Reading Kristen Stewart's and Rupert Sanders "CHEATING" Images Through Mark Tansey's Paintings

THE KEY - MARK TANSEY

THE INNOCENT EYE - MARK TANSEY

 http://www.studymode.com/essays/Mark-Tansey-1292816.html

In this painting, “a cow stands in front of Paulus Potter’s The young Bull,1647, now at the Mauritshuis, the Hague, while the human experts wonder if the cow can distinguish artifice from reality.” (Metropolitan Museum) The painting is monochromatic, which is his unique and primary painting style. It seems that Tansey used realism in describing an experiment about whether the bull could tell the reality, but actually it is not realism. The audiences themselves are also in the experiment, and the experts want to see our reactions about the painting, which is what we think the cow will do: respond to the Bull or to Monet's Haystack on the right.

(blue my change and addition)

Actually the painting is in response to the very old story told by Baudrillard for one:

There was/is a contest for the best 

Trompe l'oeil

 illusion painting.

The two finalist artists revealed their paintings to the judges. In one the berries were so realistic that birds came through the windows to eat them. Who could top that! 

The other artist was told to move the curtain aside so the judges could observe the painting.

The curtain was the painting.

One painting could fool birds (innocent eyes), but the other could fool judges.

Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders Fabricated Photoshopped Photos

They fooled "Innocent Eyes" - Dumb Animal Eyes - EYES OF HATRED -  Jealous Eyes - BUT NOT THE EYES OF LOVE

STILL LIFE - MARK TANSEY

Trash reality and honor the Simulacrum. Trash their real life and treasure the walking Papz Pics.

FOR THE HATERS

Toss the originals and love the fake 
WITH YOUR DUMB ANIMAL EYES

The Defense Rests

The Jury is in

The Ruling has been given

Hater Fans Prefer the Simulacra Every Time 

What Do You Think?

 I could definitely use the New Year's kiss to photoshop the car images. How about you? A slam dunk. Then get Rupert in there all blurry too.

New Years Eve 2011

Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders PDA Photos - Exposed as Frauds - Part 1/3

I am following the groundbreaking painter Mark Tansey's article on painting before I even knew who Tansey was.

" What we have is a dialogue where the critique of one representation is by another. Art discourse is the clash of representations."

I am critiquing the faked pictures (since they are faked we can regard them as an attempt at art) through the representations of a different painting, in this case Manet's Dejeuner: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/T/tansey.html  

You see one painting through another painting which gives a deeper meaning to both of them. This is post modern thinking. 

US Weekly has cropped the original images so please link for the best we have available from pop sugar. The five images below were taken by a cyber-sleuth, Lynnette-Perkes, a portrait painter, at the site. Almost every viewer has remarked that something is OFF in these images. But what is it? I am reading them through Foucault's reading of Manet's Great Paintings, 

as if they were paintings

about light

#3 pop sugar

If you go to pop sugar # 3 you will see this image uncropped all the way to their feet. The sun is at the back of the woman, lighting up her hair which seems caught by a breeze making a halo around her head, the brightly lit tendrils floating in the air. The light softly etches down her right arm flexed at the elbow, her hand on her waist. A slight line of light slides down her hip and then we see a line of light at her ankle as her left leg is flexed and crossed over her right, her foot pointing down and there is a small point of shadow at her toe.

The light draws a sharp line down the profile of the man, and at his mid arm where it delineates his arm from the woman's hair. Only at his instep and heel do we see the line of light again.

The two figures are in shadow. The darker shadows are at their feet and at the right elbow of the man on the white top of the fence. All these shadows are feathery as if they are the shadows of the leaves above.

# 17 pop sugar

The oblique light now draws softly down the lower part of the man's head, falling softly on his shoulders, then down his back and left leg to etch his leg and delineate it from the sunlit background. 

The feathery shadow by the man's right hand on the top of the white fence is the same as the shadow in the above image where the man is close to the fence. Now the woman is flush against it facing away from the man as he presses close into her back. 

The top of the fence is bright white from the sunlight hitting it directly, perpendicular at right angles to the top of the fence. 

We see then two sources of light. One source coming from behind the figures and one source cutting directly in front of them falling full on the top of the fence. If you go down to the images taken a few weeks ago at this site, the fence appears like unpainted gray, weathered wood in shadow. If you look at the 2nd image below (and please go to Gossip Cop for this commenter's own pictures as they are quite large and detailed and untouched.) The garage door to the right is the same weathered wood as the fence and is quite gray in this image. If you go to the 5th image you will see that the sun has changed position (or rather our earth) and is hitting the garage door in full sunlight and has bleached it white. 

