The Gathering

The San Diego Union Tribune is reporting on a controversy brewing at the Chuck Jones Gallery over a new one-of-a-kind oil painting displayed in their window. It’s a parody of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper named The Gathering. It substitutes Looney Tunes characters, and the Grinch, for disciples — and Bugs Bunny for Jesus.

“Most people think it’s fun and amusing, but 5 percent are pulling their hair out,” said Mike Dicken, sales director for the gallery. Click here for a larger version of the above. For more information click here.

(Thanks, Jon Cooke)


  • http://questforanimationglory.blogspot.com vince gorman

    So road runner is mary magdeline, well that explains everything.

  • George

    The Road Runner’s a woman!!!!??? ;P

  • Vincent Alexander

    I’m a Christian, and this doesn’t offend me at all. It’s just a joke. Some people take this stuff a bit too seriously.

  • steppo

    Ha ha!

  • Chuck R.

    The quote doesn’t tell us anything about the offended “5 percent” —are they fans of Jesus, Chuck Jones or DaVinci?

    I would think that Chuck Jones fans would be the most scandalized by this.

  • http://amymebberson.blogspot.com Amy Mebberson

    Didn’t the Simpsons do this already?

    Homer was Jesus, IIRC.

  • Cameron

    It’s not even making fun of Jesus. It’s making fun of an artistic representation of Jesus. If one were to parody the Mona Lisa, they would not be parodying the original model that Leonardo painted.

    People can be so touchy.

  • Mark K.

    The only thing that offends me is how horrible the painting is! Reminds me of all those awful WB paintings Chuck Jones did. Witless, un-entertaining, and poorly executed. Anyone who buys crap like that deserves to lose their money.

  • Tom Pope

    I don’t think I find it offensive; it just seems like an odd choice to take off on with Looney Tunes.

  • J Lee

    Now I’ve got this image in my head of a Good Friday version of “High Diving Hare”, where Roman Centurion Yosemite Sam keeps trying to nail Bugs to the cross and ends up getting himself crucified in a variety of way.

  • uncle wayne

    Oh, f’ #($&@*%!ing’s SAKE! There’ll alllllllll-ways be an idiot “5% pulling their hair out!!

  • http://scuzzbopper.blogspot.com Ken Priebe

    The original painting has 6 disciples on each side, and this has 6 characters on each side plus the Kitty being held by Marc Anthony. So does the Kitty count as a 13th disciple?

    Interesting to note Elmer Fudd is in the same pose as Judas in the original painting.

    As far as Bugs Bunny as a Christ figure goes, didn’t Chuck Jones say something to the effect of “Bugs Bunny is who we wish we could be, (but Daffy is who we are)?”

    Hmmm…..

  • Katella Gate

    If it were a burlesque of the Buddha, it would be denounced as insensitive. If it were Haile Selassie, it would be racist. If it were Prophet Mohammad and his wives, it would carry a death sentence. But it’s just Jesus, and that makes it ok? Right?

    Selective “tolerance” is no tolerance at all.

  • http://kambodiahotel.blogspot.com Moro

    So, um….which one is Judas..?

  • Mitch Kennedy

    Woah woah woah, hold on a minute! It’s not like he drew all over the Christian Bible. The original painting didn’t come from God, it came from daVinci — a mortal man. It parody’s a man’s work, it doesn’t parody Jesus. Need people be reminded that this painting is not part of the Church at all? Calmez vous.

  • Brad Constantine

    where’s the carrot?…now I’m offended…geez, Chuck…you just draw a carrot and attach a rabbit to it….

  • Saturnome

    It’s been done quite often, I find the fact that it’s not very imaginative more troubling than anything else!

  • http://justforspite.blogspot.com Gene Hole

    It would be a bit different if this was a painting of Bugs Bunny being graphically crucified…THAT might be construed as mocking Christ, but this is clearly just funning on a famous work of art, not joking about Jesus.
    As an unoffended christian, you can put me down as in the 94%. It’s kinda stupid and pointless to get offended about trivial things like this anyways.

