[Nogodsnomasters]

I am not bringing much to the discussion table today, but I believe the “Ladies” refer to queens in poker. It reads “I call”, “Aces, king high”, “Ladies” as in a pair of queens or possibly 3 or 4 queens, then “Threes…(can’t make out the rest). Three players showing their hands. Since I cannot figure out what is written after “Threes”, I am not sure if there is a meaning specific to the threes or a random card number to simply illustrate time to “show” your cards. The 'reveal'.

D'oh! You can tell I'm not much of a poker player because that sailed right over my head. Thanks, Tarty.

I still cannot figure out the light blue wording in the red area of the painting along the right side. Has anyone figured out what it says?? It is not clear enough when I try to enlarge it. I think “gas” is the second word from the bottom, but otherwise not sure. Curiouser and curiouser!

I can't make them out either, and it's driving me crazy. I begged Lea to try to get a higher resolution picture, though. I really want to see the background details.

[Tarty History]

I can't make them out either, and it's driving me crazy.

Ditto!

On the upper right corner of the painting under 'Supremes', it says "Should we _____ on the appropriation(s) bill?" Can anyone tell if it says 'gouge' or "guess" or something else entirely?

Plus I finally noticed what looks to be several faces in the background of the top half of the painting, very faintly. Then there is the animal type critter between the P and the O, I haven't figured out the significance if there is one. Anyone have a theory on that?


You're right NGNM, very Orwellian. If this was indeed painted in 2006 as I suspect, here we are in mid 2008...Doublespeak still....and so on indefinitely.

[KbatMO]

I too find it hard to go long without thinking of the painting ... new meanings, references, thoughts as well. Well - at least "3 or 4 of a kind" around here! Perhaps a straight flush!

I'd been interpreting "Judge Sand Trap" as a double pun - all the golf references and perhaps sand trap meaning the Middle East ... a few days ago I awoke with a giant "Whoa!" Maybe also a play on Sandra Day O'Connor? (She might still have been a justice ~2 years ago; she certainly was in 2000-2002....)

Ladies can be queens playing cards of course ... I think the gambling references = the gamble taken on the Iraqi invasion and the gambles of investment, big business, big oil.... Almost everything on the top also plays off of the "porn" theme.... That being the current "military - industrial - government complex" (the original phrase Ike intended to invoke and warn us about - in that last speech before he left office ... unfortunately he decided to excise the word 'government' shortly before giving the speech because he feared the controversy it would arouse. That's from a documentary about Ike made by his granddaughter.) Add to that the enabling institutions - the legal profession, Wall St. = the gamblers!, plus the media ... and last but not least - what drives big business, finance, and politics - here and abroad - greed and fear!! - and you've got a situation that is obscene - in other words, pornographic.

The word "ladies" in quotations marks definitely gives it an ironic connotation as in "not!"... ranging from the "chicks" guys just pick up for very short term fun to hookers.... Love the Demetri clip - many thx NGNM ... never heard this guy before (v. reminiscent of Arlo!) I think it's finishing sentences with "ladies" plus the sardonic tone of voice when he says "ladies" - that matches Scott's usage here - perfectly.

Tarty, I can't make out the word next to "Threes" either! I agree with you about everyone watching this stuff on these big screens - both our own and the ones on all the sets of the the network and cable news outlets. Still - unlike any other military conflict in U.S. history (that I'm aware of!) - soldiers have their portable music and laptops for e-mailing and thus - as NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman has noted, [thanks to the Internet] "The World Is Flat." Everyone's watching this stuff on screens - even as those "in the know" call it what it really is from their poker games and golf courses (both figurative and literal). So many turn to the identical western news sources (for input and output) - from the White House to the Middle Eastern deserts to the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan to people in their homes on their 60" widescreen TVs ... but we in the west know little of what others are told by their news sources abroad ... and esp. in the U.S. we receive so little world news - it's a struggle to find any! Less and less all the time ... just as it's becoming increasingly imperative....

OMG - anyone else notice - on the very top left where it says "Judge Mulligan" in red ... if you continue a bit to the right, it says - in blue "caused this" (!!!) Just noticed - he did sign it in block letters in red on the bottom right. Weirdest thing - trivial but.... I was searching for something on-line yesterday - not related to furniture or lighting - a link came up with lamps - and Scott's lamp appeared! First time I ever saw it is in this (painting) photo - I think Wanda Rose pointed out it's a lamp; I wasn't sure what it was ... meanwhile it's so unique I recognized it yesterday the moment I saw it.... (mfr. Bellacor, ~$210!)

