Who is the most famous contemporary American artist? It’s debatable, but probably George Zimmerman. We are being serious. Jesus fudge, we really are. Prolific, too! Here is his latest: a monochrome horror smear of Angela Corey, the Florida prosecutor who had the nerve to charge the nascent artist with murder even though it was legal to kill Trayvon Martin because there were no witnesses. The thing has words on it, about the American judicial system, and how this lady does not respect it. It's a
The person(s) who paid 100G for Zimmerman's first painting wasn't buying a work of art, because by any measure it simply had no artistic value. So don't worry about his "art" being worth so much; it isn't. Rather, that party was straight up donating money to old GZ for whatever reason, most likely ideological or political. I'd wager that the paintings are just a cover for this transfer of money from wealthy right wing patrons, and Zimmerman may not be the ultimate target for this largesse.
It would be irresponsible not to speculate about all of this.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came out that George actually had nothing to do with producing these paintings. They appear more like something that was cooked up by some PR or political consulting firm. The repurposing of existing images to make an obvious political statement could be a telltale sign there, because it is very unlikely that a naive folk artist with no prior artistic experience would be that clever.
Zimmerman's patrons might be going to all of this trouble not because they like him personally or sympathize with him; in fact they likely haven't even met him, and have no desire to do so. Instead they want to make him into the next Joe the Plumber, someone who can be used to gin the base back up (after more than a year of defeats) and rally support among them and to serve as a point man to irritate the opposition. The few grand is chump change to these folks and it is worth it to keep this individual afloat and in their pocket.
For all we know piping large sums of cash to Zimmerman might be part of some shell game to conceal sources and donors of money used for political campaign purposes. In this scenario Zimmerman and his paintings might just be serving as a front for some laundering scheme. This is all of course quite speculative at this point, but you do have to wonder how such artistically-obvious kitsch would have sold for such a high price, as well as who would have paid it and why they did so. Wealthy people generally don't exhibit such gauche taste when it comes to investing some of their own money in fine art.
Interesting color he chose for the painting there, eh? Kind of a drying blood/pus sort of hue. I bet that's what the whole world looks like through his eyes.
I like how that &quot;Conservative Treehouse&quot; site says: <i>&quot;The artwork&rsquo;s inspiration may have come from this photograph&quot;</i> when it&#039;s in fact obvious the &quot;painting&quot; is simply a posterized version of the photo.
Where does this man find <i>the time</i>?
p.s. If&#039;n you guys don&#039;t like Koons, how do you feel about <a href="http:\/\/www.boredpanda.com\/bizzare-sculptures-by-david-cerny\/" target="_blank">David Cerny</a>?
Yes, it&#039;s <a href="http:\/\/www.thewire.com\/national\/2014\/01\/george-zimmerman-goes-shepard-fairey-his-latest-piece-art\/357288\/" target="_blank">from an AP photo by Rick Wilson</a>. Considering Shepard Fairey also used an AP photo, and ended up having to pay $1.6 million, Zimmerman may be in a bit of trouble this time ...
You know who else......yeah, I guess you do.
The person(s) who paid 100G for Zimmerman&#039;s first painting wasn&#039;t buying a work of art, because by any measure it simply had no artistic value. So don&#039;t worry about his &quot;art&quot; being worth so much; it isn&#039;t. Rather, that party was straight up donating money to old GZ for whatever reason, most likely ideological or political. I&#039;d wager that the paintings are just a cover for this transfer of money from wealthy right wing patrons, and Zimmerman may not be the ultimate target for this largesse.
It would be irresponsible not to speculate about all of this.
I wouldn&#039;t be at all surprised if it came out that George actually had nothing to do with producing these paintings. They appear more like something that was cooked up by some PR or political consulting firm. The repurposing of existing images to make an obvious political statement could be a telltale sign there, because it is very unlikely that a naive folk artist with no prior artistic experience would be that clever.
Zimmerman&#039;s patrons might be going to all of this trouble not because they like him personally or sympathize with him; in fact they likely haven&#039;t even met him, and have no desire to do so. Instead they want to make him into the next Joe the Plumber, someone who can be used to gin the base back up (after more than a year of defeats) and rally support among them and to serve as a point man to irritate the opposition. The few grand is chump change to these folks and it is worth it to keep this individual afloat and in their pocket.
For all we know piping large sums of cash to Zimmerman might be part of some shell game to conceal sources and donors of money used for political campaign purposes. In this scenario Zimmerman and his paintings might just be serving as a front for some laundering scheme. This is all of course quite speculative at this point, but you do have to wonder how such artistically-obvious kitsch would have sold for such a high price, as well as who would have paid it and why they did so. Wealthy people generally don&#039;t exhibit such gauche taste when it comes to investing some of their own money in fine art.
Monsieur Brainwash, it is your move....
I find the red and orange bright and cheery, sort of like the colors of Skittles.
Interesting color he chose for the painting there, eh? Kind of a drying blood/pus sort of hue. I bet that&#039;s what the whole world looks like through his eyes.
I like how that &quot;Conservative Treehouse&quot; site says: <i>&quot;The artwork&rsquo;s inspiration may have come from this photograph&quot;</i> when it&#039;s in fact obvious the &quot;painting&quot; is simply a posterized version of the photo.
I&#039;m surprised he hasn&#039;t put out a rap video yet.
Where does this man find <i>the time</i>?
p.s. If&#039;n you guys don&#039;t like Koons, how do you feel about <a href="http:\/\/www.boredpanda.com\/bizzare-sculptures-by-david-cerny\/" target="_blank">David Cerny</a>?
Oops.
*Blushing while surreptitiously hiding her avatars*
Yes, it&#039;s <a href="http:\/\/www.thewire.com\/national\/2014\/01\/george-zimmerman-goes-shepard-fairey-his-latest-piece-art\/357288\/" target="_blank">from an AP photo by Rick Wilson</a>. Considering Shepard Fairey also used an AP photo, and ended up having to pay $1.6 million, Zimmerman may be in a bit of trouble this time ...
I&#039;d have more respect for his &quot;art&quot; if he cut off a body part and mailed it to someone.
Not much more, but some.
I heard he sent his severed ear to an old friend with the note, &quot;Haven&#039;t heard from you lately&quot;.
Yes, much like peristalsis.
Me?