Noah Fence said

...
If art is a process of choices made by an artist, then one can interpret the work as a thoughtful examination of the artists thinking, correct?

If the given premise is that art is a process of choices made by the artist, then I can see the correlation between that and the interpretation of the work being a thought examination of the artist's thinking. I will examine this based on that but I do not believe all arts falls into this. I make art all the time that is not a process of choices. They are the output of a system modified by my process of choices to explicitly not be directly connected to my thinking. The interpretation of my thoughts, to be an accurate interpretation, would have to be made by examining the modification of the system.

So, let's examine the very thoughtful work that your wife thought was soooo funny that she had to come and share it as soon as she saw it.

Why did he choose to portray the first ever japanese woman to win a grand slam in tennis as a light skinned, blonde woman with straight hair?

Help me understand plz  

First, I see this as an editorial cartoon utilizing a common style of caricaturizing one or more people within the cartoon to designate the subject of the piece. Caricatures exaggerate physical characteristics. Some may view the caricature and focus on depictions of what they see as racial differences that show that the viewer's mental process is focused on race and therefore racist. The other people depicted are not caricatures and therefore are not the subject of said piece. The cartoon is not about a specific event even though a specific event inspired the creation of the art so the characters shown do not match the inspiring event. It is about showing a pattern of behavior, also exaggerated, that the focal subject has exhibited in the past. A racist may look at the "race" of the other non-focal characters that are supposed to be just "other" people. If he wanted to depict the inspiring event and not a pattern of behavior, he would have shown a more accurate depiction of that event. 

A caricature exaggerates physical characteristics which are derived from phenotypic genetic alleles. A racist will see the division along something called "race". A non-racist will see it as nothing more than exaggerated features. 

Is it racist to depict Kanye West with large lips? A racist will look at that and focus on his lips and see race. But he does have beautiful full lips and to draw a caricature with out depicting that would be silly as would depicting Angelina Jolie without exaggerating her lips. 

Is this caricature made by Bogdan Covaciu of Serena racist? How about his self portrait caricature? 

Racists see everything through the concept of "race" and are quick to point out someone's race in whatever they see even when race is not the focus or topic of what they see.

Guest said

 

Sometimes I think back to this post and laugh. Not because it was true, but because of how funny it is. Half-credit. 

Still subscribe to this theory? Tony Podesta as Individual One? Can you legit say that with a straight face?   

Absolutely! Still going with what the DOJ has posted - they post so much that directly contradicts everything the media keeps saying. It is all on their website. It's public information but I guess the media doesn't care about that. It also goes with what the FOIA releases have shown and collaborates the public documents of the DOJ. Again, media is completely silent on all the FOIA releases. 

So yeah. I still will stand by my statement until the DOJ releases documents that show something different. In these cases, I do not go with anything the media says (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, even PBS) in these cases. I go with the official documents from the DOJ.