This post calls for some commentary, though generally I like to present the images and let you, dear readers, come to your own conclusions. In this case I feel the need to blather.
I like kitsch because it is so unashamedly bad, designed purely as a sentimental honey trap in which the hapless
fly viewer is drowned in overpowering sweetness and light. Religious iconography is quintessentially kitsch, with a dark subtext that aims to seduce its audience into a lifetime of cozy devotion, free from any distracting questions.
These images were superimposed on a background of red plush. The melding simultaneously kicks up the kitsch factor to 11 and subverts them by suggesting the darker overtones inherent in their appeal.
A word about the images. The Abrahamic Plush Big 3.5 was an obvious choice. Plush Buddha is actually good art, but clearly an icon in every other respect. Plush Hubbard, Deepak Chopra, Pat Robertson, and Daisaku Ikeda are all Evangelists, and Plush Crowley is an Old School iconoclast.
Plush Dawkins is somewhat different. Not posed, it’s obviously a crop of Dawkins speaking at a public event. But the crop itself is an artistic choice, the look evoking open-minded intelligence. In that sense it’s an icon. Consider it a provocation, though I think the idea that atheism is a religion is nonsense.
I’ve blathered enough. Don’t want to over-explain. Please give me some feedback, either on this post, or the subject of adding commentary to forthcoming images. Thanks.