One question that comes to my mind (though I haven't seen the picture) is would it be considered racist if it depicted a white person or anyone representative of any other human racial group?

What we see is in the eye of the beholder. That person chose to see what they saw for their own reasons, and as usual with mankind, expects the world to agree.

Hi crazyheart,

Having seen the same picture and watched the discussion unfold these are my observations.

First, we have a tendency to think that everything we see or understand is just as clear to everybody else and not a matter of indiviudal interpretation.

I saw the same picture, found the same word, did not see a black man and still do not see Barack Obama.  In fact, if it was indeed meant to be a portrait of the President the artist responsible sucks.

That said, it could very well be that some very low-skilled portrait artist with a political conviction is taking a shot at the President.  I don't know that some of us not automatically jumping to that conclusion have missed something very obvious because I do not know that it is intended to be a protrait of Obama in particular or even all Black males in general.

I see a man wearing glasses.  I have never seen President Obama wearing reading glasses so I wouldn't connet the picture with the president.  Somebody else did.  Who sees the picture clearly and who simply thinks that they do?  I don't know.

Something about the quality of the picture suggest to me that it is older than President Obama's presidency.  My Art History memory isn't as sharp as what it once was.  There is a niggling suspicion that I have seen a piece very similar to this and that it is a fairly old work.

The work crazyheart is referring to is this one:

It is creditted to Paul Agule in 1987

It is described as an optical illusion and may have appeared in a number of introductory psychology text books under perception.

So, knowing that it is intended to be an optical illusion and that it was created in 1987 I feel confident in saying that those who did not recognize the picture as either a black man or President Obama have nothing to be ashamed of.

It is neither.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Racism, pertains to a persons. Heritage or  skin color, something that a person is born with.

Racism does not pertain to a persons personal beliefs , convictions or character , if a person is a liar regardless of skin, then he’s a liar 

I must say Barrack Obama did not leap to mind when I first saw this. Or now, for that matter.

As RevJohn says, however, this work has been associated with Paul Agule in 1987 and therefore had nothing to do with Barak Obama. I'm assuming that the identity of the figure is anonymous. I think the author simply needed to accenutate the lips in order to form the 'a'. Some people are just way to sensitive.

Thanks neo for finally getting it to post. Thanks John and Mike for trying.

Interesting Crazyheart, I see it both Mike and RevJohn's posts now. Maybe that's part of the illusion...

I'll reflect on your question about the difference and artistic endeavors and get back to you. At the present, I just want to say this -- shame on the person (people?) who played the race card in the above example. A person can be critical of President Obama's presidential performance without it being a matter of racism.

The President did not come to my mind, nor, as a matter of fact, can I say for certain that to me it appears as an African American.  Not even necessarily male, either.

Thanks for the illustration John. Okay, now when I see that it doesn't look like a black man at all. It looks much more like a broken multi-coloured rectangle.

Racism is the rush to get ahead at all costs ... no matter who you walk on in full fires of desire ... you may burn the system that supports you ...

Would soul inhibit the desires? Something to ponder ...

Can you find that daemon in yourself as self-learning efforts?

If you make Ur omi ... perhaps you'll learn the other side of the story as that Harvey GUI used to say ... insinuates deeps'x in ...

Mark Twain as 12 in review ... chimerii hopes ... fathom that satire ...

Ok, so where to begin...

Paul Agule could not have written this with Obama in mind or making a statement on him or his politics. Anyone seeing that is projecting onto the work something that is not there.

That said, there is an appearance one cannot deny deeper set eyes, created bu the loops of the L & a thicker bottom lip, created by the a of "Liar".

Now, intent is hard to know or measure.

In fact, the biggest racist on the planet will say they did not intend it that way or that they are not even racist. If you do not believe that ask KKK members if they are racist. Ask a Nazi or neo-Nazi if they are. One can likely Google the many times David Duke has said he is not a racist.

I do not know Paul Agule. Nobody here likely does. So, they cannot say he is or is not racist.

I do not know if he picked the word LIAR to hide or picked the image first to hide a word in. Neither does anyone other than Paul. If he picked a non-white appearing face and chose "liar" as the word to hide it can mean something. If he chose the word "liar"and that was the way he saw to make eyes out of an L and lips out of an a, then it may mean something else.

You can also say something completely racist without intending to.

What can be measured is impact.

Alcris Limongi said in the Racial Justice Training that "racism is not measured by intent but rather by impact"  

I can understand the impact the word liar on a face that appears black might have.

It is about being sensitive to one another.

It is not about one reality trumping another. It is about respecting and acknowledging diverstity and that people can have different perspectives, histories, experiences....

In my world, when you hurt someone that is the first priority. It is not whether it was intended, because intent does not matter. It does not matter whether you intended to push someone, they are on the ground. It does not matter if you intended to hit someone with your purse, you did.

If someone told me this hurt them based on seeing the man as a black man, or as an Asian or a black man... I would listen and I would understand that negativity has been associated with being those things...

It would be like the image seemingly having a yamulke on, that may or may not be hair, and the word "cheap" hidden. It would be like the image maybe having longer hair and is that a part of a feather or could it be hair, and the word "lazy" hidden.

I would expect it would bother some people.

At that point, I do not give a rat's ass about the artist's intent or anyone else's or my even own. I care about another person hurting.

Then again, I also live in the margins and among the marginalized... so my perspective is different.

Anyone know how to have Alcris or Steve, someone from Racial Justice or United in Learning...come onto Wondercafe and give us their take?

BTW I would say there is a long standing racial stereotype historically associated with certain peoples being untrustworthy.

Are those slanted eyes?

Is that a thick lip?

Is this "liar" stereotype associated with those people in this instance?

We do not know.

It does seem to associate the word liar with that image.

Will we tend to see ourselves as liars? No, not really. "We" will be the good and decent. That is not "us". So, we will see "them" as some "other" and "they" equal liar.

Is Wondercafe predominantly white? Yes.

Hmmmm....

Many things come into play and a position of white privilege is one of them...

Do you know what hue I'Yam?