The fact that it’s done as a triptych, and it’s not divided into three acts or scenes really highlights the concept of form over function that the right so dearly holds.
I came here to comment on this exact thing. Not only is it a bad painting, but the bad art aspect transcends the painting itself, even to the execution as a triptych. Every aspect of this is terrible.
The fact that it also kinda follows the rule of thirds makes it even more bizarre. They took the character of interest (Trump) and split him in half between the two panels, but left the cock and balls at another point of tension, implying some sort of sexual tension between the figures?
what buggers belief is that you were able to look at it long enough for that level of critique. brava.
edit: there are some weird, linear intersections and balance-counterbalances that keep drawing the eye here-there-and-everywhere, but i can’t seem to figure out the point of any of it. neither could the artist, it seems. it’s dizzying to look at.
The one upside I see is that you can swap out the middle and right thirds as needed to change the good and bad politicians when Oceania changes to always have been at war with Eastasia.
I think it’s just because that particular Joan Fabrics didn’t have a single canvas that was big enough on the Wednesday afternoon that the artist’s clinical manic episode compelled her to produce this.
Literally the first thing I thought after parsing out the really cartoonish image was “why is this a triptych and not just on a single canvas?” Of course the answer is “because conservatives.” What a weird waste of time and money. Also I don’t personally want to know who these ghouls are but it might be good for society to know who these nasty little goblins are in case they enter Starbucks or the local Wage Theft Establishment.
The fact that it’s done as a triptych, and it’s not divided into three acts or scenes really highlights the concept of form over function that the right so dearly holds.
I came here to comment on this exact thing. Not only is it a bad painting, but the bad art aspect transcends the painting itself, even to the execution as a triptych. Every aspect of this is terrible.
The fact that it also kinda follows the rule of thirds makes it even more bizarre. They took the character of interest (Trump) and split him in half between the two panels, but left the cock and balls at another point of tension, implying some sort of sexual tension between the figures?
As they say, it buggers belief.
what buggers belief is that you were able to look at it long enough for that level of critique. brava.
edit: there are some weird, linear intersections and balance-counterbalances that keep drawing the eye here-there-and-everywhere, but i can’t seem to figure out the point of any of it. neither could the artist, it seems. it’s dizzying to look at.
Hehe buggers belief ;)
I thought it was “beggars belief”?
You’d bugger Belief too if you saw 'em.
The one upside I see is that you can swap out the middle and right thirds as needed to change the good and bad politicians when Oceania changes to always have been at war with Eastasia.
I think it’s just because that particular Joan Fabrics didn’t have a single canvas that was big enough on the Wednesday afternoon that the artist’s clinical manic episode compelled her to produce this.
You know they only shop at hobby lobby and only it at chickfillet.
they are so bad at every form of art it’s unbelievable
Literally the first thing I thought after parsing out the really cartoonish image was “why is this a triptych and not just on a single canvas?” Of course the answer is “because conservatives.” What a weird waste of time and money. Also I don’t personally want to know who these ghouls are but it might be good for society to know who these nasty little goblins are in case they enter Starbucks or the local Wage Theft Establishment.
The artist could put more time into their life drawing skill too.