What is disconcerting about this picture is that there are two sources of light. 

But we know that there are NOT 2 suns in the sky. 

Clearly something is OFF and the two suns in the sky has been what has confused people without their being aware of it. 

# 55 pop sugar

Manet - Le Dejeuner - below

The picture is split in two by the line of grass. ....you have a lighting which is a traditional lighting with a light source coming from above, from the left, which sweeps the scene, which illuminates this large meadow from the bottom, which strikes the back of the woman, which models her face...and this light comes to an end here on two clear bushes...You have, therefore, a triangular lighting which sweeps the woman's body and models her face: traditional lighting, classical lighting which leaves the relief and which is constituted by an interior light. 

Luncheon On the Grass (Le Dejeuner) Manet 1863

Now, if you take the figures in front, what characterizes them is the fact that they are lit by a completely different lighting which is frontal and perpendicular, which strikes, as you see, the woman and this entirely nude body, which strikes it from directly opposite: you see that there is absolutely no relief, no modeling. The woman's body is a sort of enamel as in Japanese painting. The lighting comes only brutally and from opposite. 
...the two dark jackets of these two men, are the culminating and end points of this frontal lighting, just as the two bushes here were the dazzling and culminating points of the interior lighting: an exterior lighting blocked by the bodies of two men and an interior lighting repeated by the two bushes. 

These two systems of representation, or rather these two systems of manifesting light inside a picture, are juxtaposed here in this very canvas, are in a juxtaposition which gives this picture its slightly discordant character, its internal heterogeneity; an internal heterogeneity which Manet tried in a way to reduce or perhaps rather to underline - I don't know - by this hand ....which is in the middle of the picture. (Manet And The Object of Painting - Michel Foucault pp.60-62)

 
Le Dejeuner produced a great scandal in the Paris art world.

Top image in shadow - link for wide-screen viewing

The unpainted fence is gray, weathered, unpainted wood.

2nd Image from Top

The fence and the garage door to the right are the same gray, weathered, unpainted wood.

3rd Image From Top
Again the fence in shadow

4th Image From Top

A car at the entrance to this cul de sac road. Note the foliage here. And do link to the very large pictures where a commenter did the work that Gossip Cop pretends to do. Her name is Lynnette, she is 5' 4" just 1 " taller than Kristen Stewart, and she is a professional portrait painter, and is the figure standing by the fence to indicate her size relative to the height of the fence. 

See her web page - many of her portraits are there and she lives in San Diego CA.

5th Image From Top

The sun now falls obliquely but strongly enough to bleach the garage door in the above 2nd image.

Please stay with me as I am next going to go into an extensive analysis of the photo shopping in everyone of these photographs by the fence, in order to leave you with no excuse to damn 

Kristen Stewart for "cheating".

Because we all know that there are NOT 2 suns in the sky.

Now for the photoshopping part of the expose!

http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2012/10/part-23-sanders-and-stewart-cheating.html

Reading Kristen Stewart's "CHEATING" Pictures Through the Eyes of Foucalt Reading Manet

FOUCAULT and the CUT of MANET in PAINTING

The Foucauldian Method:

Not taking a position, but following and disentangling lines....

Foucault is less interested by what the image says than by what it produces -  the behavior that it generates, and what it leaves barely seen among the social machinery in which it distributes bodies, spaces and utterances.

 ....strategies that confine painting, to render visible what it shows, 

but equally what it conceals.

Artist: Edouard Manet

Completion Date: c.1879

Foucault Discusses Manet's The Waitress

In effect what does this picture consist of and what does it represent? Really, in a sense, it does not represent anything in so far as it offers nothing to see. In effect, you have a total here and for a total, in this picture, this figure of the waitress which you see very close to the painter, very close to the viewer, very close to us, who has a face turned suddenly turned towards us as though a spectacle has suddenly presented itself in front of her and attracted her gaze. You see that she is not looking at what she is doing, which is putting down her beer glass, but her eye has been attracted by something that we do not see, that we do not know, which is there in front of the canvas. (p 49)

....the canvas is composed of one, two, or at the most three other figures...which we almost do not see since between them we see hardly anything but the receding profile and after that we see nothing but the hat. Rather, whoever they are looking at, they are themselves looking back at them in exactly the opposite direction. What do they see? Well, we know nothing about it, we know nothing since the picture is cut in such a way that the spectacle which is there, and by which these gazes are attracted, this spectacle is also hidden form us. 