  • Thad

    Bugs Bunny is better than Jesus.

  • Trevor

    “So road runner is mary magdeline, well that explains everything.”
    “The Road Runner’s a woman!!!!??? ;P”

    Are people still buying into that Da Vinci Code BS?

  • http://www.human-dog.com Chris Weagel

    I wish I had enough time to worry about such nonsense.

  • http://www.animationinsider.net/ Aaron H. Bynum

    Isn’t Peter supposed to be the rabbit, per South Park?

  • Chris

    Geez if they have a problem with that, they’d have an aneurysm if they saw this:
    http://culturepopped.blogspot.com/2007/04/suddenly-last-supper.html

  • Rose

    Before books were made available to most. Before most could learn to read. Art told a story. Art was used in church’s, religious gathering places to tell a story of faith.

    Parody of such art can be seen, in that regard, as a parody of the story it portrays.

    …and anyone who is respected and is re conceived in a comic way can also be seen as being poked fun at.

    I don’t feel the art was made to be offensive, but I do understand why some are offended by it.

    I think tolerance for those who find the print offensive, and those who do not, would be truly in the spirit of those the original version of this painting portrayed.

  • http://dangerousbird.com Kel

    Does this mean we’ll someday get a book and movie called “The Chuck Jones Code”?

  • Mesterius

    Weird. Really weird. I don’t think it OFFENDS me in any way… I just don’t think the concepts of religion and Looney Tunes cartoons fit so well together. So, nice artwork, but if Tarnowski had simply used the great personalities of the Looney Tunes stars a bit more in this painting, maybe I could see the point of doing it. Right now it feels kinda unnecessary.

    By the way, since this is seemingly a tribute to Looney Tunes and Chuck Jones, I find it interesting that Tarnowski has used one (and one only) character which is not part of the WB gallery… namely M.G.M.’s Barney Bear.

  • Mesterius

    Oh, wait, the Grinch is of course not part of WB gallery. But that character was at least directed by Chuck Jones, unlike Barney.

  • http://mrdarbyshire.com Michael

    I’m offended. That ‘tude is downright disrespectful.

    Way to make a tribute to Space Jam. And the Grinch.

  • cigarsandscotch

    Then 5% of the population are total babies. I’m a Catholic, and I find that funny. Get a sense of humor people. Then again, at least no one is being beheaded over this picture. Luckily Bugs wasn’t depicted as Mohammad.

  • Frank

    I’m not personally offended by it in a religious sense. But I do find it pretty tasteless and can understand why some would be upset by it.
    My question is: Why? Why would they even parody this? What’s the reason?
    There really is none.
    Even for people who aren’t offended by it, it’s not particularly entertaining or original.

    If anything, I’m more offended as a cartoonist! Haven’t these poor characters been misused enough in the past 20 years? Someone needs to tell the people that make this sort of crap to just leave the Looney Tunes Legacy alone. Forget religion, show some respect for Bugs!

    Besides, they can’t honestly say they didn’t expect to step on a few people’s toes with this. I don’t believe the artist or the gallery could be THAT oblivious.
    There are millions of other famous paintings they could have parodied that would have given the same effect without involving a touchy subject like religion.

    Plus, who the hell would prefer this over some appealing artwork of the characters in their own context?

  • Thad

    I believe that it is supposed to be Junyer Bear. This artist be no Ken Harris, says I.

  • doug holverson

    I believe that supposed to be Junyor, not Barney.

  • Andrew

    What’s 5%? Really now. And with a religious subject matter, the artist was asking for at least SOME criticism.

  • Ian V.

    @Mesterius

    That’s not Barney Bear, that’s Junior of Chuck Jone’s “3 Bears” series of Looney Tunes.

    Here’s the best picture I could find: http://cdn.propertyroom.com/ImageServer/Sellers/Seller18/Images/CtrImgs/18_1132009111741140.jpg

  • http://robcatview.blogspot.com robcat2075

    I find it unfunny only because “The Last Supper” has been parodied so many times already that this one seems unoriginal by comparison.