NGNM - Orwellian - in the land of Patriot Act?! Absolutely!!! 1984 - where first "the enemy" is East Eurasia (somethin' like that ... it's been about 30 yrs!) - then it's West Eurasia - then by the end it's the East again. Kissinger - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Latter-day 'enemies' were friends of other enemies and armed by U.S. (and allies) - Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan vs. USSR as Cold War play and Saddam Hussein vs. Iran/ Ayatollah Khomeini.... etc. ... both those situations were born circa 1984!!! This isn't a stmt. assoc. with any given pres., party, or policy - there are many other examples ... but that's quite a coincidence, eh? Considering 1984 was written in 1946 ... when Orwell's views of totalitarianism weren't that much of an imaginative stretch vis-a-vis the reality of the (former) USSR @the birth of the Cold War (+ on the heels of defeating German, Italian, and Japanese fascism) --> today, it's not as prophetic as I thought when I first read it as a teen - but that's more than compensated by Orwell's insight. There's also a scene in 1984 that evokes sheer horror - that I connect to the big face on the bottom right section....

I've long believed that whenever we "play ball" with the "enemy of our enemy" - it backfires - huge!!! For many years 1984 was my fave, and because Animal Farm seemed so simple - but the simplicity seems even more brilliant as I get older. This is totally paraphrased ... haven't read it in a long, long time ... am thinking of a "point" in Animal Farm ... 'and there they stood, facing one another, pig to man, and man to pig - and no one could tell which was which.' Which(!) - in a total "stream of consciousness" turn - evokes the Saw IV poster for me ... version #1 - which is red letters on the black background - and the woman caught in a trap wearing a pig mask and stiletto heels....

NGNM - Am almost with you on your quotes (love 'em BTW - thx) "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient" ... but that assumes remembrance to start with - or knowledge beforehand. That's not given - though it certainly reminds me of "An Inconvenient Truth" ... as I love what Scott said (and how he said it) about that film in his 'red carpet' interview at the Sundance Premiere of the Green (March 2007) - "regardless of your political beliefs or feelings about Al Gore, the science is undeniable...."

Back to Orwell - I think the "doublethink" applies at brief, various moments to some of the players; but not all of them. I think there are people who are singularly capable of only hearing what they want to hear - and can block out any realities that indicate the contrary - whether by fiat, lack of first-rate intelligence (= critical thinking skills - to be precise), or "denial" ... the last of which can take many forms - minimizing, generalizing, intellectualizing, rationalizing, blaming ... if those fail, changing the subject ... if that still fails, then anger and hostility/ stonewalling are usually effective at getting people to back off! (In the name of strong leadership, naturally!!) I'd stress - denial isn't a lack of robust intelligence, though the latter is of little or no use in breaking down the former. I do not underestimate the power of seemingly intelligent (and even sentient) human beings to deny, suppress, repress, or otherwise block out any information that is too painful (not to mention inconvenient) to assimilate. The ability of the human mind to distort reality is infinite - if that is perceived as necessary to self-preservation. In which case, no 'double-think' is necessary ... indeed, it might even be unwelcome.

Above all - whether it's denial or double-think doesn't matter in the end. The resultant fear in speaking truth to power, as well as fearfulness in the minds and souls of the powerful to second-guess themselves ... creates the same "pornographic" result. As a dear one often reminds me, "Everyone is right in his/her own eyes." I'd like to think some are capable of questioning and re-examining and re-evaluating - and ... ("gasp!") reformulating plans in the light of new "intelligence" data (I know - totally oxymoronic!) and/or developing realities ... but neither our belief systems nor our political structure contain incentives to admit mistakes - let alone to adjust and adapt accordingly. Which doesn't obviate the responsibility of those who purportedly "serve" the public" to be "doubting Thomases" (Aliens in America - Church!), double-thinkers, or (another "gasp!") contrarians to "speak up" somehow - but reality appears to me: it rarely happens when needed most. Because outside of the transfer of government power in democracies following "peaceful" elections, I'm hard-pressed to think of examples of people - in work, societal, and/or governmental/political contexts who give up power willingly and/or unilaterally. If speaking truth to power is perceived as resulting in loss of one's own power and influence - the odds against it happening when it matters most are enormous.

Personally I don't see the pleasures as anodynes (except in the same way denial is an unintended anodyne vs. facing reality). I see the top as metaphors for the filth lurking just beneath the pristine surfaces that - as evidenced by poker jargon, conversations on golf courses, in the halls of Congress, etc. - and harboring secret sexual thoughts ... i.e., everyone knows 'the score' even as they avoid publicly calling things what they really are ... and therefore, from big business to government to the media - everyone's in on it; and those entities are profiting from it (whether w/ money or power or both). The top is self-absorption and greed. Quite the opposite on the bottom - the receiving end ... and therefore, the top alone and the entire scenario (top knowingly dumping bombs on the bottom, in the wrong place - where the WMDs aren't) = "porn" "XXX" "pornography"......

