General Election

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:53 pm

Yeah I read that guardian article earlier today. I’m still not convinced that the artist purposefully painted an anti-semitic piece. He’s clearly a conpiracy theory illuminati nutjob, as a quick trawl through his instagram account reveals, as does his alignment with the Ickes.

Whatever his intentions, the fact remains that, even if he didn’t plan to insult, his work is so poorly executed and the message so confused that he should probably start rethinking his political artist tag.

And drop the scrabbling around line Blackbat, you’ve been doing much more of it than me in your stubborn refusal to accept that a poor caricaturists exist.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14752
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm

I don't think I have at all, Gibbon. I responded directly to your assertion that they weren't caricatures with actual pictures of the people you purport the artist to be depicting, none of which look remotely like the people in the mural. To which you argue "well he's a shit artist anyway".

Meanwhile, there are several obvious Jewish caricatures: bald headed man with a beard like a rabbit counting money and with a Jewish nose, who looks nothing at all like any of the purported subjects: you say obviously not a caricature or remotely anti semitic.

There are also several images strongly associated with anti semitic sentiment: the eye of the providence being placed on a pyramid, most often used to symbolise the supposed masonic/zionist new world order conspiracy.

I'm not the only person to point this out. In my opinion, you're trying to find a way out of admitting you're wrong, even when the person who's caused the furore in the first pace has owned up. Hence: scrabbling around.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:21 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm
I don't think I have at all, Gibbon. I responded directly to your assertion that they weren't caricatures with actual pictures of the people you purport the artist to be depicting, none of which look remotely like the people in the mural. To which you argue "well he's a shit artist anyway".

Meanwhile, there are several obvious Jewish caricatures: bald headed man with a beard like a rabbit counting money and with a Jewish nose, who looks nothing at all like any of the purported subjects: you say obviously not a caricature or remotely anti semitic.

There are also several images strongly associated with anti semitic sentiment: the eye of the providence being placed on a pyramid, most often used to symbolise the supposed masonic/zionist new world order conspiracy.

I'm not the only person to point this out. In my opinion, you're trying to find a way out of admitting you're wrong, even when the person who's caused the furore in the first pace has owned up. Hence: scrabbling around.
It's nice that you have that opinion, but I don't think I was wrong. I haven't said they're not caricatures, I've said based on the artists stated intentions, I doubt they're anti-semitic caricatures, and yes, they hardly resemble the people that they're purported to be, but having looked at his other likenesses in instagram, he's pretty rubbish at likenesses, particularly when transferring work to a wall.

The eye of providence is most definitely not 'most often used to symbolise the supposed masonic/zionist new world order conspiracy.' That's just how a small band of cranks interpret it. It's most commonly perceived meaning is the eye of God watching over humanity - something the Freemasons adopted, and then a very small quantity of conspiracy theorists decided that the Freemasons were run by zionists.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14752
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:24 pm

Gibbon wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:21 am
mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm
I don't think I have at all, Gibbon. I responded directly to your assertion that they weren't caricatures with actual pictures of the people you purport the artist to be depicting, none of which look remotely like the people in the mural. To which you argue "well he's a shit artist anyway".

Meanwhile, there are several obvious Jewish caricatures: bald headed man with a beard like a rabbit counting money and with a Jewish nose, who looks nothing at all like any of the purported subjects: you say obviously not a caricature or remotely anti semitic.

There are also several images strongly associated with anti semitic sentiment: the eye of the providence being placed on a pyramid, most often used to symbolise the supposed masonic/zionist new world order conspiracy.

I'm not the only person to point this out. In my opinion, you're trying to find a way out of admitting you're wrong, even when the person who's caused the furore in the first pace has owned up. Hence: scrabbling around.
It's nice that you have that opinion, but I don't think I was wrong. I haven't said they're not caricatures, I've said based on the artists stated intentions, I doubt they're anti-semitic caricatures, and yes, they hardly resemble the people that they're purported to be, but having looked at his other likenesses in instagram, he's pretty rubbish at likenesses, particularly when transferring work to a wall.