    And the Elmer as Judas? I’d have cast Daffy there.

    I recall a minor kerfuffle years ago when a Japanese transit authority did a parody showing Jesus lamenting over a table full of umbrellas found on the subways.

  • Mike Fontanelli

    Been done to death, earlier and better. What’s next, a Looney Tunes/Sgt. Pepper album cover parody? (Yawn)

  • Jim Engel

    I’m a Christian, I find it offensive, and there’s no way the artist and the Gallery can claim that doing it and displaying it was not intended to garner attention by upsetting Christians.

  • Dock Miles

    >It’s kinda stupid and pointless to get offended about trivial things like this anyways.

    Absolutely right. And there should be lots and lots more of them out there until the waste of intellectual and moral energy becomes evident. When Wally Woods totaled Disney with his sex-garden poster there was huff and puff and sigh of relief. Since not long after then there’s only been lawyers obsessed with the sanctity of Disney images.

  • Mesterius

    Oh yeah, of course, Junyer Bear! Now I see it! Still, this artist strangely mananges to make him look much more like Barney Bear than I’ve ever seen before. I think it’s got something to do with the colors… if you check out the fur colors of Junyer in this original Chuck Jonesc cartoon you’ll see he’s much brighter there:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cugri2hBqxA&feature=PlayList&p=4475ABA57CDEF10E&index=1

    Barney, on the other hand is usually not as bright, and also lighter around the mouth (like the bear in the above panting), as evidenced for instance in this Dick Lundy cartoon:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-hPZnDT8OU

    But yeah, I guess according to all logical sense that must still be Junyer in the painting… By the way, nice picture, Ian V.:) I found some model sheets of the Three Bears, as well:
    http://klangley.blogspot.com/2007/03/chuck-jones-three-bears.html

  • Pedro Nakama

    I agree with Mark K on this.

  • Buddy D

    controversy aside, it’s a pretty weak idea. I’m sure everyone here has done a Last Supper parody.

  • George

    “So road runner is mary magdeline, well that explains everything.”
    “The Road Runner’s a woman!!!!??? ;P”

    “Are people still buying into that Da Vinci Code BS?”

    I dunno, are you still wrapped in trying to convince people that a story is just a story?

  • Jorge Garrido

    “So you are offended as a Christian person?”

    “No! I’m offended as an Chuck Jones fan!”

  • Siamang

    Why does religion merit special treatment? Jones did the same thing to Whistler’s Mother and Talouse-Latrec and the Mona Lisa herself. Why are one man’s brushstrokes fair game for parody, but not another?

    I don’t understand why people get upset over something like this, but I know they do often. I think they get upset that someone somewhere might not take their religion as seriously as the True Believers do.

    As for respect, I respect human beings, if they earn it. I tolerate people, if they treat others well and live in peace.

    Ideas, however, are open to criticism. And religion, certainly, has done much to deserve some seltzer-water down its pants.

    Anyway, if anything like a god winds up actually to exist, I imagine it would value humor.

    After all, it supposedly made us. Probably because it needed a laugh.

  • http://checkeredgeekcartoons.blogspot.com Zach Cole

    It’s pretty kitschy, but it’s certainly not blasphemous.

    Bugs invaded Elmer’s dreams. He could probably walk on water.

  • Autumn

    I honestly think people LIKE walking through life offended by everything.

    What a waste of time.

  • http://who-really-cares-anyway.blogspot.com/ Craig D.

    Great.

    Just great.

    Now I have to issue a call for the death of the artist, organize a fire-bombing of the gallery and get Osama to make yet ANOTHER video calling for an intensification of the jihad against the U.S.A., a/k/a The Great Satan.

    Oh, wait a minute.

    This is Christianity that is being parodied.

    …never mind…

  • JPilot

    Jorge Garrido: “No, I am offended as a Seinfeld fan!” ;)

  • Brian Kidd

    There doesn’t seem to be an artistic reason for the painting. I don’t find it attractive or humorous.

