Yes

ParadiceCity9 · Post by **ParadiceCity9** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:09 am

Is that supposed to be Papa BEAR holding Michael Jackson's head on a stick?

browng-08 · Post by **browng-08** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:27 am

It's a commentary on how Rupert Murdoch's monopoly on mainstream media has us receiving all our news from him, with his biases. Unless I'm mistaken?

Minister Masket · Post by **Minister Masket** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:31 am

I know nothing of American broadcasting. Apart from the channels themselves.

luke54play · Post by **luke54play** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:23 am

What the hell?

SolidLuigi · Post by **SolidLuigi** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:39 am

sweet man. The effect with the lines to make it look like its on a TV really sells the piece.

Skoffin · Post by **Skoffin** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:46 am

Who?

reminisco · Post by **reminisco** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:23 am

yeah, i got it.

i think it's a great piece of work, keep it up.

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:39 am

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:34 am

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:30 pm

static_ice wrote:Pretty much, and I'm trying to whack all the major media, for claiming to be politically correct and fair just because they can hire black people and women.

I don't think it really worked...

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:12 pm

Guiscard wrote:
static_ice wrote:Pretty much, and I'm trying to whack all the major media, for claiming to be politically correct and fair just because they can hire black people and women.
I don't think it really worked...

Subtlety?

reminisco · Post by **reminisco** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:13 pm

Guiscard wrote:
static_ice wrote:Pretty much, and I'm trying to whack all the major media, for claiming to be politically correct and fair just because they can hire black people and women.
I don't think it really worked...

yeah, i agree. seems more personally directed at Murdoch, than the mass media at large.

i also don't understand the commentary on black people and women... that doesn't connect for me, from that image. seems more skewering Michael Jackson... and suggesting that the "King of Pop" is a mask worn by "King of News Media"

in that vein, it suggests to me that you are criticizing Murdoch as guilty of "infotainment" -- not legitimate journalism.

but that's just my interpretation.

browng-08 · Post by **browng-08** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:16 pm

reminisco wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
static_ice wrote:Pretty much, and I'm trying to whack all the major media, for claiming to be politically correct and fair just because they can hire black people and women.
I don't think it really worked...
yeah, i agree. seems more personally directed at Murdoch, than the mass media at large.

i also don't understand the commentary on black people and women... that doesn't connect for me, from that image. seems more skewering Michael Jackson... and suggesting that the "King of Pop" is a mask worn by "King of News Media"

in that vein, it suggests to me that you are criticizing Murdoch as guilty of "infotainment" -- not legitimate journalism.

but that's just my interpretation.

I don't think that's Micheal Jackson, but I don't watch enough American News to identify her.

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:49 pm

Guys... that's Robin Robinson, hence the new name Rupert Rupertson.

d.gishman · Post by **d.gishman** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:52 pm

Ah, that makes more sense.. I thought it was michael jackson

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:06 pm

static_ice wrote:Guys... that's Robin Robinson, hence the new name Rupert Rupertson.

Then you've found a major flaw in your work, haven't you.

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:56 pm

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:01 pm

static_ice wrote:I guess on the more universal scale, but maybe it will have more success on the local level. How much more obvious can it get from the FOX Chicago logo, the peculiar name, and the womanly business suit?

Apparently a lot more obvious.

Sorry, just wasn't a particularly good bit of satire. The message is a bit of a confused one. Unless there is something that gives it some meaning (for example, if it accompanied an article about a statement by Fox News that they are multicultural because they employ black news readers) it really makes very little sense.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:30 pm

Guiscard wrote:
static_ice wrote:I guess on the more universal scale, but maybe it will have more success on the local level. How much more obvious can it get from the FOX Chicago logo, the peculiar name, and the womanly business suit?
Apparently a lot more obvious.

Sorry, just wasn't a particularly good bit of satire. The message is a bit of a confused one. Unless there is something that gives it some meaning (for example, if it accompanied an article about a statement by Fox News that they are multicultural because they employ black news readers) it really makes very little sense.

To be fair, you are from England, right? Not exactly static ice's neighborhood, last time I checked.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:34 pm

InkL0sed wrote:To be fair, you are from England, right? Not exactly static ice's neighborhood, last time I checked.

Oh no, obviously. But I was referring to the American posters who were confused.

browng-08 · Post by **browng-08** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:03 am

And yet the Canadian posters who understood.

Perhaps the message isn't the problem, but the audience instead.

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:14 pm

Well, ultimately this piece will probably be in the next all school art show and will thus be seen by a lot more locals, and I think anyone that lives in Chicagoland who watches FOX would easily recognize Ms. Robinson. So I guess my question is, would you think anyone who never watches this show, through curiosity, be able to get the basic concept that Murdoch speaks through his anchors after a small amount of research based on what I give (however much interested curiosity they acquire from the piece aside

)?

Plus, let's not forget that art is not only about the artist's message, but also about the message that the audience gets from it. So if they already know just one thing, that the mask is not Michael Jackson, is that really too confused?

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

New version a little rushed...

I know she looks like shit.