Michael D’Antuono, The Truth, 2009

The Obamessiah’s 100th Day (4/29) was scheduled to be commemorated by the unveiling of a new “art work” in New York City’s Union Square.

WorldNetDaily:

On his 100th day in office, President Obama will be “crowned” in messianic imagery at New York City’s Union Square.

Artist Michael D’Antuono’s painting “The Truth” – featuring Obama with his arms outstretched and wearing a crown of thorns upon his head – will be unveiled on April 29 at the Square’s South Plaza. …

Like others in the news who have depicted Obama in Christ-like imagery, D’Antuono insists he isn’t claiming the man is Messiah, but only inviting “individual interpretations.”

—————————————-

Some interpretations, like that of the Anchoress, as it turned out, were seriously negative.

This actually made me kind of sick. I threw up a little in my mouth. Please excuse the mass mailing…I think everyone should see it. To me it’s sick and sycophantic, but it is also so cowardly. Insult the Christians, because you can, and never mind that we’re still in Easter.

This makes me think less of Obama, who should have gotten out in front of this messianic talk, instead of silently encouraging it. It speaks volumes about the artist, but Obama’s silent consent also speaks volumes about him.

—————————————-

So, what’s a bad, bold artist dedicated to challenging the conventional bourgeois point of view supposed to do when faced with criticism? Why scuttle back to cover like a New York City cockroach when someone turns the light on, of course!

PR Newswire:

Painter Michael D’Antuono has cancelled the planned public unveiling of his latest work “The Truth” at NYC’s Union Square Park on President Obama’s 100th day in office due to overwhelming public outrage. The artist’s decision was based in part on thousands of emails and phone calls; online blogs and other public commentary received in the first 48 hours following its release. …

The artist insists that the work was intended purely as a political piece. “The religious reference was used metaphorically and not to insult anyone’s religious beliefs. If that is the effect that my art has had on anyone, I am truly sorry,” says D’Antuono.

—————————————-

Sure, the painting was blasphemous. But its combination of lame composition, weak draftsmanship, and puerile ambiguity made it into much more of a negative example of its own genre. It’s this kind of ersatz art that is bound to give blasphemy a bad name.