Posted on 01/07/2007 4:44:09 AM PST by grjr21
A North Carolina artist intrigued by the public obsession with celebrity has found herself feeding that obsession with a painting of actress Angelina Jolie as the Virgin Mary hovering over a Wal-Mart check-out line.
Kate Kretz has painted for 20 years but none of her previous work has garnered the attention given "Blessed Art Thou," showing this weekend at Art Miami, an annual exposition of modern and contemporary art.
The painting has gotten much attention from celebrity web sites and blogs. Since the buzz started, the number of daily unique visitors to Kretz's own blog has jumped from an average of 30 to 15,000 on Wednesday.
"My intention was to ask a question and get people to think," Kretz said in a telephone interview Friday from Miami. "I had no idea so many people would be asking a question and thinking."
The painting — acrylic and oil on linen — depicts an angelic Jolie in the clouds, holding her newborn daughter, Shiloh, with children Maddox and Zahara at her legs. Below them is a Wal-Mart checkout line. The painting is for sale for $50,000 through Chelsea Galleria in Miami, which represents Kretz.
On her blog, Kretz, 43, said the painting addresses "the celebrity worship cycle." She said she chose Jolie for the subject "because of her unavoidable presence in the media, the worldwide anticipation of her child, her 'unattainable' beauty and the good that she is doing in the world through her example, which adds another layer to the already complicated questions surrounding her status."
Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik, asked to comment about "Blessed Art Thou" on a Post blog, was unimpressed. "Once you've deciphered it, there's not much chance of giving it a second look," Gopnik wrote.
I agree with you. You can see anything you want into it...and I think you're spot on.
Thanks! I don't usually venture into art-criticism :-).
Jolie Loves Adopted Children Differently
Angelina Jolie insists she has different feelings towards each of her kids and feels especially close to her adopted children because they've already led such a hard life. The Oscar winner has two adopted children with Brad Pitt, Maddox and Zahara, as well as their biological daughter Shiloh, who was born in May. Jolie tells Elle magazine that she's more partial towards her adopted children, saying, "I think I feel so much more for Mad and Z because they're survivors, they came through so much. Shiloh seemed so privileged from the moment she was born. I have less inclination to feel for her... I met my other kids when they were six months old, they came with personality. A newborn really is this... yes, a blob! But now she's starting to have a personality... I'm conscious that I have to make sure I don't ignore her needs just because I think the others are more vulnerable."
If Pitt ever wanted sole custody of his biological child, she just handed him a mighty big piece of ammunition.
But only while supplies last. Limit one per customer.
Certain other restrictions apply.
I'll say ... those poor children. I suppose, for the refugee children, living with a narcissistic dingbat beats starving - and maybe they have good staff for the real "parenting."
Brad Pitt must be stone cold dumb, though.
That quote from Jolie encapsulates the leftist as parent and child as celebrity accessory so disturbingly and completely it's stunning.
It has to be taken out of context, because she can't possibly be dumb enough to say something like that to a REPORTER.
I told you she is a whacko...
In four sentences she used "I" or "I'm" eight times. It's pretty clear who she feels is most important.
"Those are probably the reasons the artist picked her. These artists love to mock religion in anyway possible."
You're right. Artists often mock God and religion. And 'Angelina' is the perfect medium for that.
Who said it was extraordinary?
I said talented, so did you.
Your argument is against her "message".
When you can play the guitar as well as she can draw or paint the human face or form, people will say that you have talent too.
I am arguing against her message which is part of her art. Her message is old, tired, and delivered in half the shows on TV. For originality, I give her a 1.
Now, as far as her style and aptitude, yes, they are much better than her originality but they still remind me of work from people I know who are not famous, although still talented graphic artists. I guess the word I'm looking for is "uninspiring".
Just my opinion. Art, like beauty, is subject to the taste of the individual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.