Stolen from anna missed
populist
by anna missed
2009, oil on photo copy
bigger
Check anna missed‘s site for more paintings and pictures.
Back to Main
March 20, 2009
Populist
populist
by anna missed
2009, oil on photo copy
bigger
Comments
@D.Mathews – the BBC has a interpretation of Obama’s speech to Iran: What Obama’s message to Iran means. I am not sure yet what to think about it. Still only words …
wow, anna missed, what I picture. You have ‘catched’ amazingly the impression, which I have been having of Obama in your painting.
I have been wondering if others see also a sad man, in way over his head.
Posted by: Fran | Mar 20 2009 16:43 utc | 3
It been said, art should make us feel, not think. Having said that, after we feel, (acknowledge and then validate our emotions) then we think and hopefully, re-think our place in the world in relation to what we have just (in that moment) experienced. Anna missed’s art often does that for me,(ty).
I read last night that Obama gave a recent speech where he compared AIG to a ‘suicide bomber’. Not sure the implications of that, I’m still processing it, especially after reading the following link:
Obama: All in the Game
Okay, okay — just a human being here. Not a saviour. Not a god. Not a devil either, or an evil genius. Just one man, risen to the top. Risen to the top of a system where the oneness of one man, the oneness of one woman, was the whole idea. Each one counts for one. That’s the basis of the whole shebang, that’s the fundamental tenet. Six billion of us, more, and in theory every single one counting for one. Everything flows from that, everything. Even though right now it was just 300 million or so, the ones with the right photo ID and bank accounts.
We actually know it’s not true. It’s a fiction, this counting for one. A necessary fiction, you thought, standing there. It’s one of those fictions that serve a crucial purpose and therefore are accepted, their untruth converted to value. You might call it a noble lie, a lie with moral sanction. Because nothing would work without it. The whole system would crash if we stopped agreeing to suspend disbelief about this one thing, this basic idea. The whole business would come tumbling down. One counts for one. Even though it doesn’t. And it doesn’t because we’re not equal, in opportunity or access to justice, let alone wealth, any more than in talent or good looks. Because nobody without millions of dollars to spend could even think of standing where you were now. Because one man with dark skin was not about to change the fact that who your parents were accounted for most of what your life would be like, despite the constant claims directly to the contrary.
Those claims had to keep coming, though, and we had to go on believing them, or else everything would falter. You wondered: did we play at democracy the way we play at cards or dice, evening out differences with the mechanisms of chance, with fictional order and accepted rules? Or perhaps as children play, imagining and taking on roles, switching them around, acting them out, pretending? A magical system, a brilliant invention, the best one so far?…(more)
Walrus mag always has interesting writers and essays. Often making me feel and think. Not to compare the above with anna missed art, but they both resonate something inside me that can’t be denied. Drink…
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 20 2009 17:09 utc | 4
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/03/20/rick_steves/
Interesting and timely interview with Rick Steves on his visit to Iran. He sounds like a very interesting fellow.
Posted by: Juno | Mar 20 2009 17:22 utc | 5
Reply to ( b) #2
Except symbolic gesture, Obama did not offer anything new, far from it repeating same
Empty promises. It is smart political movie for domestic (may be international) nevertheless worthless. Not to forget only 10 days ago he extended sanction against Iran.
Obama is gifted politician when it comes to promises and political slogan but there is no evidence of any meaningful policy change toward Iran or Palestian/Afghanestan issues.
Obama should declare past policy mistakes toward Iran, in particular, illegal and criminal Ajax Coup against elected Prime Minister Mossadegh and siding and supporting Saddam Hussein war against Iran.
Without policy change Iran should not take empty speeches serious. Iran shall continue resistance. Iran will prevail.
As predicted with Khatami’s departure his pro US reform backers sustain huge set back. Musavi will face Ahmadinejad , and third candidate (Karubi) either will move out or will become marginalized, Currently Mahmoud is way ahead of Musavi, but he will close this gap and Obama has to deal with Mahmoud or Mir Hussein , with this in mind he should more practice in his Farsi accent ; today he did ok in Farsi…
Posted by: Loyal Lane | Mar 20 2009 17:38 utc | 6
Iran will give up nuclear enrichment if Israel removes all its nuclear weapons first.
Iran will not arm others when US sanctions are dropped and Israeli harassment of palistinians stops
Israel will go back to 68 borders with no exceptions (this is already a compromise) in return for recognition.
Any problems??
Posted by: boindub | Mar 20 2009 18:16 utc | 7
Supposedly…. It was Gertrude Stein who after having her portrait finished, remarked to Picasso “that doesn’t look like me”. To which Picasso responded back “it will”.
And just to double the irony, I see that Hollywood is going to make a film about Margaret Kean (the “big eyes” painter) as a feminist pioneer. It will star Kate Hudson.
The kitsch will continue, and probably intensify. How sad.
Posted by: anna missed | Mar 20 2009 18:34 utc | 8
From the BBC analysis b links to above:
Mr Obama offers another carrot. He accepts that Iran should take its “rightful place in the community of nations”, but adds significantly: “That place cannot be reached through terror or arms.” The measure of Iran’s greatness is not “the capacity to destroy”.
“Terror or arms” means Hezbollah and Hamas and maybe its own military build-up.
The “capacity to destroy” is a reference to nuclear weapons, even though Iran says that it will not build them, and to Iranian missile development.
I realize Obama is not Bush, but he does speak as the president of a nation which, since WWII, has been using “arms,” either by using the US military or by selling arms to those favored by the US for use against those we don’t favor. Yet, he tells Iran, a nation which has not invaded another country for a long, long, long time, that Iran is the one intent on violence.
And Obama during his campaigning made it clear he saw violence and use of arms against Iran as a strong possibility if Iran did not bend to the US’s will.
I don’t know if these words are really for domestic consumption, buying his administration time to work things out diplomatically with Iran or if they indicate a path post failure of diplomacy.
And, as always, the US won’t even mention that Israel already has a goodly number of nuclear weapons.
In line with Obama’s campaign I can hope for the best.
Posted by: jawbone | Mar 20 2009 18:37 utc | 9
Well, I said Kean as soon as I saw it; dating myself.
I wonder how Obama will “look” after so many years.
Always a pleasure to see your work anna missed.
Posted by: beq | Mar 20 2009 19:44 utc | 10
in fact, a close reading of this months vanity fair – is a study of how kitch capitalism has become – a fascinatin’ fascism -the lives & crime of the rich & venal – the madoff’s & their mad mad world – also the fund feeders – & all their rich friends they were stealing from as they smiled – also an instructive article on piracy & & the french ‘theatre’ of operations
you don’t know whether to laugh or cry
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 20 2009 23:31 utc | 13