I don't really know how to introduce this

[SoCalCoug]

The difference, for me, between the two paintings is the use of light and shade and palette in the former to make me look upon a pitiable fellow and feel something resembling sorrow for him, almost empathy.

In McNaughton's, that feeling is not conveyed. The guy looks middle class, not homeless. The palette is not muted. The lighting looks like a Puff Daddy video, and there's not a similar response. I don't think it's all that controversial for him to feel inspiration from these paintings, to even try and subvert their prior symbolism by re-invigorating the debate. But, the art is not as good technically as the original. McNaughton can paint, but he's not really an artist that I identify with at all.

Well, it's a good example of art vs. kitsch.

[DU Ute]

So does he have a new URL? Because http://www.mcnaughtonart.com doesn't get me there anymore.

Try http://www.jonmcnaughton.com. I'm guessing he had to stop using the other URL because it uses the word "art".

Here is his latest and greatest, Runaway Slave:

[TripletDaddy]

For some reason, he painted those slaves in what should be Arlington Cemetery. I guess they can't really see where they are going.

[SoCalCoug]

I ran across this today. Not sure if it's already been linked in this thread. But someone re-worked the rollover comments on McNaughton's Jesus and the Constitution painting.

Jesus and the Constitution Against the Evil Hordes

[Portland Ute]

[Northwestcoug]

I ran across this today. Not sure if it's already been linked in this thread. But someone re-worked the rollover comments on McNaughton's Jesus and the Constitution painting.

Jesus and the Constitution Against the Evil Hordes

That's hilarious!

[DapperDan]

I ran across this today. Not sure if it's already been linked in this thread. But someone re-worked the rollover comments on McNaughton's Jesus and the Constitution painting.

Jesus and the Constitution Against the Evil Hordes

That's a great find.

[Harry Tic]

I ran across this today. Not sure if it's already been linked in this thread. But someone re-worked the rollover comments on McNaughton's Jesus and the Constitution painting.

Jesus and the Constitution Against the Evil Hordes

Okay, I didn't have time for this. You just totally fouled up my work day. I hope you're proud of yourself.

[DrumNFeather]

I ran across this today. Not sure if it's already been linked in this thread. But someone re-worked the rollover comments on McNaughton's Jesus and the Constitution painting.

Jesus and the Constitution Against the Evil Hordes

lol...Emperor Palpatine...

[Omaha 680]

Article in the most recent Sunstone by Robert A. Rees about McNaughton's art as propaganda.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/jon...-propagandist/

It's better online than in print because the pictures are in color.


“The Forgotten Man” by Maynard Dixon





“The Forgotten Man” by Jon McNaughton

I'm not a fan of McNaughton by any stretch. But Dixon likely got the name for his paintings from FDR. FDR appropriated the term from Graham William Sumner, who wrote his Forgotten Man essay over 50 years earlier. The original Forgotten Man (Sumner's) is much closer to McNaughton's than he is to FDR's/Dixon's Forgotten Man.

[pellegrino]

I'm not a fan of McNaughton by any stretch. But Dixon likely got the name for his paintings from FDR. FDR appropriated the term from Graham William Sumner, who wrote his Forgotten Man essay over 50 years earlier. The original Forgotten Man (Sumner's) is much closer to McNaughton's than he is to FDR's/Dixon's Forgotten Man.

does McNaughty know that though? Has he read Sumner?

[Omaha 680]

does McNaughty know that though? Has he read Sumner?

I would guess probably not. I just found the quote that Solon posted interesting, because Rees surely has read Sumner, and knows the origin of the Forgotten Man. Yet he writes McNaughton's appropriation of the title is "ironic" and "troubling" because McNaughton is conveying ideas diametrically opposed to those of Dixon. But it seems Dixon and FDR already appropriated the Forgotten Man from someone with ideas diametrically opposed to them. Double irony!

[pellegrino]

I would guess probably not. I just found the quote that Solon posted interesting, because Rees surely has read Sumner, and knows the origin of the Forgotten Man. Yet he writes McNaughton's appropriation of the title is "ironic" and "troubling" because McNaughton is conveying ideas diametrically opposed to those of Dixon. But it seems Dixon and FDR already appropriated the Forgotten Man from someone with ideas diametrically opposed to them. Double irony!

I think he wrote it that way because it was more probable (almost certain) that McNaughty had seen Dixon's work, whereas it's unlikely that he hasn't read Sumner. That said, it would have been appropriate to include a note stating the origin of the term.

[UtahDan]

I ran across this today. Not sure if it's already been linked in this thread. But someone re-worked the rollover comments on McNaughton's Jesus and the Constitution painting.

Jesus and the Constitution Against the Evil Hordes

Finally looked at this. Very funny.

[Donuthole]

Cardiac was on this a long time ago. Also, if you keep reading from the linked post, you get a priceless wedding story from RF (God rest his cyber soul).

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...&postcount=162