The eye of providence is most definitely not 'most often used to symbolise the supposed masonic/zionist new world order conspiracy.' That's just how a small band of cranks interpret it. It's most commonly perceived meaning is the eye of God watching over humanity - something the Freemasons adopted, and then a very small quantity of conspiracy theorists decided that the Freemasons were run by zionists.
So they are caricatures? And given that they don't really look anything like the people they're supposedly meant to be, but do closely resemble Jewish caricatures, one would come to the rational, logical conclusion that they're Jewish caricatures. Especially the dude on the left. Especially looking at the sum of the whole parts.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:14 pm

Are you crazy? I never said they weren’t caricatures - in fact I gave you a list of the people they were meant to be caricatures of, only two of whom are jewish.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14752
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:15 pm

Yes and they don't exaggerate any of the features of those people at all. A caricature has to bear some resemblance to the person its of.....

Honestly, can't work out why you're still arguing!

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:28 pm

Er...BAD caricatures?

I’m still arguing because you seem to ignore every point I make, but it’s exhausting. If you can’t win an argument with someone Blackbat, you seem to just try and outlast them. :D

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14752
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:28 am

Gibbon wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:28 pm
Er...BAD caricatures?

I’m still arguing because you seem to ignore every point I make, but it’s exhausting. If you can’t win an argument with someone Blackbat, you seem to just try and outlast them. :D
Ok: so if I draw a caricature that looks like a golliwog, but say it's Barack Obama, that's not racist cause it's a really bad caricature?!? Come on, Gibbon, get real.

I haven't ignored your points at all. You said they were depictions (which you've later changed to caricatures, and then to bad caricatures...) so I pulled up some images of those people and asked you to tell me who was who; which you haven't done (probably because it's impossible: none of the "depictions" look remotely like the people they're supposed to be).

I've raised the iconography and stated that collectively, i.e. not in isolation, it points to the Jewish/Mason conspiracy theory. Individually perhaps they might mean other thibgs, but that would be like sayoig a picture of a dude with a little tache under his nose, raising his palm in a vertical salute whilst wearing a swastika was clearly symbolic of Charlie Chaplin, hailing a cab after having embraced Hinduism....

So: there's your points addressed (again).

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:27 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:28 am
Ok: so if I draw a caricature that looks like a golliwog, but say it's Barack Obama, that's not racist cause it's a really bad caricature?!? Come on, Gibbon, get real.
That's really not the same thing at all. For a start two of the characters around the table, Warburg and Rothschild are jewish, the whole furore started because of their depiction and if you accept that they are two of the figures then surely you have to accept that there's a good chance that the rest of them are who the artist claims them to be; not jewish yet they all share the characteristics that you say are used in racist depictions of jews. I say it's just a poor illustration.
mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:28 am
I haven't ignored your points at all. You said they were depictions (which you've later changed to caricatures, and then to bad caricatures...) so I pulled up some images of those people and asked you to tell me who was who; which you haven't done (probably because it's impossible: none of the "depictions" look remotely like the people they're supposed to be).
I've not done it because I have two kids, a 1 year old and a 6 year old, who are taking up most of my time. When I'm not looking after them I'm working the remaining free hours on two kids picture books and assets for an educational piece of software. BUSY, and trying to do that sort of look up is tricky from my phone. I'll have a look after I finish this, as I'm actually sat at my PC for once in between pages. :D

'You said they were depictions (which you've later changed to caricatures, and then to bad caricatures...)' I've not changed anything just become more specific as it became apparent that you mistakenly thought that all caricaturists were competent.
mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:28 am
I've raised the iconography and stated that collectively, i.e. not in isolation, it points to the Jewish/Mason conspiracy theory. Individually perhaps they might mean other thibgs, but that would be like sayoig a picture of a dude with a little tache under his nose, raising his palm in a vertical salute whilst wearing a swastika was clearly symbolic of Charlie Chaplin, hailing a cab after having embraced Hinduism....

So: there's your points addressed (again).
Except they're not, because again, you're failing to accept that I don't agree with your interpretation of those elements that make up your collective whole.

Lets look at it from your point of view:

Appearance of figures sat at table: Jewish stereo types
Eye of Providence: Co-opted by Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists to suggest a Masonic/Zionist illuminati.

Blackbat Conclusion: Anti-Semitic mural depicting corrupt financial elite ruling on the backs of the working class. Artist lying about intentions.

And mine:

Appearance of figures sat at table: Poor caricatures of corrupt elderly American and European financiers. (religion of each irrelevant to message)
Eye of Providence: Common symbol of Masonic illuminati.

My Conclusion: Mural depicting corrupt financial elite ruling on the backs of the working class. Artist truthful about intentions.

