Letting art speak where words fail me. Painted with Acrylic Ink using Robert Simmons White Sable brushes, Nikko dip pens and W&N masking Fluid. On Gessoed Panel.
A portrait of George Floyd
Tuesday, June 9th, 2020
31 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- George Floyd – Art and Protest DL5 - […] Posted inWeek 12 Source: https://www.muddycolors.com/2020/06/a-portrait-of-george-floyd/ […]
- George Floyd and Black Lives Matter – Art and Protest DL6 - […] Posted inWeek 12, Weekly Post A portrait of George Floyd by Scott Fischerhttps://www.muddycolors.com/2020/06/a-portrait-of-george-floyd/ […]
- I Can’t Breathe! – Art & Protest DL7 - […] Fischer, Scott. “A Portrait of George Floyd” Muddy Colors. Muddy Colors, 9 June 2020, https://www.muddycolors.com/2020/06/a-portrait-of-george-floyd/ […]
- George Floyd “I can’t Breathe” – Week 14 – HNRS122 – Art & Protest - […] Posted inInteresting tidbits https://www.muddycolors.com/2020/06/a-portrait-of-george-floyd/ […]
Leave a reply
In Stores Now!
Remember that whole ‘no politics’ rule you guys were supposed to have?
Keep it to Twitter.
Bravo Scott!
thats my favorite armed robbery meth head
Not addressing any specific comment at the moment, since none are actually rude, but there are indications that more to come might cross a line, so…
I’ve said it before on this site, when other visitors were telling Dan and Serge what they “should” and “should not” post. Some even going so far as to state it was “wrong” for the contributing artists to post pics or tackle subjects or make statements with which those dissenting visitors disagreed. So, I’ll say it again.
It’s their site. Tell them you disagree, tell them you dislike something, tell them you’d take a different tack, but don’t tell them they should not—and certainly don’t say can not—post whatever they want. It’s • Their • Site.
They’re artists. No one, especially not other artists, should tell artists what they can or cannot tackle. Again, tell them you don’t like it. Tell them it misses the mark. Question the method or the intent or the result. Point out gimmickry or slop or misinformation. But never cross the line into telling a creative not to create and not to share.
We’re visitors, and just like skipping a TV show because you’ve seen the promo and know you won’t care for it, it is super easy NOT to click on the link for this entry if you don’t care for the potential discourse of the subject.
I do understand the sentiment of not wanting to face more of “The World As It Is” when coming to Muddy Colors. To just tune it out for a while. I want art stuff when I pop in. Not headline stuff. I might have even done a slight eye roll when I saw the title for the post. BUT…
But, that is a really powerful piece. I know the source image is ingrained in everyone’s visual lexicon now, but the handling of it here is very potent. The graphic approach to the type and its coordination with the image… I see that as artful synergy. An actual perfect example of how type and imagery combined achieve something more powerful than either alone would, or if the two were combined poorly. Good example for Lauren Panepinto’s graphics and type angle.
Whatever the sentiments or politics or viewpoints of an artist are, similar to mine or a galaxy apart from my own, I appreciate the power of exceptional visual artistry. So, kudos to Scott on this piece. It’s tremendously well done.
The problem isn’t that they post things like this or that long talk about cultural appropriation a while ago. The problem is the hypocrisy of it. When they claim that there are rules to avoid things like this but they will happily break them so long as they match their ideology.
Ugh. Not at all. We are actually VERY stringent about it. We have always allowed contributors to share and discuss both religious and political art, from an artistic and cultural perspective, while not discussing their own personal feelings on the matter.
This post is literally just a process video, with NO commentary. And although one may infer Scott’s obvious feelings on the subject (as most good art does), there is NO actual political discussion in the post itself. Sorry if you can’t handle that distinction, or can’t see the value in a free process video because you personally object to the subject matter.
And to be clear, not murdering people who are in police custody is not a matter of “political ideology”, it’s murder.