    That being said, why be offended? Does religious parody force you or others to question their strongly-held beliefs? Of course not! Parody and persecution are totally different things. I think people who are strongly religious sometimes confuse the two.

    We’re a big species with a myriad of personal beliefs. The world would be a more harmonious place if we stopped worrying what others think of our beliefs.

    In the end, it’s just a painting. No more, no less. A month from now, this kerfluffle will be forgotten and another one will have come along.

  • http://mruttan.ca Jack Ruttan

    I think “taking offense” is in many cases a political act, meant to consolidate or strengthen a group’s power.

  • http://www.desertdiamondhotelcasino.com DesertDiamondHotelCasino
  • David Cuny

    “Why be offended?”

    I’m not sure the intent of the artist was to offend. But there are certainly elements which are insensitive.

    For example, if an artist decided to parody the Sistine Chapel fresco where God reaches out to Adam by replacing Adam with Bugs, it’s parody of some sort. If God is handing Bugs a carrot, you could even argue the artist might even have some particular “take” on the painting.

    On the other hand, if they replaced God with Bugs, it changes the message of the painting. One is left to wonder what, if any, message is intended by the painting.

    Similarly, the choice of replacing Christ with Bugs is intrinsically offensive, because it shows a lack of respect on the part of the artist. That’s not the same as an intent to offend, but it certainly shows a lack of sensitivity.

    The timing of the painting also comes into play. Next week is the beginning of Holy Week, which time of high religious importance for many Christians. One of the key events of Holy Week – the Last Supper – is portrayed in Da Vinci’s painting. Choosing to display a painting in their window at this point in time is, at best, insensitive.

    Finally, I don’t really see the point of the painting. If the intent were to have a clever spin on Da Vinci’s original painting, I’m not seeing it. I’m not sure the artist really put that much thought into a particular “message”, other than not caring they were making a quick buck at the cost of making a painting that parodies my religious beliefs.

    Hrm… I guess I should be offended, after all.

  • http://yeldarb86.deviantart.com Mr. Semaj
  • http://dailygrail.com/blog/8389 red pill junkie

    I’m VERY offended… at the price!

    $20K for that? Srsly?!!!!

  • Kyle Maloney

    Im christian and I dont see a problem with this. now if you were to put bugs on a cross with a crown of thorns or something similar , then I would be offended.

  • Keith Bryant

    I guess that I’m one of the 5% pulling my hair out. Christians, (especially Catholics) have become an easy target for ridicule in recent years. After all, who’s afraid of a Christian cutting their head off or blowing up their building? For those of you who don’t follow Christianity or are luke warm in their faith, how would you feel if someone deliberately mocked something or someone you held sacred? If a person doesn’t follow Christianity, that doesn’t mean that they have to attack or belittle it. In today’s so-called politically correct society, there are three protected groups, blacks, Jews and gays. If anyone were to belittle any of these people, all hell would break loose and rightly so. So why is it OK to belittle Christianity?

  • Mark K.

    Seeing as how “christianity” has been one of the most violent religions in history, that makes me laugh. There’s a few hundred years of christian intolerance you’re happily ignoring there. Torture, beheadings, burnings…you know….christian stuff. This fake “persecution” b.s. christians these days whine about is just that: fake.

    It’s all a bunch of bunk. Scientology, christianity, buddihism, islam; you can believe in whatever you want so long as it doesn’t affect me or my rights.

  • http://kellykilmer.blogspot.com/ kelly
  • Oliver

    In a free society there should no such thing as the right not to be ridiculed or offended.

  • Chuck R.

    David Cuny’s absolutely right about the timing.

    Galleries (especially ones that hang lame art) need publicity. Newspapers (especially ones that don’t do real investigative journalism) need stories. The press was probably alerted before this was even hung. I’m sure they hoped to get a wilder knee-jerk reaction from Christians, but they made do with an penny-ante story about an offended few.