This is where Manet "breaks" with classical painting. 

Always before the spectacle was also there for us to see 

what the figures were looking at.

It is a picture where nothing is represented except two gazes, two gazes in two opposite directions, two gazes in the two opposite directions of the picture, recto verso and neither of the two spectacles which are actually followed with so much attention by the two figures, neither of these two spectacles is given to us; and to underline this, you have the curious irony of this little part of a hand that you see (on the left) and this small part of a dress.

...it is as though there is nothing to see, that the picture should consist of these gazes turned towards the invisible, showing nothing but the invisible....

From one part of the canvas to another, you have two spectacles which are seen by 

the two figures but at its root the canvas, instead of showing what is to be seen, 

hides and conceals it.(p 50)

First let us look at these 2/55 photographs  which have been included in a series of pictures in  a media manufactured Debordian world wide SPECTACLE

And let us consider them as paintings and not photographs.

What do we see?

Two figures, - in a soft out of focus shortened depth of field - a man and a woman in a heterotopian space, the front seat of a car.

The one at the top  shows the back of a woman's head facing away from us looking at something we cannot see. 

The clearest focus is the outside of the car, the handle of the car door and the pinpoint of sun reflected there. The light coming from outside the painting falls on the lower half of her back. 

. 

The upper part of the man's face  is positioned looking over her shoulder, gazing at something obliquely outside this heterotopian space, this space in western culture, the front seat of a car, a place outside of all places, a place of separation.

He seems to be looking at us, but not quite. We cannot be sure at what he is looking as his face and eye is also out of focus.

The horizontals and diagonals are in clear sharp focus. The upper silver edge of the door of the car descends from left to right sloping to the edge of the raised window, its framing and the framing of the door, the separation between the two a dark black that continues a sensuous curve around the door closure continuing down to the lower part where we observe at the bottom a reflection of what is behind, but there is nothing there. Nothing for him to see and nothing for us to see. A gaze focused on the empty landscape. 

Strangely enough it is a very beautiful photograph if observed through the eyes of Foucault. The verticals and horizontals  interrupted by diagonals draw your eye away from the two figures in shadow and out of focus in a shortened depth of field, almost as if they are there along for the ride, almost as if they are ghosts.

The lower picture has obviously been cropped and cropped stupidly and crudely. The play of the horizontal and vertical lines with the intersecting diagonals has been cut off on all four outside edges. The primary focus now is on the two figures inside the car, the heterotopian space here, in shadow. The figure of the woman is lower now.  The sunlight coming from outside the painting is falling on her shoulder, but not quite to the top of it,  which is in shadow, and it is falling on her back.

We see more of the man's face and in this lower image his eye that was opened above is now closed. It is as if the painter drew a darker line across it and his mouth is so shadowed we cannot tell if he is touching her with his lips, is about to, is withdrawing, as the focus is too blurred for us to know. too deep in shadow for anything but speculation. We cannot see if her eyes are closed, if she is looking at something, if she is looking at him, as her gaze is invisible to us.

Since we know that these are not paintings by someone influenced by Manet, but perhaps are photographs by someone with that sensibility. There is a lovely quality about them, a haunting illusion not unlike that moment Michelangelo invokes as he has God extending his hand with pointed finger towards Adam to touch him with life, with just a hair of a gap between, an almost but not quite touch, a whisper away from bestowing life.(Leo Steinberg)

Eric PACKERING the Scandal

On The Road NY Premiere Kristen Stewart

Is everyone happy now to see the flailed actress all skin and bones

Has she been punished enough for THAT AFTERNOON

Or do you want more more MORE

For THAT AFTERNOON see The Rashomon Effect here:

Complete with pictures from THAT AFTERNOON

The camera never lies. It records what is there. It is we who lie to ourselves when we perceive what we think we see. as it filters through our own protective shield.

Does this mean that the photos we see take on the literal truth of what the camera has recorded? 

Look at this video

Now tell me what you see in those pictures you just looked at

Watch and Learn

Now put this link in your browser as it is unlisted on youtube
!!!WOW!!!
SAME PERSON WHO MADE THE FIRST VIDEO. As Diana was dying in her car pleading with her eyes for help the papz were filming her 
THEY TURNED HER INTO A SNUFF FILM


WIN ONE FOR DIANA
DOWN WITH THE TABLOIDS WHO CREATE THE MARKET 
FOR THE PAPZ

YAAAAY          OCCUPY!

