War President.

[Droppyale]

It's a mosaic composed of the photos of the American service men and women who have died in Iraq.

from here

[TOAD6147]

Very profound.

[Atomic Rooster]

That's as offensive as the Bush campaign using the images of 9/11 in their commercial. That's a terrible use of the deceased soldiers images for political gain.

[Chuckiechan]

I wonder if they got the families permission to use these images? Dirtbags always seem to find a deeper low...

[Droppyale]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster
That's as offensive as the Bush campaign using the images of 9/11 in their commercial. That's a terrible use of the deceased soldiers images for political gain.

I agree.

I think the author just did it to prove a point... not for political gain.

I think.

[Gomer]

Given this image's inflammatory nature, I posted it with a great deal of trepidation. I had a hard time deciding if it was the right thing to do and I am still not sure. No, I didn't have the consent of the families of those pictured, and I apologize for any additional pain that this image causes them. That said, I must say that it is my belief that one distinguishing characteristic between art and other forms of speech is that art takes risks, and if we, as a society, value art we must allow it more leeway than other modes of expression to incite or offend.

'War President' is meant to be a satirical commentary, informed by the whole project of using the dead as political props. I'm not making a dime off the image, and never will attempt to do so. Given this lack of financial or other crass motives, other recent instances of the politicization of the dead strike me as more morally questionable: the coffins of the victims of 9/11 showing up in a political advertisement, the continued suppression of images of the funerals of those lost in Iraq from the mainstream American media, and images of the 9/11 disaster in a campaign ad. A certain party stands to benefit greatly from all three of those instances of politicization.

I'd also like to point out that 'War President' is an image. It is not a textual statement or rhetorical argument. An image is like an empty room and any message that one reads in that room necessarily came in the baggage one carried when one walked in the door. If I made a mosaic of George Washington composed of images of the American dead from the revolution, would viewers likely take that image as an indictment of Washington? I submit that they would not. It would be viewed as a monument to the dead and a celebration of a great leader, a somewhat maudlin monument maybe but surely not offensive. The fact that 'War President' is not viewed such a manner is not due to any intrinsic property of 'War President' but lies somewhere else.

I'm getting a lot of requests about usage rights etc. Use 'War President' however you want, but don't use it for monetary benefit, and please don't
alter or modify it.

edit: correct format

[jmebonner]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster
That's as offensive as the Bush campaign using the images of 9/11 in their commercial. That's a terrible use of the deceased soldiers images for political gain.

Agreed. Every day i wonder more and more if it's all really necessary though. A staunch republican doesn't mean one needs to follow blindly. I pains me to hear the stories of the one's who've lost a family member.

[Bovon]

Gee...when I read the thread title, I thought perhaps this thread was concerning George Washington, or Abe Lincoln!

[MTAtech]

Art's purpose is to portray a message.

The message of this art is that GWB has the lives of dead soldiers on his face.

I think it an appropriate piece of art directed at a President who tries very hard to disconnect himself from the war dead - prohibiting viewing of dead and coffins or attending funerals.

[Chuckiechan]

How many dead Vietnam viets are on Kennedy and Johnson's faces?

I wonder how many dead Iraqi's would be on Clinton's face?

I just see the whole thing as tasteless porn for Bush haters.