I didn't really think of it that way until you brought it up, but upon consideration it makes a bit of sense. Just about every political campaign, cause, non-profit, etc. is looking for the "iconic" poster/image/brand ID that they can propagandize with. "Activist art" is probably going to be about the best chance for a professional artist in the middle of the bell curve to earn a steady paycheck after they graduate from school. The guy doing the paintings showing all the Founding Fathers crying in the background while Obama burns the Constitution is making good bank, but from a technical standpoint he doesn't seem to me to be that great an artist...
Poor attempt at creating a likeness (or morph to suggest a kinship to something/somebody else).
The assembly of the tag with the pic is nowhere near original.
Was it just to PO a liberal prof?
While that may have merit, the "work" itself is lame, talking jr high at best in execution/design/concept.
I'm not an artist, so I can't comment on the quality of the work. It is displayed in an "open" hall, where students can post whatever they like. The artist is anonomous, but I would assume it was a student.
Just because you're an art major doesn't make you a liberal... or a painter... My minor was in photography, which was based out of Herron. Most of the kids in my classes were pretty conservative. I've actually seen some pretty nice stuff come out of that school.
Only liberal comment I think I ever received was from the grad student teaching my B&W film photography course as she shockingly commented on my cliche dog photo that I took for myself to use up my roll of film.
- "Whatcha got there?" as I went outside of the darkroom to check the contrast on my photo
- Oh nothing. Was just trying to use up my roll of film. This isn't for our project.
- "Well, can I see it anyways?"
- Um. Ok. It's not what you want to see
- *gasp* "You shouldn't be able to photograph into an animal's soul like that... This is a gorgeous photo"