So the interpretation of the iconography collectively works for each conclusion depending on your belief in the artists assertion that he had no anti-semitic agenda in their depiction. As I have no reason to doubt him, although he's clearly a conspiracy nutjob of a different flavour. In fact the fact he published his rebuttal on David Ickes' blog would hint that he has similar views to Icke, who himself has huge problems and believes that extraterrestrial lizard people are conspiring to take over the world. Ickes's actually been accused of anti-semitism before with lizards being an analogy for jews but as this wiki entry says:
Some people have taken offense to Icke, claiming that "shape-shifting lizard-people" is a code word for "Jews".[7] Icke claims that he is not anti-Semitic and that when he says "shape-shifting lizard-people," he quite literally means lizards, saying to Ronson in 2001: "There is a tribe of people interbreeding, which do not relate to any Earth race ... This is not a Jewish plot. This is not a plot on the world by Jewish people."[8]

'He does believe the virulently antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a true document, although he argues that it was not about Jews, because "Jew" (ironically, given the accusation of coded anti-Semitism) was supposedly a code word for actual lizards.[9]

Although he hangs around with some rather fringe right-wing nutcases, he balances it all out by being just as insane a believer in New Age mumbo-jumbo. He also has been flirting with Holocaust denial,[10] but in Icke's case it's less likely a sign of anti-Semitism than yet another manifestation of all-round insanity.'
I see where you're coming from but I've not seen compelling evidence to condemn the artist, in fact he's consistently denied any anti-semitic intent since producing the piece 7 years ago - hence innocent until proven guilty in my book.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14752
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:05 pm

Gibbon wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:27 am
mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:28 am
Ok: so if I draw a caricature that looks like a golliwog, but say it's Barack Obama, that's not racist cause it's a really bad caricature?!? Come on, Gibbon, get real.
That's really not the same thing at all. For a start two of the characters around the table, Warburg and Rothschild are jewish, the whole furore started because of their depiction and if you accept that they are two of the figures then surely you have to accept that there's a good chance that the rest of them are who the artist claims them to be; not jewish yet they all share the characteristics that you say are used in racist depictions of jews. I say it's just a poor illustration.
I don't follow: are you suggesting Obama isn't black?

The dude on the left of the table is as much a Jewish caricature as a golliwog is of a black man. I.E. hugely offensive and looking nothing like the subject matter.

As for thr competence of someone being a caricaturist (is that a word) I'm not even sure I see the relevance. Good or bad, the choice of caricature is pretty offensive.
Last edited by mrblackbat on Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:08 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:28 am
You said they were depictions (which you've later changed to caricatures, and then to bad caricatures...) so I pulled up some images of those people and asked you to tell me who was who; which you haven't done (probably because it's impossible: none of the "depictions" look remotely like the people they're supposed to be).
Ta-daaa!

Image

There are recognisable likenesses there, but poor ones. Enough I'd say to give the artist the benefit of the doubt however shit he is.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:10 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:05 pm

I don't follow: are you suggesting Obama isn't black?
Don't be ridiculous.
mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:05 pm
The dude on the left of the table is as much a Jewish caricature as a golliwog is of a black man. I.E. hugely offensive and looking nothing like the subject matter.

As for thr competence of someone being a caricaturist (is that a word) I'm not even sure I see the relevance. Good or bad, the choice of caricature is pretty offensive.
See image posted above. The Carnegie example I found is someone else's caricature of the man, which isn't that far removed from the mural one and he's not even jewish.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14752
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:14 pm

Well I certainly think Carnegie is more than stretching it, that you've had to compare to an existing caricature Says a lot; the beard is utterly ludicrous in comparison....

The whole point is he isn't Jewish. Yet the image we're discussing is the most Jewish looking caricature there. ;)

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:18 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:14 pm
Well I certainly think Carnegie is more than stretching it, that you've had to compare to an existing caricature Says a lot; the beard is utterly ludicrous in comparison....

The whole point is he isn't Jewish. Yet the image we're discussing is the most Jewish looking caricature there. ;)
I've often looked at other people's caricatures when I'm trying to capture a likeness for one myself. They're bloody hard.

To be honest I just don't think he can paint beard hair. :lol:

*Alternate edit offered: To be honest I just don't think he can paint.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14752
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:27 pm

I think he painted a really obvious caricature of someone Jewish. Which, given that you assert he can't paint, seems even more likely.

Post Reply