In this drawing, Fanaticism, the Age of Ideology, I depict an ideologue--who holds a lightening rod that bears the words: “the rod of morality”---while a sea of skulls lay miles behind the central figure, as they do at his feet.
It is death on a immense scale.
There have been many who objected to this drawing, laying down the “obscenity” card. I discard, out of hand, any objections claiming “obscenity” --which is merely a subjective term in this context. Let’s leave that rubber term at the door, please. It’s a nothing word to me when it comes to art. Looking at it from the artist’s perspective, if I worried about who might be offended (or who may not be offended) by one of my caricatures—meant to satirize in the first place—then I would be paralyzed before the blank sheet of paper or canvas! I can’t create while wondering if the viewing audience has the thin skin of a suburban lawn-mowing PTA member or the roughness of a tattooed sailor. I don’t care. Obscenity is simply not an issue to me when caricaturing --and it never will be. It is the death of a caricature artist.
But if anyone is concerned about the issue of obscenity: My caricature is exposing the actual obscenity, which happens to be, by the way, um, the topic of this drawing: fanatical genocide. In the realm of ideas, there are things *I* consider obscene and I will express myself as *I* see fit to *expose it*.
There is more to this drawing than I care to explain, but a few points are called for that will illuminate it (beyond what is clearly seen).
The drawing is of a specific person who ascribes to a specific ideology, but I don’t care to go into detail of those specifics, I would much rather have this drawing rest as a more general statement of fanaticism. Whatever the ideology one ascribes to—one can hold it dogmatically and fanatically—even if the canons and tenets of that ideology of peaceful and reasonable when judged in the abstract.
This drawing is testimony to the fact that fanaticism is a double edged sword, that the hostility toward Islam can be fanatical as is the hostility of those who fly planes into skyscrapers.
This drawing stirred a lot of people. Emotions were engaged---ones of jubilation and great hostility. That is somewhat understandable, given that the drawing is rather controversial and funny (depending on your perspective).
I would like to focus on some of the hostile feed-back given from sundry sources. Some of these hostile remarks attack me as an artist and as a person. I don’t mind too much. In my career, I have been there and done that! If anything, it is a rather edifying look into the power of art. The remarks stand on there own, to be judged as you, the viewer, see fit.
Please note: For clarity and brevity, the quotes are edited:
Victor Pross, [is] a rude, talentless "artist" [who] drew a political-cartoon type "work" depicting certain […] figures as would-be genocides due to their hostility to the ideology of Islam.
… the so-called "caricature" of her…was quite disturbing, disturbing from the viewpoint of Pross's way of thinking….”
I must ask, is not…this "caricature" (which has none of redeeming values of the graffiti one finds in urban ghettos) not beneath people who have reached puberty?
*“Renderings of a Disturbed Mind. Both movies A Beautiful Mind and Suspect Zero featured creative people with disturbed brains sketching even more disturbing works of art as their interpretations of reality. This sketch from Pross brought the film events to mind for me. Whether he is actually a paranoid schizophrenic I will leave to a medical expert to diagnose.”
*“I'm slightly embarrassed to look at it. I seriously feel like I've seen a drawing from a therapy session. It makes me cringe.”
OUCH! :}