I see the faces on the right ranging from "merely freaking out" on top to "abject horror" on the bottom. There are some images I can't make out just above "WOW!" on the top left. And I'd also love to know what it says on the right - just next to SP.
~~~

Last but not least - the look on his face. Phew! Where fiction meets fact - I recently saw GG "Christopher Returns" (1st ep. in S1 where C appears - talk about a prophetic ep. title!) ... and there's the scene where Lorelai's in front of Luke's in her PJ's to apologize for having stood him up the night before for a "date" of painting the diner ... Luke immediately surmises (correctly) that "what came up" was Christopher ... both Luke's voice and face are pure pain. It's interesting to me that in the painting photo - for the first time since the beginning of GG (I think!) ... Scott has regrown the "soul patch" below his lower lip and clearly - and I love it that he hasn't shaved, combed his hair, or dressed up for the photo ... perhaps it came up quickly ... but he's just there - he is who he is! ... and in his facial expression I see the pain of that moment in this episode - and the intensity Scott brings to that pain! Even though we know there have already been some of those moments (like in Love and War and Snow) and there will be many more to come (way too many - blaaaah!) - it struck me just like the lamp - "that's it!" This is the one I have in mind:



For the most part - Luke is Scott's seminal role ... w/o Luke I'd have never heard or known of Scott ... but I actually think Scott's acting was (and is!) so good - that as different as Luke and all characters are from the actor - esp. this actor(!) ... there's a piece of truth in the fiction - this moment of pain, bewilderment, disillusionment, and anger that verges on despair. Once again - it's just a "screen cap" - a snapshot - but it's quite a touching and compelling one. And for me the measure of art beyond being touched = the evocation of empathy and /or being made to think!

***** PS A crayon doodle by SP has been posted on the News Thread - page 7!!! *****

[Tarty History]

Kbat, your eloquence is awe-inspiring. You and NGNM. You are both keeping me on my toes, making me think. I can keep up with about 90% of your references. The rest sail right over me. I am only peripherally familiar with Huxley, but I have read Orwell (albeit many moons ago).


Let's go back to 2006, early 2006, when I think the painting was painted. What was going on???

Stay with me for a moment. If Judge Mulligan 'encompasses' the upper left third of Scott's painting, and the quotes beneath are attributed to him. No doubt, Dubya.

Now for Judge Slice who 'encompasses' the upper middle third of Scott's painting and the quotes beneath. Are you thinking what I am thinking? Dick Cheney! Who 'sliced' on a quail hunting trip and shot his own friend in the face in early 2006? I can certainly see those quotes fitting him.

Now for Judge Sand Trap on part of the right upper third of the painting. Donald Rumsfeld! Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006, a key player in the decision to go into Iraq. I can see those quotes next to Judge Sand Trap fitting Rumsfeld.

This also fits with the poker 'hands' below. Aces, king high for the Commander-in-Chief (the highest hand listed), Ladies for the #2 guy (next best hand), and threes for Rummy the #3 guy.

Whoa!!

[Nogodsnomasters]

Auuugh! You two are killing me because I'm dying to respond, but I'm still in the midst of an "all work and no play" blackout. (I am typing my reports in bizarre, triangular patterns, and blowing off steam by throwing and catching a rubber ball off the wall of my apartment as we speak...) Damn. It's torture for me to ignore a good discussion! I'll have to catch up later...

[Tarty History]

I'll have to catch up later...

Looking forward to it NGNM.


More thoughts on the 'judge' alter egos and the painting quotes related to each 'judge'.

Judge Mulligan, of course, easiest to spot with just the "on every hole" comment. The use of the word 'ya' denotes a Texas twang; misspelling 'skool' is hilarious, shows Judge Mulligan is not the sharpest tool in the shed; and 'Holy Moly' fits Dubya.

Bounce over to Judge Sand Trap. Sand likely referencing Iraq, and trap... well, self-explanatory as the U.S. is still there with no real end in sight. The appropriations bill quote would be tied to Rumsfeld since he was involved in pushing through the funding for the Iraq War.

Back to Judge Slice. Well, those quotes would be lecherous comments...ha ha, I won't even touch the 'putter' quote. Better left unsaid.


I still would like to know what the blue words are on the right side of the painting. Yup, still being driven crazy. Argh!!

[MNRX Ela]

So I don't understand much from modern art. Not to say, actually, I understand nothing at all of it. Therefore, I'm not able with certainty to carry out such detailed interpretations of this piece of art, how some of you.
The ingenuity of the picture insists for me unambiguously in the fact that Scott has created that we discuss now in so varied way this. Maybe exactly this was also his intention.