An Open Letter To Rob Pattinson

Love and Humiliation

are words that do not belong in the same sentence.

Unless you are denying Love

Blindly, that is the only elegant way to love. What reproach could there be for someone who discreetly and totally devotes himself to another; what reproach could there be for someone who is the object of such devotion? Blind destination: that is the direction dreams go, in ideas and love. (Baudrillard - Cool Memories 1980-85 p. 105)

So far as existence is concerned, as Ajar (Romain Gary's alter ego) would say, it needs to be taken in charge by someone. No one can be expected to bear the responsibility for their own life. This Christian and modern idea is a vain and arrogant proposition.  Moreover, it is a groundless utopian notion....It is so much more human to put one's fate, one's desire, one's will into the hands of another. Circulation of responsibilities, declension of wills, perpetual transfer of forms. Apart from this subtle path, which is attested to by a great many cultures, there is only the totalitarian path of a collective assumption. (Baudrillard - Cool Memories 1980-85 p. 119)

BTW This is what Eric Packer does whenever he leaves the limo. He is letting the "world will him". Too bad Cronenberg didn't know that in his misreading of DeLillo's novel.

Since it is impossible to own someone, it is impossible for that someone to "cheat" on you. 

Someone can cheat you in a transaction which occurs in the Order of Production.

They cannot "cheat" on you sexually in the Symbolic Order of Seduction since you do not and cannot own them.

CHEAT is a word now almost universally used that is a sound-bite, a ready-made that deprives you of the ability to think, the language necessary to think in, about this situation, and as long as you have not torn it out of your mind, you are trapped, your freedom has been stolen from you by the use of this stupid word. CHEAT is creating your reality for you via an illusion.

You can enter an institutional marriage contract, that as Kant said, "is a legal contract giving each person the ownership of the other's sexual organs."

Someone can be a slave but slaves retain their own individual freedom. Only a slave can be liberated, but only an individual can give up, deny, disregard, be unaware of, ignore, exert, choose to practice their own freedom to any extent they choose. They may be dominated, but they are still free. 

Working, performing, living under an authoritarian system, the individual may be dominated, ruled, whatever, but the individual is still free. 

Take Cronenberg directing Cosmopolis. An authoritarian director he masks his authoritarianism with - in this case - a requirement that the lines spoken by the actor must be exactly as written. No changes. The actor is still free in the sense that the face, the body, the movement the eyes, the voice, are still the actor's own. The actor is free to express.

Take Rupert Sanders, the permissive parent model. His actors are encouraged to express their own opinions about the performance of the scene. To freely express their perceptions and interpretations on how to play it. The director inputs, discusses, persuades, encourages, strengthens, weakens, whatever, and in doing this exerts the aura of his dominance. 

When the camera roles the director directs the scene. 

This all seems very democratic eh. Very respectful of the actors.

What the director has done is to take the thoughts, feelings, perceptions, interpretations of the actors and usurped them under his direction of the scene. Yes the actor still retains his/her own freedom, but that has been compromised in this situation. It has been stolen in homeopathic doses so the actor is not even aware that it no longer belongs to him, but to the director who is calling the shots on the scene. 

The director controls and dominates on a meta level. An invisible level.

This is a subtle difference. Do you see it?  The Jesuits have known this subtle way of "spinning" someone's mind for centuries. They are masters at it. Eric Maddox learned to be a master at it, which is why he got Saddam against all odds.  A Jesuit education will give you this because it will have been done to you, giving you the opportunity to "identify with the aggressor" as Freud would say it.

Kristen Stewart has been carefully aided in a performance of Snow White by a subtle director. Her first physical role as an "action hero". Her fears have been alleviated, she has mastered riding (always a sexual challenge with females) and has assumed an active rather than a passive Snow White persona. Her director has helped her as a therapist might, but used his dominance to enter into a seductive relationship with her. 

Not with Charlize who would know exactly how to handle this situation. No, with the young very inexperienced Stewart, her vulnerability an erotic attraction for him, and in the past for you BTW.

Stewart has been subtly dominated by Sanders, without her awareness, on the shooting set of Snow White. This has led to her insecurity as to how to handle his advances on THAT AFTERNOON! She has handed a certain quality/amount of her freedom of action to him on the set without knowing that she has done so. She didn't know, so she couldn't take it back. This is why there are acting coaches BTW.

