Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Angelina Jolie art: Blessed Art Thou Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
01-14-2007 03:33 AM
tiffer23 I'm highly doubting that the artist had any idea about Maddox's penis. Nor would that be where most people's eye would take them. I don't think there's any idea whether he is or isn't intact.
01-13-2007 11:40 PM
AXEius
Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster View Post
This made me think back to my college days when I took life drawing. Even though many of the male models were circ, I always drew them intact.
lol thats awesome. You drew them how you KNEW they were supposed to be . if i were to take life drawing i think i would do the same thing. Men look so...naked when they are nude and circumcised, its as though having the foreskin covering the glans gives some..modesty. Ive never taken life drawing, i mostly self learned except for my art classes in high school and a few months at the Flint institute of art in Michigan that my teacher in 5th grade paid for lol. So, ive never had the chance to draw nudes from life, well except my wife a couple of times . well I hope the child in the painting and the child in real life is intact.
01-13-2007 04:09 PM
eepster
Quote:
Originally Posted by AXEius View Post
I would assume this is mostly explained by the circumcision status of their models who would be mostly circumcised men but ive also seen plenty of drawings/paintings that were done from memory and a majority were circumcised. I think this is simply the result of the artist portraying what he feels is normal.
This made me think back to my college days when I took life drawing. Even though many of the male models were circ, I always drew them intact.
01-13-2007 02:02 PM
Lula's Mom If a person were to google Angeline Jolie Painting Kate, a person might find that the artist's blog comes up first on the list! And then the person might ask the artist directly, and she might clear this up herself. That would be cool, theoretically!
01-13-2007 10:47 AM
AXEius
Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster View Post
bold mine

Only if he were aware of it and was thinking about it. It just might not occure to him that he might want to change the penis from the painting he was using as a model to look more modern american and less italian renaisance. Also such a change might make it harder to see the connection to iconic religious art.
thats a good possibility but I've seen a many nude works done by Americans and an overwhelming majority of the males are circumcised. I would assume this is mostly explained by the circumcision status of their models who would be mostly circumcised men but ive also seen plenty of drawings/paintings that were done from memory and a majority were circumcised. I think this is simply the result of the artist portraying what he feels is normal. I agree the artist is probably not even aware of the controversy surrounding circumcision and wouldnt have actually been thinking about making a statement by potraying the child as circumcised. I do think from personal experience that american artist potray males as circumcised simply because that is what they feel is normal and that this artist would be no different. This kind of thing in art has been going on since art began . A good example would be Michelangelo'd David, in which david is clearly intact (not loosely circumcised)because not only was circumcision not normal to Michelangelo's society, it was offensive. Who knows if the painting of the child is intact or not, or if Angelina's son is still intact or not. Debating it seems kind of silly and our even talking about it I think relates directly to the artist's statement with "blessed art though"
01-12-2007 02:54 PM
eepster
Quote:
Originally Posted by AXEius View Post
well considering the actual painting is about 7feet tall, im sure you could see alot more detail in person than zooming in on a comparitivley low resolution JPEG image. As for the children being painted in a style similar to cherubs who would normally be intact, as an amature artist i can atest to the fact that artists take liberties in making changes in their works that are not accurate to their source images all the time. Its part of being an artist. If anything i think the artist would have painted the boy as circumcised as a further statement about american culture. I think the website image is just to low of resolution to make a call either way. I guess someone could always try to email the artist at her website to find out.

what did the covers say i could only read one of them?
bold mine

Only if he were aware of it and was thinking about it. It just might not occure to him that he might want to change the penis from the painting he was using as a model to look more modern american and less italian renaisance. Also such a change might make it harder to see the connection to iconic religious art.
01-12-2007 10:41 AM
Past_VNE The artist states that she painted Maddox after this painting, whose child is intact. Not that it matters, the art has little to do with the status of the actual child.
01-12-2007 09:08 AM
AXEius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan1097 View Post
Well, I guess so- if you blow it up to 400%. But still, its iffy either way.

I mostly noticed the people in "Walmart"- who they chose to represent in there and what they wrote on the magazine covers!

well considering the actual painting is about 7feet tall, im sure you could see alot more detail in person than zooming in on a comparitivley low resolution JPEG image. As for the children being painted in a style similar to cherubs who would normally be intact, as an amature artist i can atest to the fact that artists take liberties in making changes in their works that are not accurate to their source images all the time. Its part of being an artist. If anything i think the artist would have painted the boy as circumcised as a further statement about american culture. I think the website image is just to low of resolution to make a call either way. I guess someone could always try to email the artist at her website to find out.

what did the covers say i could only read one of them?
01-11-2007 11:14 AM
Ilaria Yes, I know, I'm from Italy.
01-11-2007 10:41 AM
Irishmommy
Quote:
Originally Posted by theretohere View Post
I thought that she meant that he may have been cut when he was adopted, not by Angelina Jolie.
Yeah I did. It wouldn't be the first time I wasn't clear!
01-11-2007 10:36 AM
cristina63303 Ilaria: Your kids are so beautiful! the photos are wonderful and ALL the kids are so cute. That trip must have been a fantastic experience for the whole family.

But you see, the thing is, sometimes I guess there's the feeling in America that things in USA are more sophisticated = better. Many have simply lost touch with nature and don't trust it - or their own bodies for that matter - anymore. In other words, many people live under the impression that other cultures are only intact because they don't have the resources/education to know 'better'. How sad and how wrong.