    Keith, you’re right that you’ve been baited, but try to let it go. It’s Lent and there are bigger fish to fry. :-)

  • fanatic

    The Looneys are bigger than jesus!!!!

  • Chris Sobieniak

    This whole thing made me laugh! I’m not the least bit offensive at it, yet back in the day, one of the most offensive I ever did with the LT characters was having Wile E. crucified on the cross with a bunch of road runners as Roman guards watching him. This is what happens when you get TOO underground!

    This picture is actually not bad at all, and I wouldn’t mind having that up with da Vinci’s original in my home! And yes, The Last Supper has been done to death in the parody circuit, or is it really that bad to mock religion there.

  • Asymetrical

    @ Keith Bryant:
    Because people who belittle Christianity have no faith in anything at all, except themselves. You are right on the money, if someone says something wrong about a black man, we’re horrified, if they say something against a Jew, we’re livid, if it’s against a Muslim, we’re afraid, if they say something against a gay man well it’s grounds for blacklisting in the animation industry, if they say something against John K, we’re vicious about the artist’s abilities but Jesus? Christians? Eh. that’s so old… it’s so “genie in the sky”. We’re better than that. So smart and advanced past this mythical time.

    As a black Christian I am doubly offended. Why is it not okay to make fun of my skin but it’s okay to make fun of my beliefs?

    @ all the people wondering why a Christian might be offended?
    Because bigotry is bigotry no matter what you think. Most of you have probably never been discriminated against in your happy little coffee house beatnik worlds.
    To belittle someone’s faith is just as wrong as their race… discriminating faith is wrong in every other way EXCEPT when it’s associated with Christians. Nice job America.

    For all those smarmy, too cool for school artists out there, someday the bigotry will be directed at YOU, and then it won’t be so funny will it?

  • http://www.milowerx.com Mike Milo

    It doesn’t offend me but I agree with Keith.

  • Dock Miles

    Bugs on the cross:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/katmurray/2360880219/

    And, uh, it just has to be pointed out that, remember, when you knock Jesus, you’re “belittling a Jew.”

    Maybe even a black person:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_y7vSoYk0kUI/SZmbRWTmVKI/AAAAAAAAAAM/kCeH489MrFk/S760/Black+Jesus.jpg

  • Adrienne Jenkins

    Personally, I have no *particular* problem with the painting –besides the fact that it’s rather poorly done. If the painting was excellent, I’d probably be coveting it right now…

    Asymetrical: I understand where you’re coming from, especially your discription of those who take a flippant, cynical, and condescending attitude towards Christianity. Even athiests certainly seem to hold other religions in higher regard.

    It’s all dangerous ground isn’t it? Muslims get “respect” for their religion through violence and the threat of violence. Jews get it through political blacklisting. All of it is motivated by fear of punishment/hope of reward in the future/security right now–which is the prime motivation of most people for religion in general, isn’t it?

    I’m not saying that’s how it should be, or what was originally intended, that’s just seems to be how most people (even many devout) practice their faith. Which is why most people are lukewarm, and many would compromise it at the slightest inconvenience.

    Hence, the cynical attitude towards religion, and those for which *nothing* would convince them that the Christian Bible is true. There aren’t many people out there who’s motivation is none of the above, but that they really and honestly love God.

    But then, why should ANYTHING be held sacred? Why should society care about ART or ANIMATION for instance? Just because we like it, or does it have some intrensic value outside societie’s (changing) opinions? According to whom? Hmm. Sounds like we’re getting danagerously close to the idea of God again…

  • Oliver

    “To belittle someone’s faith is just as wrong as their race…”

    What nonsense. Unlike race, faith is a matter of choice.

    Also, nobody except the Gingriches and Palins of this world still uses “beatnik” as an insult.

  • OM

    …You know, we didn’t see this much screaming and yelling when that Star Wars version of this painting came out. Some bibble thumpers just don’t have it all together at all, do they?

