[PissAndVinegar]

The explaination seems to be pro-American / anti-terror:

“it never occurred to me to be offended by my friend’s expression of the fact that America (its ideals) IS a target under attack with REAL bullets and REAL consequences by an enemy which uses cowardly and senseless terror as their primary instrument against innocent people with the object to tear asunder our values of liberty and justice for all, which are ideals that are all too fragile at this point in time, both at home and abroad.”

Is that just his interpretation of the art OR did his friend, the artist, tell him this was her intent?

[fortunecookie]

Hmm, I missed that. That's a good point. It is an interesting idea, that it represents America under attack.

Is that just his interpretation of the art OR did his friend, the artist, tell him this was her intent?

Interesting. Yeah, the artist could be covering her ... self. Tell him what he wants to hear and it stays on display. Maybe intentionally ambiguous. Left to the viewer, as much art is, but in this case one choice is patriotic, one - not so much.

[Cicero]

Yes, interesting question.

An artwork is an artwork, and speaks for itself. Yet in this case the artist’s intention seems important. The bank president appears to be a patriot but also a personal friend of the artist.

Then there’s San Francisco in the works. It seems dubious whether a patriotic, conservative artist would do terribly well in San Francisco.

You could put up a tattered, shot-riddled flag on the wall, and it could be a symbol of bravery in battle. Or it could have been shot through by some drugged out postmodernist who hated it.

I find some dissonance between the bank president’s explanation and the artist’s attitude.

[PeterFinn]

The explaination seems to be pro-American / anti-terror:

And 'Piss Christ' was pro-Christian. [/sarc]