I was surprised by your change in writing style, still personal but more formal. My ownly problem with your statement was the idea that the art work questioned whose war was better? Did you mean more worthwhile or justified?

The final result of this journey shows how far you have come in gaining skill with this medium. However, I have a hard time seeing Bush in the final blend–maybe due to lack of incentive. More interesting to me is an earlier version in which transparency and overlapping play a strong part in the image.

The maps are very subtle, giving something for the viewer to discover and reflect on. The faces, always visually demanding are in the center of the viewers’ interest as well as their placement in this piece.

Another strong visual device is the center dividing line created by the map edges. It further emphasizes division as your theme: division of the country in each era, division in the values of each presidency, of course division of centuries and geographic locations of battles, purposes of the wars, direction of threats and outcomes of the wars. Although in many areas this piece represents conflict I wonder if the seamless blending of the faces also indicates hope of resolution. The center division while emphasizing contrasts may also represent a coming together.

Well done,
Susan

Interesting theory: invention+interpretation+imagination=new art. You say portraits are mimicry ( I assume that is a negative thing for you) yet much of your work includes portraiture like the “heads” that you mentioned. I am not sure if you are saying that you like that about your own work or not? Not sure if you are saying your work is new art or not?

You might want to be careful about your personal opinion of George W. Bush, monster and animal are strong words to call a person and these do not reflect an opionion shared by all. Especially consider this if you want people to approach your work with out bias. Your imagery of the battleground maps is a stronger explination of the point you are trying to make and it speaks for its self.

When I first looked at the image of Lincoln, he appeared sinister. The smile is sly and of the variety staged for a photograph. The eyes stilled in a menacing glare. It is a dispassionate gaze filled with a predetermined notion. I thought the two prominent features were in conflict with everything I’d ever read about Abraham Lincoln. So I was curious to read the narrative to learn why the image had been altered. I was surprised to read that an image of George Bush had been fused with Lincolns. I clearly missed it in the first examination. So I studied the piece again in greater detail and could see a likeness of Bush emerge and the maps in the background.

It is ironic that you merged the images of these to presidents. It’s larger than one was “good” and one is “bad.” Lincoln was an incredibly brilliant, reflective man. He studied and discussed ideas always in an effort to expand his view and understanding of the world. He agonized about the Civil War and the death toll it took. In fact, there was a period where he became significantly depressed under the weight of the presidency during this time. He was a just and fair man. He not only favored the abolition of slavery, he also believed women had right to vote. In 1864, he invited Sojourner Truth to the White House to honor her for her tireless fight for these just causes.

The only thing George W. Bush has in common with Lincoln is that they have both shared the Oval office. According to Scott McClellan, George W. Bush is known for making decisions by “following his gut reaction” rather than researching and reflecting upon an issue. His primary mode of operation is to make a decision and never reevaluate it. Being convinced by his aids, he sent US soldiers into Iraq with unwavering determination. He has not swayed from his original stance, and he has failed to consider critical input along the way so that adjustments in tactics could be made. His resolve is so great, that proving the administration’s position has surpassed a rationale that the war is being fought for just reasons. If as McClellan suggests, President Bush relied on propaganda about weapons of mass destruction to sell the idea of going to war in the first place, then your image of the sly, sinister smile on the trusted American president is timely and well-placed. Disturbingly, the menacing glare of the eyes reflects the dispassionate gaze of a president filled with determined, self-righteousness. Therefore, you have successfully accomplished your artistic intent. I enjoy seeing your ideas materialize.

You said you didn’t want to kill that piece–are you saving it as different versions as you go along? Of course that doesn’t always keep me from messing up. Seems like I do more reconstruction in my remediating.

I look forward to seeing your final piece. Susan

You know what would be grotesque is spliting the head down the middle and putting all the bad things bush did on his side of the head and all the good things ab did on his side. You can make it collage similiar to Gay’s typography assignment. Just an idea.