Right-Wing Craziness Through Artistic Expression? "McNaughton" My Watch!

My family and I were enjoying our President's Day together with a quick stroll through Provo Towne Center, when a small corner gallery beckoned me in with a humongous painting right in the doorway, with Jesus Christ in the center and a crowd surrounding Him. It reminded me of a painting an old roommate of mine had in the bedroom (my roommate was in the military and had spent time in Afghanistan):


I think I liked this painting when my roommate hung it up. It's sort of interesting to think of war and spirituality. I don't have any personal connection to the concept, because I have never been in the military and don't have many close relatives who did. But I do know from the scriptures and even modern history, sometimes there is a righteous purpose in war and I do believe the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost can be with a soldier, even on the battlefield. (As it turns out, I learned that the title of this painting is "Peace Is Coming." So maybe this painting is more about the second coming of Christ and the end of wars and contentions anyway.)

Anyway, I was right to be reminded of this painting when I entered the gallery in the mall, because the painting at the entrance and "Peace Is Coming" were done by the same artist. But the one I first saw in the mall was quite different:


Again, it's Christ surrounded by people representing moments in history. But this one is much more controversial and upset me a little.

This one is called "One Nation Under God." It depicts Christ holding up the Constitution as written by our nation's Founding Fathers, backed up by a host of American heroes. In the foreground, one side shows people who are in awe of the Constitution and venerate it, while the other side is a group who are ashamed of how they have violated or abused the Constitution. The ashamed group sits by papers on the ground representing Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade.

This is quite a statement, to say that Supreme Court judges and politicians have violated the Constitution. Or to say that the pregnant woman, who I assumed represents women who want abortions because she's "at the left hand of God" in the painting, is violating the Constitution. (It turns out, if you go to the official description of the painting, that the woman "is saying to herself, 'I want to keep my baby.' She represents hope." Oh, okay. But why is she on the same side of the painting as the Constitution-haters? I think it's easy for anyone to misinterpret that, like I did.)

And, check this out:


Look who's at the "left hand of God"! A reporter! Like me! Thanks a lot, Jon McNaughton. (Maybe he just means TV reporters specifically ... haha, just kidding broadcast journalism students.)

So while this controversial painting irked me, I browsed through the gallery some more and saw one that was just appalling, "The Forgotten Man":


Really, Jon McNaughton? Really? I couldn't believe this. President Obama literally stepping on the Constitution? While most of his predecessors frown disapprovingly (and James Madison's heart breaks)? C'mon, man.

President Obama has done things I disagree with. But I wouldn't say he's trampling on the Constitution (at least not any more than President Bush or President Reagan did - you can find rhetoric that goes either direction on accusing presidents of going against their oath of office, left or right).

And, the "forgotten man" sitting on the park bench? If he's supposed to represent someone who's down-and-out on his luck, wouldn't the "nanny state" agenda of a liberal president like Obama be just what he's looking for?

Mostly what I couldn't get over was the fact that all of this was in a painting. An editorial cartoon, sure. But a painting? A framed painting on a wall has a way of immortalizing ideas, humanity and life, and somehow makes everything "official." But in no way should the ideas conveyed in either of these paintings be considered official. Unless you consider being simplistic, vilifying and closed-minded to be official.

Could you imagine visiting someone for dinner who has either of these huge paintings in their living room? I'm sorry, but even if we managed to keep the political conversation at a minimum, I would just be distracted the whole visit by this painting and what it's trying to say to me. Especially if it's trying to tell me I hate the Constitution because I'm a member of the press.

After I came home and visited Jon McNaughton's website, I calmed down a little after reading his explanations. I learned about the pregnant woman in "One Nation, Under God" and that she wasn't an abortion-wanting Constitution hater (although I think it makes sense why I was led to believe that), like I said earlier. And I learned that he grouped the presidents in "The Forgotten Man" based on who increased the federal debt the most, and he was able to leave out any Republican or Democratic bias by putting George W. Bush on the debt-increasing side and John F. Kennedy on the fiscal conservative side. And "the forgotten man" is anyone who has to endure the exponentially-increasing national debt, not necessarily a poor man in need of government benefits (like these guys).

(One explanation, for "One Nation Under God," actually renewed the fire in my belly. On the side of Constitution worshipers, there is someone labeled an "Immigrant": "Why does he have his hand up like that? There are many good people in America, they are not all Christian. I wanted him to have a look of shock when he realizes where the source of America's greatness comes from as he sees Christ holding the Constitution. We live in a country where we are free to worship as we please." Sounds inclusive at the beginning and end, but did you catch that condescending and xenophobic part in the middle?)