I think it’s pretty telling that you say all that while silently removing the donation links to political lobby groups in the main post. It’s also telling that you immediately rush to attack peoples’ character by implying those who take issue with this aren’t decent human beings. You got really defensive REALLY quick for apparently not having anything wrong with this post.
No, I removed the links because that IS against our rules.
I just didn’t notice them until I did my routine check in today.
Consider, accusations of hypocrisy do themselves come across as a character attack. That DOES elicit a certain degree of defensiveness, don’t you think?
The “rush to attack peoples’ character” statement doesn’t track though. The clarification he makes in the last sentence is not an attack on anyone, but reframing the argument as apolitical. Not one of politics, but of process: death due to police action/negligence while under police custody is likely homicide, and could be murder.
Without any social, racial, or political lenses coloring the issue, the fundamental conviction is that no person should die beneath the boot (or knee) of the police while restrained and in police custody. No person, and certainly not in America. That is not a matter of political ideology, but simply one of due process afforded by the Constitution.
You’ve got it exactly right, Thomas.
I think I’ve had about all the activism I can take for a long while. Especially when it’s caused my town to get set on fire.
To Thomas Diem since I can’t reply to you directly: My comment doesn’t track because Dan edited his original comment. He said the issue was not political but one of ‘basic human decency.’ Dan has the unfortunate habit of opening with aggressive comments and then silently changing them once they’ve been replied to. I specifically remember him opening a response by telling somebody they had a ‘narrow mind’ when they took issue with an article about cultural appropriation.
But regardless of how I feel about the nature of this post, I’d rather not flood it with my comments. I merely thought it was important to point out how the message I was responding to was changed after the fact to appear less confrontational.
Hi fb. I understand your position, re: editing after the fact. I will say though, If Dan stated the issue isn’t political but one of basic human decency, I agree with him, and do not find it harsh or inflammatory to hear it said as such. Maybe the syntax and context were different when you viewed it.
My personal view of the problem with the overarching circumstances of Floyd’s death is that—separated from any other arguments about race, culture, identity, ideology, or society by segment or at large—the fundamental issue is no person should die under the circumstances he did. Nope, he wasn’t a saint, and his violent criminal past doesn’t paint him favorably, and his own actions that day brought him into conflict with the police, but it isn’t the job of the police to mete out punishment, willfully or otherwise, intentionally or by gross disregard. And not to someone in their custodial control.
My oldest friend, my brother-in-law, and my cousin are all cops. Detective, SWAT, and Training Officer, respectively. More collective time on the job than I want to admit, because that might make me old. All of them had essentially the same response to the Minneapolis PD handling of Floyd: “WTF?”
Police deal with people at their worst, and under the most trying circumstances. And, from direct, personal experience I can attest, No One who is caught red-handed ever did it, or meant to do it, or if they did it wasn’t their fault, and it was only the first time anyway, and they’ll never, ever do it again, until tomorrow or the next day. It’s trying, and it’s tiring, but the laws and processes that are in place to prevent what happened to Floyd are there for all of us, to protect all of us, the public and the police. Everyone seems to want to make Floyd’s death about whatever bugbear is their particular pet. But for me, it simply comes down to basic human decency, and doing police work properly.
To some of the points raised by others in the thread, I don’t think it’s actually difficult to distinguish between protestors and vandals or looters, and it seems too many in society and in the news are willfully conflating them. That is… very frustrating. The right to dissent and demonstrate is protected and permitted. The right to be a protestor is guaranteed by the Constitution. But, crossing that line into violence and threat and destruction… crossing that line makes the ones who do into criminals, exactly like the police they protest against who cross the line of conduct. Rioting, looting, and violence are inexcusable, especially in a society where the 1st Amendment holds sway.
Some of the people crying loudest for “JUSTICE” are utterly ignoring the fact that Justice is also a process, and it is being served. The cops on the scene are facing charges for what they did wrong and what they failed to do properly. That is justice at work. Ignoring that fact makes those screaming “Justice for Floyd” appear dismissive of fact. Drawing moral equivalence between an imperfect US judicial system and dystopian, soul-crushingly, oppressive regimes like gulag-state China is either sadly juvenile or merely idiotic, depending upon whether you’re a grade-school kid or a tenured professor.