  • nick

    I’m much more disappointed than offended. I think that it is most definitely exploiting the sensibilities of some people in order to gain attention and notoriety but little more. I really doubt those involved were naive enough to think it would not be controversial and bother a few people especially if displayed prominently. Now controversy can be an extremely valuable function of art and I am absolutely not in favor of banishing art merely because it is tagged “controversial” by someone.

    So it brings me to the disappointed part. It’s an unconvincing statement of the artists raison d’etre, unless of course the newspaper misquoted the artist and no one else bothered to correct the artist’s statement.

    “Tarnowski defends portraying Wile E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig, Pepe Le Pew, the Road Runner and other characters as disciples, saying God loves people so much that even if we all were cartoon characters, he would have come to us, perhaps in the form of Bugs Bunny.”

    I’m sorry but I’m unconvinced it’s communicating that and that’s what’s disappointing.

    If anything I too see more of an artistic comment on Chuck Jones’ later limited edition prints referencing his drawn characters to famous paintings. I was never convinced by them as being particularly witty or drawn with that much care, though I do hold Chuck Jones’ animation as something by and large as very dear and special.

  • http://goldenagecartoons.com Matthew Hunter

    I don’t think it’s offensive religiously, and I’m a Christian. I think it’s offensive artistically though. Both Leonardo DaVinci AND Chuck Jones are spinning in their graves. I’m not sure why anyone would spend thousands of dollars on this, because the artwork is pretty stiff and lousy, and the artist did nothing with the concept. Why wouldn’t they use Daffy Duck as Judas?

  • Asymetrical

    @Oliver- So by your estimation then it’s okay to belittle me for my faith? There’s nothing wrong with that huh? So it was okay in your esteemed estimation too when Hitler massacred the Jews? Most Jews are Jews by faith not by being born in Israel. So, by that theory, then if I make fun of a Russian Jew then it’s okay because he’s not from Israel? Those German Jews, ah they weren’t really “Jews” because they’re not from Israel. Who cares if anyone kills them. They don’t count. See how STUPID that sounds? That’s still considered racism in our so called modern world isn’t it? I will answer for you.
    Yes it is.

  • Jim Engel

    The only people who would say “faith is a matter of choice” are people who either have no faith or have no understanding of faith.

    And non-believers by definition have no business declaring what is or is not blasphemous.

  • Siamang

    And now we’ve got someone comparing criticism, comment or humor about religion to… yes… the Holocaust.

    Thread over, people. I’m calling it Godwinned at 4/4/09, 4:40pm.

  • Oliver

    Asymetrical, why do you bother me when you know full well that if I don’t go light the gas ovens now I’ll be late for the coffeehouse Jack Kerouac reading?

  • mr. doodadpro

    The best quote I’ve seen about this nonsense came from sharp-shooter, Annie Oakley:

    “the price tag says it all…thieves in the temple!!”

    yup. $20,000 for…this???

    Now do one of Mohammed, guys, and see what that’ll get you!

  • Jeff H

    I’m a Christian, and this doesn’t bother me except for one point. You won’t see this done with Islam. Christians are a cheap shot easy mark because most aren’t comfortable with confrontation. Let see this done with the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). It will never happen because somewhere is someone who would just as soon saw your head off with a picinic knife for desecrating the sanctity of their faith.

    No one has any such concerns about posting pictures or other things that “profane” Christianity a lot more then the picture with Bugs. I have had people post links to “Adult Toys” that had Christ involved somehow in different debate forums. Really, really bad stuff. Nobody worries about that, its only Jesus after all. ~sigh~

    I don’t like the whole PC fear blanket that pervaded so deeply in the ’90s, but I gotta wonder if the creator of this masterpiece is going to follow up with something to do with Mohammed (PBUH). Somehow I think not.

  • Dock Miles

    I happened to be in that gallery a little over a month ago and noticed that they had a Dr. Seuss item with one of his bird-humans in a bikini. It was kinda mildly sexy and certainly offbeat for his image. I’d love to have it — talk about a conversation piece — but not at their price tag. So it goes.

