You can draw well. That is not in dispute. All the proportions are correct, he looks suitably real, and the red background is a dynamic frame for McVeigh's gray figure. Being able to draw is only a fraction of good art, otherwise Boris Vallejo would rank as one of the premier artists of the twentieth century. I bring up Vallejo because his work suffers from a similar flaw as yours does (though his is only offensive from an aesthetic perspective). That flaw is revealed when we open up the pretty packaging to see the hollow inside. In simpler terms, it has no substance.

The impact of "Oklahoma Bombing" rests on an unsteady foundation: disdain for the subject. Let's face it, if this wasn't a picture of the Oklahoma City Bomber but of some random guy named Dave Johnson who worked as a plumber in Spokane it would lack all the attention it currently has. It would just be a picture of some dude placed smack dab in the middle of the frame, a regular boring portrait.

Shocking content has been used purposefully by many an artist to convey their vision. Countless others employ shock tactics for self-promotion. You don't win anything if you guess that I plant you firmly in the latter camp. Any sensible person glancing through his gallery can only conclude that art isn't your secondary concern, it's not even your tertiary one. You, you, and you take precedence. Your singular goal is to piss off your audience. No room is left for interpretation, the viewer need not bring any past experiences or thoughts with them. Right away it's obvious that we're being given the finger. Just as obvious is that the artist never matured beyond the age of thirteen. Contrast that to the primitive pleasures of the splatter paintings of Jackson Pollock. He forced us to look at art in a new way, to take a new-found joy in the paint itself, the colors, the motion. Never did his paintings scream "Hey, look at me!" Or take the comics of Robert Crumb. Vulgar, offensive and self-centered to be sure. What sets his work apart is how he readily exposes his own flaws, fears, hang-ups. Our sense of empathy is given a work-out. Not to mention the almost feverish quality of his art that gives the impression that it is something he must draw.

Sadly the exaltation of the self is a growing part of our culture. Take for example all your Nazi friends here on dA, their objective is, just like yours, to grab attention of any sort. As repellent as it first appears this hip Nazi bullshit is a fandom like any other. Film critic Roger Ebert made an astute observation in his review of the movie "Fanboys." "A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself." He continues, "...their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion." What else could explain a series of userpages that are virtually unidentifiable from each other besides slight variations of a few motifs. Swastika littered art and flashing avatars aren't as indicative of a person who believes in Nazi ideals as a person who is desperate that others know they believe in Nazi ideals. Meh, more fanboys and fangirls. Had life been different those swastikas and Hitler pics could just as easily be replaced with pokeballs and Pikachu. The fact that this trendiness is based upon racism and ignorance compounds the annoyance factor twentyfold.

In spite of yourself, you have accurately caught Mr. McVeigh's true character. Slightly unattractive with a tight-lipped grimace that can only be spotted on the faces of insignificant men who substitute tough guy bravado for accomplishment. Yep, he was a loser and it shows in this picture. He killed a few people, but the tyrannical American government kept on chugging along just as strong as ever! It isn't too presumptuous to think that the person who drew this finds the idea of heroism through failure an appealing one.


Not long ago I decided not to write a critique about this to avoid bringing more attention to an already disgustingly popular picture. Why the renege? For the same reason film historians still regard "Birth of a Nation" as both innovative and great art despite the undeniable bigotry. Now "Oklahoma Bombing" will never be considered great art or innovative, but I feel there is as much to learn from terrible art as there is from even the best art. If you'll excuse the analogy, it's akin to scientists studying fecal matter. A lot of medical and biological knowledge can be discovered this way, but in the end the subject is still shit.


(A note on the star rating- each rating was made as low as possible because the overall rating needed to also bear that dishonorable mark. In reality the technique would be around three and a half, originality at one and a half, and vision and impact at negative four and negative three respectively)