Having said that, an interesting comparison is with Western European countries where the differences in culture, education and the state of medicine are much less significant. Here, as you know, we're "medically sophisticated" (whatever that may mean) AND happily intact! (oh, and kids also run around naked when it's warm enough)
01-11-2007 06:08 AM
Ilaria I think he looks cut, that little mushroom glans sticking out with no 'point', you know.

Cambodians are of course not cut, I have seen hundreds as most kids under age 4 run around naked there. Here is a cute picture of mydaughter with some local kids(they had neverseen a little girl with that hair!)

http://www.thekeoghfamily.photosite....etnam_453.html

http://www.thekeoghfamily.photosite....etnam_456.html

http://www.thekeoghfamily.photosite....etnam_467.html
01-11-2007 05:22 AM
vbactivist
Quote:
Originally Posted by theretohere View Post
I thought that she meant that he may have been cut when he was adopted, not by Angelina Jolie.
you're right - i;m an idiot.
01-11-2007 03:56 AM
eepster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan1097 View Post
Anybody consider the fact that maybe they painted him that way because ALL cherubs are painted that way and its supposed to mimic an old painting? Probably has nothing to do with if he's intact or not.

Since I dought Angelina took them in to pose nude he probably used old italian masters paintings of cherubs as a model for the bodies, and of course they were intact.
01-11-2007 01:48 AM
Ambrose
Quote:
Originally Posted by katherinezuels View Post
Tis a statement about American Culture idolizing celebrities in a deity type way.
ahhh- that makes sense....
01-11-2007 01:40 AM
guest9921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrose View Post
What I don't understand is why is she depicted over a WALMART??? It makes the image of her and her children less beautiful to me.

Tis a statement about American Culture idolizing celebrities in a deity type way.
01-10-2007 11:59 PM
Ambrose What I don't understand is why is she depicted over a WALMART??? It makes the image of her and her children less beautiful to me.
01-10-2007 10:38 PM
spero
Quote:
Originally Posted by RidentMama View Post
I'd be FURIOUS if someone painted a nude portrait of my child(ren)!!!!
Considering that this is a person who once wore her hubby's blood in a vial around her neck and was quite vocal about her lustful attraction to her own brother, I'm guessing that Angie prolly thinks it's cool.

And I'm sure she's lovin' the publicity - this photo is EVERYWHERE right now.
01-10-2007 10:34 PM
theretohere
Quote:
Originally Posted by vbactivist View Post
I know of people who have cut adopted babies
I thought that she meant that he may have been cut when he was adopted, not by Angelina Jolie.
01-10-2007 10:28 PM
vbactivist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmommy View Post
He's adopted, she may not have had a choice.
I know of people who have cut adopted babies
01-10-2007 10:21 PM
Irishmommy Awesome likeness of her face.
01-10-2007 10:18 PM
Nathan1097
Quote:
Originally Posted by AXEius View Post
i think he looks cut, you can see what appears to be the meatus (slit) and there is no cone shape or any thing to the end which would imply an infant foreskin. I think the artist just didnt pain't his glans dark or his scar line to give a more homoginized skin tone to the area so as not to be a focal point. I could be wrong though. I saw this painting online a couple days ago and thought it was hilarious. I'm sure Angelina doesnt like it but its not really about her, but a statement the artist was giving about american society.
Well, I guess so- if you blow it up to 400%. But still, its iffy either way.

I mostly noticed the people in "Walmart"- who they chose to represent in there and what they wrote on the magazine covers!
01-10-2007 10:14 PM
AXEius i think he looks cut, you can see what appears to be the meatus (slit) and there is no cone shape or any thing to the end which would imply an infant foreskin. I think the artist just didnt pain't his glans dark or his scar line to give a more homoginized skin tone to the area so as not to be a focal point. I could be wrong though. I saw this painting online a couple days ago and thought it was hilarious. I'm sure Angelina doesnt like it but its not really about her, but a statement the artist was giving about american society.
01-10-2007 10:09 PM
Nathan1097 Anybody consider the fact that maybe they painted him that way because ALL cherubs are painted that way and its supposed to mimic an old painting? Probably has nothing to do with if he's intact or not.
01-10-2007 09:41 PM
RidentMama Here

I'd be FURIOUS if someone painted a nude portrait of my child(ren)!!!!
01-10-2007 09:18 PM
minkajane Is the picture available to view online somewhere?
01-10-2007 09:06 PM
Irishmommy He's adopted, she may not have had a choice.
01-10-2007 08:40 PM
Cherries10700 I can't stand her, but when she was on the news yesterday talking her normal blah blah blah, I wondered about her son's penis. If she's all about what she says she's is, then I would assume he's intact. So I guess I like her 1%.
01-10-2007 06:46 PM
Microsoap This was in Monday's Globe & Mail (Review; R3); Monday, January 8, 2006:

Blessed Art Thou by Kate Kretz features Angelina Jolie and her children depicted as the Virgin Mary hovering over a Wal-Mart checkout line is a painting and is sale for $50,000 (U.S.)

It features an in-the-clouds naked Angelina standing there covered in the front (barely) w/ long flowing silk as her son Maddox and daughter Zahara standing naked on each side of her and holding baby Shiloh in her arms covered in slik. The artist is trying to make a social statement and stuff, but what I found fascinating is the fact that Maddox appears to be INTACT, just like Cambodian males are!!!

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off