Fast law is bad law. Swift justice is nice, but certain justice is better. Sadly, instant justice—at least as far as the crowds at large seem to entertain—is just mob rule. Ultimately, I think Floyd’s death is a tragic chimera. Deeply meaningful to some, indicative of needed change to many, and an easy excuse to act out for others.
As for “cultural appropriation”… I find the term woefully misused. Specious even. The sheer absurdity of artists countenancing it as an acceptable qualifier staggers comprehension. Sure, other people out there use the term. Poorly. Incorrectly. And they shouldn’t, but artists out of everyone should know better than to sink into that mire of politically correct, thought policed, mob think. Unless someone is Jerry Seinfeld’s dentist (Bryan Cranston, pre-Breaking Bad), I think they’re more likely inspired by rather than misappropriating a culture.
“Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.” This is one of my favorite takes on the portrait I’ve seen so far. Thanks for sharing links under the portrait in your IG. I hope that instead of commenting, people will take a moment to think about why they are seeing more posts like this and what they can do about it.
Scott Fischer, thank you for sharing this.
A powerful portrait, thanks for sharing it and its process, Scott!
If some see in it a mirror held up to things they don’t like to think about in society, well, what a great thing for art to accomplish. Very much a part of the breadth of art history, an inseparable part of art ‘now’, and yes, even in our beloved imaginative realism.
wake me up when MC stops being so overtly woke. quit propping up a criminal like he’s a saint. that’s how my brother’s restaurant ended up getting molotov thrown into it.
Shoot me a message if you’d like. Maybe there’s something we can do about rebuilding your brother’s restaurant.
Bruce (and FB and others), I’m not commenting on your position on the matter…
But here’s where things, especially political and religious commentary, gets difficult on a group blog.
This post is a NOT reflection of Muddy Colors in un itself. Muddy Colors is simply a soapbox for artists. There is NO personal agenda other than free education.
If it feels like the blog leans one way or another, it is because that is reflective of artists, and the industry, in general.
It is not a reflection of a mission statement.
It is one of the reasons that Muddy Colors has a no politics and no religion policy. It’s OK to share religious and political art, but not opinions, that might reflect on the group as a whole. One of us does not speak for the whole. (In that same regard, if you have an issue with MY opinion, that is an issue with me alone, not the blog)
So although you may take offense to this post, please be aware that it is not an agenda of the blog itself, so much as the individual artist.
There is an important distinction to be made there, because if it seems like the blog skews one way or another politically, just be aware that that bias is a fair representation of the industry as a whole. And part of this blog’s mission is about keeping people informed about the current state of the industry.
And truly, I personally force the no politics no religion rule on ALL members, regardless of their stance (even when different than mine), in as fair of a way possible. If you have suggestions that would make it more fair, I am all ears. But I think it would be a shame to eliminate political and religious art completely from the blog, as those two things in particualr are responsible for centuries of important art, right now included.
Honesly, if you feel like the blog has a leftist agenda, it is NOT because I am censoring the other side. It is because the individual members take that stance, and are expressing it in a way that I personally feel is still fair and educational to artists as a whole.
Bravo to Scott for posting, and Dan for supporting. I think there are many people who follow this blog that need to look up the definition of politics. There is nothing political about this post. There is no political commentary. This is a portrait of a man who died. It is not about political parties or political ideologies or convincing people of voting for anything.
If you do not believe this person was worthy of having their portrait painted then that’s your opinion, but this artist feels it is worthy. Scott is working through current events and processing emotions through his art. That’s what artists do. I do not think it is the place of a blog of and for artists to tell an artist what they can or cannot paint. If you do not like it then you do not have to support this artist. As Dan says, Muddy Colors as a whole does not have opinions, but to insist that it’s contributors do not is to ask artists to not be artists at all.