Since everybody has his own view of the things. About the clear in colour separation in the upper and lower area of the picture. Or about the drawings. If it is now the tank, or the B-52 bomber with the figures which aim at this bomber.
I'm sure, every sentence, every single word, also in the different colour, has a special meaning for him. Besides, for me is very interesting in which way, size and colour he has arranged these words. Nevertheless, I cannot say whether I was able to interpret everything in such a way as Scott has really meant it.
I know only one definitely. I like this picture very much.

A word still to himself on the photo. Of course he could specially also have styled himself. But I'm of the opinion, this would have looked put maybe anyhow. For me this photo shows his whole naturalness.
Are honest. Who of us would run then at home well stylishly around, unless, we would be on the way to a party.
So or so. He is and he remains my hero.

[KbatMO]

Well SPcg- regardless of specifics (which I enjoy speculating about) - overall it's an anti-war painting - and I absolutely admire his unending commitment to peace - everything from people to religions to nations.... And 100% agreed - that the painting is meant to stimulate thought, conversation, etc. I can't say if I'm interpreting anything as he meant it, either. Just guessing - and having fun doing so!!!!!!!!

Tarty, thanks - that's v. sweet of you. Am also greatly enjoying all the great people on this forum to toss around these ideas and thoughts with!!
I dunno - I still like Justice Scalia for Judge Slice - cause of the word "supremes" at the top of the painting ... I think SP's (very rightly!) holding them responsible for "Judge Mulligan" ... who can only be "W"!Cheney's just as possible for Slice and Rumsfeld for Sandtrap. If referring to the Supreme Court I thought of Sandra Day O'Connor ... or just the sandtrap that is the Middle East vis-a-vis 'American foreign policy' (so to speak!) Hmmm - threes for Rummy - I like that, actually!! You got me there!!!

In other observations of maximal importance, he's got a really bad bunion on his right foot! Must hurt!! Surgery for that is not a pleasant experience. It's enough to keep me out of stiletto heels! (Hopefully SP, too! )

NGNM - am also looking fwd to the final inning of your blackout!!!

[Tarty History]

OMG - anyone else notice - on the very top left where it says "Judge Mulligan" in red ... if you continue a bit to the right, it says - in blue "caused this" (!!!)

Kbat, I did notice the "caused this". Subtle in that he uses the light blue lettering as opposed to the red, yet straight to the point, don't you think?

I also noticed that Supremes, rating XXX (obscene), the smaller face on the upper left side with slit/closed eyes (cannot or will not see), and the animal figure (jackass perhaps?) are in a grayish color. This is the only use of the grayish color that I see, which ties all four together in a very clever correlation.

On the upper portion of the painting, I marvel at Scott's layers of color. First the bold red lettering grabs your attention drawing you in, then you realize there is so much underneath...captivating.

I have been thinking a lot about the D. and L. on the bottom half of the painting. The only meaning I have come up with so far is 'Disabled List', as in the Middle East/Iraq region injuries, whether physical, economical, social, etc. I will keep thinking about that one. The large figure with the crescent-shaped head (Islamic symbol) has an arrow in one hand and a branch(?) in the other hand, which is possibly an 'olive branch', perhaps signifying a dichotomy in the Western perception of Islam between peace and war.


Submitted For Your Perusal

[SPA]

I ran across this amongst my recent research -- do you think it has familiar markings of a painter/artist we know?? I don't know how tall it is, but I don't think it's as tall as the one that Sassy showed us last May.

[Nogodsnomasters]

I'm going to repost my reaction from the other thread (Is that obnoxious? Am I committing some kind of cyber faux-pas?):

Omg! That's our Scott's work for sure! How did you find it, SPA? You are amazing! I would love to see a high resolution version of it. I want to check out the details. The colors are amazing.

Another tough, affecting piece by Scott. He sure knows how to show mental anguish, doesn't he? I would entitle that painting "excruciation." I love how he takes such risks. Go Scott, go!

[SPA]

Nope -- you're fine -- It was my error -- or -- oversight. I completely forgot about this thread -- silly me.

[Tarty History]

Yippee, Scott's Art Thread Resurrection!


Good find, SPA. Where did you find it?

I would entitle it "Isolated". It appears to be perhaps a root encircling the single face in the center ... alone with darkness in the background. The face seems to be fading -- not solid in color -- as in losing part of itself. Very affecting.

Again, Scott draws you in ... to experience the emotions.

[Tarty History]

Has anyone heard any info about Scott showing more of his artwork? Through a Gallery or on-line?

[SPA]

I haven't heard anything either -- maybe there will be some forward progress in January, if there's an actors strike (Heaven forbid) and not many irons in the fire. Hopefully, we'll get some news soon.