This is something two people in a relationship discuss, argue about, confront, threaten, weep over, endlessly because this situation is interfaced in the minds of individuals just as surely as the screens in Eric Packer's life are interfaced with his mind, his perceptions, his thinking and reasoning abilities, his emotions, and tearing it out during the OMITTED naked bodies scene in the novel is excruciatingly painful to him; to deliver himself from its total influence. 

But how can you deliver yourself from this kind of influence if you don't know it exists?

An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs

Stewart has been thrown to the lions and wolves, meat for the tabloids, entertainment for empty lives, vulnerable primarily for her unknowing. 

Unprotected and Abandoned 

THAT AFTERNOON! - A Deconstruction Reading

Everyone has seen the pictures from That Afternoon so no sense reposting them.

Here's my reading of how it went down:

Rupert Sanders called her on the phone while she was in her car going home saying he had something important to talk with her about right now. She turned around and went to pick him up where he told her he would be. It is an empty parking lot. He gets in the car and tells her how he feels and she is probably astonished, listening to this. Then he grabs her and kisses her, her back to the driver's window. 

This is only if the paps story is correct about how fast it happened. That may or may not be true. It could have happened slower.

Kristen is now in a double bind situation. They are good friends, she thought, so being angry, furious, insulted, indifferent, are not really options. They are under contract to do another movie together. What do you do? You suggest they go somewhere private, neutral, outdoors where there aren't many people (but some, for that is important) to talk this over, to get him to calm down. So she drives to a park.

They get out of the car, she walks to the wall and looks out over it to hide her face, her back to him. I - and this is me - would expect him to stand beside me so we could talk. But no, he comes up behind her and presses against her holding his arms and hands on either side of her. Perhaps she started out facing him but decided to turn. I don't know. And if I don't know, no one knows, unless they watched it all and since no one ever sees the same thing in a scene in real life, a movie scene, a picture, or a description, who can EVER know. She lays her hands over his to calm him, the way you do with a horse, a dog, a cat, a child, a person.

He probably begins telling her the same thing over again and she is at a loss. At some point she realizes they have been papped,

and now begins her anxiety and fear and trembling

She probably knows there is a possibility that the pictures can be bought.

Now here is my reading on the aftermath. 

Why wouldn't she just call Rob or go home and say this awful thing just happened! And then tell him. Then, "What shall I do? What shall I do?"

Now if she didn't do this the only explanation I can imagine or come up with is:

She did not trust Rob to trust her on this. 

And why would that be?

My guess, and that's all it is, just a guess, is that he has acted jealous about this man, has sensed he was after Kristen, and has been acting jealous and hostile over them, particularly since they are going to work together on Part 2 of SWATH.

So she is afraid to tell him. What do children do when they are afraid to tell you something? Afraid you won't understand? Afraid you will punish them? And why are they afraid in the first place?

As a parent it is ALWAYS your fault. They are afraid to trust you.

This is what Simulated Reality is folks. This is exactly why Baudrillard spent so much time writing about it. Looking at it from all different possibilities, all facets of it. Why Jean Baudrillard said "It is the greatest danger we face right now!"

When it is total then we will be in Virtual Reality! No escape possible.

Right now no one knows what happened. The tabloids are saying whatever they feel like saying that they think is CREDIBLE to their readers. Once it is out there, it is credible. There is no truth, no false, only credibility.

What if someone had seen them? What if that person had then told what s/he had seen. That would only have been a CREDIBLE description of what they had seen. 

The credibility completely depends upon the integrity of the person giving, offering the information. If I don't know this person very well, then they will have no credibility, positive or negative for me. Sometimes the papz tell the truth, sometimes they lie. They have no credibility for me. I can go through what they say and pick or choose according to my own projections, but that is no different from going to a jumble sale.

What is TRUE is that I can't know. 

When all is lies, the truth becomes a weapon - Batman: The Dark Knight Rises.

No one can know what happened and the two people involved can only know part of it. You know how when you are arguing with a loved one or friend about something that just happened and both of you see it differently and start arguing about it.

So all you judges out there, all you casters of the first stone, each of you has a reading of this situation. Just as each of you would have a different reading of a

Rorschach Test!

This is what it is going to be like when more and more of our world becomes Simulated Reality which most everyone is running to embrace. 
When it is total and we are in Virtual Reality there will be no escape, no one will know anything - ever.

Seduction is the only defense. And seduction cannot be produced which is why - since it cannot be produced - it is our key, our only key.

Now recognize this awful danger coming at us. Our lives will be exactly like what just happened to Rob and Kristen. It will be like that all the time. No one will ever know anything for sure. No one will ever be able to trust anyone for sure.

Hunger Games, here we come!