The political activism of many, Karla Ortiz, Laurie Panepinto, is desperate, and perhaps the worst of all was that of Todd Lockwood, calling American superheroes left, and dividing into left (good) and right (bad) sides while ignoring that many Latinos fled from leftist dictatorships that undermined our freedom, and that in the US with all its flaws it was a place to progress. I was filled with anger at how malicious and dishonest his statement was. The same happens with Lauren’s posts, every time I read her art posts here I have less desire to share my work or be an artist, too many obligations, too many imperatives. I can´t breathe. Like Travis Lewis, putting an antifa on any cultural product, as if many antifa are left-wing extremists, I just need to add an antifa to her portrait of Lovecraft. I’m sorry to be so forthright, but it seems inevitable that the site will become toxic by politically radicalizing us.
It’s just like Lauren claiming cultural appropriation isn’t a political topic because no presidential candidate was running on a platform regarding it. Then she went on to say it wasn’t even a debated issue and it’s just a new moral standard. This is the biggest problem with Muddy Colors. They will constantly move the goalposts regarding their political posts. First they say they don’t allow politics. Then they say they do, but they can’t have opinions on it. Then they say that they can have opinions on it because it’s not political. Lauren is by far the most disingenuous of the bunch.
Without a doubt there would be tantrums thrown around backstage if somebody tried to post positive artwork of something with the Confederate Battle Flag, especially if they did what Scott did and posted donation links to political groups like the NRA.
The way the text was handled, both in the final piece and its reveal in the time lapse is so effective. Love it
Awesome work and a nice tune! Thanks for sharing the process.
Quick question … was graphic design ever part of your curriculum or is it just a natural knack you have?
Thanks again!
I do not think it is Laura’s intention, but by nature these topics are very ambiguous, she gave as an example of managing respect for cultures well to the producers of Marvel, when in the Thor film they changed the valkyrie that from its roots It is Viking, for an Afro-descendant actress, the same as the mermaid that is Greek or Danish to an also Afro version, or the same with the illustrations by Mia Araujo, that if we use the rule equally I use a story of origin, place and culture very clear as Alice in Wonderland, in an Afro version. All this would be cool, even in my childhood I did a version of Alicia but South American, but putting moral rules that are not the same generates resentment. Besides her thinking that white culture is imposed by force, when for example I being half a native ethnic group and knowing all my childhood friends we admire many white cultural elements for being cool, well made or original. In conclusion, although they must say their ideas, and every artist can freely paint whatever they want, but politics always ends in bitter conflicts and even more so now when it is very emotional and polarized.
I always enjoy a good time-lapse process video! I love how the words were revealed by rubbing away the excess paint, it created some cool textures and an experience we don’t normally get by just looking at a finished image.
I fall on the conservative side, but I respect anyone’s right to express their opinions, especially through art. Plus this is a free website, not subscription based with promises of political agreeableness. No one’s forcing anyone here consume political ideologies.
If you don’t like the way something taste stop sticking it in your mouth.
If you’re going to virtue signal then at least do it with art that isn’t shit.
Exactly!
This piece doesn’t fall into that virtue signaling camp, but even if it did, Scott Fischer would have done it rather brilliantly.
I fail to see how anyone can view an image of a dead man, one who was murdered as “political”. (btw there are many paintings, photographs and drawings of dead martyrs and victims of war hanging in galleries today) Stop projecting. *You* see his death as political rather than as a terrible thing that happened and should not happen to anyone. It’s unfortunate that we live in a world so cold as to relegate the life of a fellow human being to “politics”. Really? REALLY?!!
You don’t have to belong to ANY political group or religious affiliation to have a damn heart! smh
That being said, this is a beautiful painting, done with finesse and creativity. I enjoyed the process as I’m investigating acrylic inks and paints. I’ve not been sure if it’s a medium for me which led me to this site and this artist. I’m grateful for all the contributions, especially for learning artists such as my self.