As far as the actual artistic skills go, Jon McNaughton is great. And he has a lot of paintings based on scripture and Christ's life, and I admire those.

But combining religion and politics is a touchy fine line. And expressing that combination through artistic expression is liable to provoke many a rant.

If you want to go to his website and check this stuff out for yourself, go here:

McNaughton Fine Art

On the three paintings that I mentioned, you can get an explanation of all the figures and symbols by holding your mouse over each one, which is kind of cool:

Peace Is Coming
One Nation, Under God
The Forgotten Man

Or read an explanation for each one:

Peace Is Coming
One Nation, Under God
The Forgotten Man

McNaughton also has a link on his website to this Slate.com article, calling him "the official artist of the Tea Party." He must be pretty proud of that.

Tea Party Agitprop

(I should mention that all of these images were screen clippings taken from Jon McNaughton's website. I do not intend to break copyright laws by posting them here, just to utilize them for commentary and educational purposes.)

Sugarcoating Oil

Hello, blog fans.

I really liked today's page. My column turned out better than I expected, and might be one of my favorites so far. I love it when I come up with a sentence or phrase that surprises me. I'm especially proud of this one:

"If all we do with news is sugarcoat it and look at it with rose-colored glasses, we will end up diabetic and color blind."

That's ready for the next edition of Bartlett's, my friends.

Sugarcoating oil - BP confuses news with P.R.

Today's column was a chance for another diatribe of mine about the high ideals of journalism. (And it was a perfect way to follow up what happened earlier this week.) There's another slight hint of "stickittothemaneosis" on my page today, similar to the way I utilized my column on the David Pearl Freedom of the Press Act.

More specifically, I talk about BP's "reporters" who are searching for the sunny side of this whole oil spill disaster. (Correction: the sunny side of BP's whole oil spill disaster.) It's perfectly fine to look for pro-BP stories in the gulf states, and it's fine to do P.R., but the squeaky voice piping up in favor of BP is overwhelmingly drowned out by what actual news services are reporting. I'm sure the stories from the BP "reporters" are true and legitimate. But they don't accurately represent the whole community.

Here are a few of BP's dispatches from the gulf (the ones I quoted in my article):

"Over about four hours we … enjoyed the spectacular ballet at sea. … Watching the captains weave the long black boom as seamlessly as a professional ballet troupe performs an intricate dance, I found it difficult to believe that the rehearsals only started some weeks ago.”

“Much of the region’s … businesses — particularly the hotels — have been prospering because so many people have come here from BP and other oil emergency response teams.”

“There is no reason to hate BP,” “business has fallen off sharply, suddenly,” “This is an oilfield community," "People understand.”

“Chaisson hasn’t yet made up her mind about what to say in the first editorial on the subject.”

Here's where you will find all of their blog posts:

Blogs from the Gulf

Now, some of the "reporters" bring up some points that are important. Even though oil is ruining the ways of life for many gulf coast residents, a lot of them are still against President Barack Obama's six-month moratorium on oil drilling because it causes six months of no work for many people. And a lot of tourism-type businesses are hoping visitors won't be scared to come down to the gulf. There is still plenty to do for tourists and they can still enjoy their vacation.

That being said, I hope you enjoy the many examples of mushiness in these BP gulf "reports."

And if you're interested in reading all of Vicki Chaisson's editorial (the editor from The Lafourche Gazette who one of the BP "reporters" talked to), here's that:

Where will it all end?

Here's a hilarious sketch on the BP "reporters" from Stephen Colbert:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Lube Job
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Other features in today's Issues & Ideas page:

There is a house editorial written by the Daily Universe's editor-in-chief and COMMS 321 instructor, Ed Carter. When he said he had a house editorial about the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit against Arizona for its new immigration law, I expected that if he got into the controversy and the different sides of the issue, the editorial would be in favor of the opposite side I would support. But, instead of saying anything about racial profiling, Professor Carter stuck to the legality and constitutionality of the issue. And I happen to agree with the viewpoint he took.

Immigration and the Supremacy Clause

And, I totally drew a cartoon for the page and then forgot to include it on the page! I didn't have any room for it anyway, so it's not too tragic. And thanks to blogging technology, I can still share it to you.