corner of journalism as the whole world waited for the birth of Shiloh last year. The Jolie-Pitts, driven as it were from their homeland, were forced to bring forth a baby under third world conditions... an infant born to an unmarried woman... a star (OK, 2 stars) appearing in Africa just before the eagerly anticipated birth (tongue firmly in cheek with the Nativity comparisons, folks.)
Who read and devoured those comparisons?? The same folks who read the celeb media, maybe the folks counting their cash at the WalMart, certainly (I assume) the commenter above so kindly referred to as "Captain Capital Letters."
As a Catholic, and as someone who believes that our energies need to be spent on what is pleasing to God, I very much appreciated this skewering of our culture's "cult" (as in worship) of celebrities.
Also, as a Catholic, I feel really badly about the knee-jerk, misspelt, awkwardly constructed, mis-directed anger of my co-religionists. But, without the controversy, I guess I would never have had the opportunity to see this painting.
Thanks. My take here.
Although the painting is nice from an artistic point of view, but I dislike
the fact that it's making Angelina glow like a real angel. We all know she's far
from it doesn't matter how hard she tries to do all this goodie goodie around
the world.
I don't but it at all.
Autumn,
I think the artist's point was to paint Angelina (even her name evokes angels) with all the characteristics that we ascribe to angels or exalted beings. This is because we treat these people as if they were exalted and extra-special.
If she were really trying to find someone to "compare" to the BVM, she'd have to choose someone like Mother Teresa or Mother Hale or St. Clare, etc.
She isn't trying to say that Jolie is like the BVM, just that we treat celebrities that way. The mockery isn't of those of us who revere Mary, but of those folks who revere famous people merely because they are famous.
Thanks for stopping by.
I agree with Izzy and the Texicans.
Jolie Jolie Jolie! Good God Almighty! Early in the morning we'll adopt three!
Jolie Jolie Jolie! Beautiful of Celebrity, Bradgelina in two persons blessed family.
Post a Comment