  • http://blog.chuckjones.com Craig Kausen

    My name is Craig Kausen and I am Chuck Jones’ grandson. First of all, I must say that Jerry’s website draws the most thoughtful commentary of any of the blogs I’ve read out there. Thank you, Jerry.

    I have read every post here and I completely respect everyone’s point of view. And I hope that everyone who is interested will take a moment to read this post as well.

    I am sure that many of you who frequent Jerry’s site and have posted here are animators, studio folks, artists, and/or animation fans of the highest caliber and I consider your comments with great weight.

    I also run the gallery that represents this painting and artist. Perhaps naively, I did not anticipate the type of debate that ensued upon hanging the work of art, particularly with the deep message that Glen Tarnowski intended with the painting. I say naive, as that was word my wife used when I showed her the painting and some of the reactions. Even communicating all of the details of what Glen told me about the painting, she said as a devout Christian, she still winced a bit.

    Knowing the true deeper meaning of what Glen intended with the painting along with his passion for Chuck and his work, I know it’s even more important to communicate the intention of the artist. He did not reconsider his aim after controversy. Instead, he was incredibly thoughtful before he decided to approach this rendition.

    Glen is one of the most devout Christians I’ve ever met. He communicates that his entire purpose for creating his artwork is to raise the human spirit and to inspire the human heart.

    His short answer about his motivation, as stated in the article, is that if we all lived in a world of cartoon characters, God would find a way to communicate to us, to Gather us to Him,” hence, the name of the work, ‘The Gathering”. He added, “God loves us that much, that he would find a way to bring us to Him no matter what or who we are.”

    As I am spending a lot of words already, I am posting more of our discussion on the Chuck Jones blog if anyone cares to see more detail.

    As far as the quality of the painting, my personal opinion is that the painting itself is exquisite. Although the characters are not all exactly on Chuck Jones model, the truth is no one can paint the characters like Chuck could. On the other hand, I can guarantee that Chuck would be thrilled with the quality and respect that Glen provides these characters. Additionally, Glen can, as Chuck would say, “paint his ass off.” A very tough combination to find: someone who loves Chuck and his cartoons and who can paint that masterfully.

    And I’ve been asked why have anyone attempt painting the characters. Because Chuck is gone from this earth, but his characters are as alive as they’ve ever been. If I could ask Da Vinci to paint the characters, I would and I guess that he would have fun doing it.

    I know some who read this may like to say some things in retort and I welcome them publicly or privately. If you would like to communicate with me privately, my email is Craig at ChuckJones.com.

    I hope that some can hear and see what Glen is attempting to communicate, but if not, that’s okay with me, too.

    With respect for what all of you do,

    Craig

  • Alex Sentenat

    By strange coincidence, one of my favorite lowbrow artists from here in NJ, Ron English, did a painting just like this some years ago. His version also features the Looney Tunes, but also has the familiar Disney characters, as well. See it for yourself and compare:

    http://www.popaganda.com/Paintings/pages/p73.html

  • amid

    Ron English also did one called “The Last Breakfast”:
    http://www.popaganda.com/Paintings/pages/painting_lastbreakfast.html

  • Siamang

    Thanks, Craig.

    I love Glen’s statement of his motivation. It brings a sense of the poetic to the piece. Thanks for sharing that with us.

  • George

    “Ron English also did one called “The Last Breakfast”:
    http://www.popaganda.com/Paintings/pages/painting_lastbreakfast.html

    HA! IHOP is behind them, gross.

  • Titanius Anglesmith, Fancy Man of Cornwood

    Years ago, I heard a couple of DJs pondering such a painting while driving to see my son. The big question they had was who would be Judas. It appears that Elmer got that “honor,” but the DJs figured for sure it would be Yosemite Sam. One of them even did Sam’s voice saying “Ah hates Jesus!” I almost went off the road from shock. I am a Christian, but I have to admit that was hilarious.

  • Maggie Simpson

    People need to loosen up! You can’t just yell at everything deemed insensitive…that’s how I was taught! Lovin’ Bugs’s facial expression