Artist Jeremy Scheuch made this digital image of Jdimytai Damour, the Walmart worker who was trampled to death by a crowd of Black Friday shoppers after they broke down the front doors and stormed in.
“Art is subjective, but I didn’t mean to cause offense in any way,” said Jeremy. “People were shopping at the Wal-mart the next day as if nothing had happened. I was appalled at the events that happened and this was my reaction.”
Black Friday [jeremyscheuch]
More From Consumerist
-
Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds
-
When Buying Music From Amazon, It Can Sometimes Be More Expensive To Only Buy Mp3s
-
Nike Assured Me An Android App For FuelBand Was In The Works, Ditches That Plan, Shrugs
-
Verizon Math Returns, Songs Shrink In Size When Uploaded – Or Do They?
-
Canon Recalls 68,000 Rebel Cameras Because You Shouldn't Have An Allergic Reaction To Digital Photography
Maybe I’m missing something here, but that doesn’t look well done or respectful.
@Bladefist: Sadly, I don’t think it’s supposed to be. It appears that someone is taking this unfortunate death to satirize American consumerism.
@Bladefist: i’m missing it too
@Bladefist: It didn’t appear to be much of a memorialization of him to me either. Although it works rather well as a comment about what kind of culture an event like that can occur in. Regardless of that though, I think the art style is lacking.
If it is indeed intended to honor Jdimytai Damour, then Jeremy deosn’t quite get it.
@Bladefist: Looking at the guys other artwork, this is his style, though I don’t like it and it doesn’t look good that is how he makes everything.
The thing we should be asking is why did Ben call it a digital image? Thats like me calling my phone a cellular telephone.
@midwestkel: Because it is a digital image…? And while yes, your phone is most definatly not a cell phone, that is still the term used for PCS devices in the common lexicon. Unless it is a landline. That would leave me pretty confused by your analogy.
@midwestkel: because it’s an image that was digitally rendered???
@Bladefist: 4chan?
@katylostherart: looks more like something from Something Awful or Fark
@katylostherart: this is NOT the cancer that is killing /b
@Bladefist: It looks like a typical example of an artist attempting to be “edgy”, “controversial”, or “provocative” and just being tasteless, opportunistic, and ultimately valueless. Yuck.
@Bladefist:
yes, that is the thing about art. it doesn’t have to suit your tastes or be what *you* expect.
@Saboth: Sure, anyone can open up photoshop, diarrhea on it, and call it art.
Is that supposed to be a joke? Tasteless.
Is that even what the guy looked like?
It looks like an ad for an old exploitation film. I
am sure his heart is in the right place but I”m not sure that is coming across well.
And this is relevant to the Consumerist why…?*
*I’m aware of the incident. I just don’t know why some dude’s Photoshop experiment needs this kind of attention.
@unobservant: Then don’t pay any more attention to it.
@unobservant:
I agree!
Consumerist is slipping.
@unobservant: Oh, and to anyone who thinks that this guy is a pillar of anti-consumerism, check out his bio. Way to stick it to the man by having an art show at the H&R Block Space!
Based on the rest of the images in this gallery this guy has 0 talent.
If he is trying to be respectful: Fail
If he is trying to make a joke: Fail
@Bladefist: If he is trying to Fail: WIN!
This is a 1993 photo of Jdimytai. [www.nydailynews.com]
@Ben Popken: I’d like to chime in with the rest here…
Not respectful and a bit racist.
Didn’t think or get a second opinion before posting this or what?
WTF?
@corbyz: @AmericaTheBrave: @Smashville:
leave it, Ben. it’s art. people disagree.
If it gets people talking, then maybe the artist accomplished their goal.
I’m just not a big fan of censorship. once something goes up, I feel it should stay up, especially in the blogosphere. It’s all too easy to whitewash and get rid of things. if you want to print an update-retraction underneath, that’s cool… but I feel that there’s a slippery slope from being too sensitive to being censoring.
Let other people view what was deemed too offensive by others, and judge for themselves. I don’t think I need others to decide for me.
@Ben Popken:
Ben, why would you post something tasteless like that ‘art’? Take it down, please.
@Ben Popken: No wonder this blog is for sale.
Ben, is there any reason to post this? This is utterly distasteful and sad. You’re better than that.
@Smashville: I don’t think it’s distasteful or sad. It’s art. It’s supposed to be, at the very least, interesting. Better if it makes people ask questions about themselves and their culture. Great if it creates new thought. From the comments here, it looks like the image did all of those things, good or bad. So I can respect and even enjoy it. John Waters himself says art is supposed to be filthy!
RIP, Jdimytai.
What a tasteless piece of art.
it says it’s acrylic on paper…digital acrylic?
Wow. I just lost a little bit of respect for this blog.
Nice move there Ben…..
So he liked Breakout, then? This is the conclusion I’ve drawn.
As many artists have done throughout history, he is seeking publicity by creating art based on current events. Kinda like the guy who did the Obama poster (oh yeah, teensy difference – Obama is a historic victory, not the victim of a brutal murder).
Perhaps the artist could do a tribute to the gruesome triple-slaying of the relatives of Jennifer Hudson? I can see it already, the faces of her mother, sister and nephew in pop-art graphic form with a headline in rhinestones “It Ain’t a Dream, Girl”
Do you see anything wrong with that? After all, The Diary of Anne Frank was made into a musical.
Yes, I’m appalled like all of you, but not suprised.
I’m no artist, but I know art when I see it.
This isn’t art.
Can we take this sh*t off the site yet?
@ceriphim:
What it (technically) is: art.
What it isn’t: tasteful. funny. well-intentioned. well-accepted. classy…
etc.
@InfiniTrent: Or good. I’ve seen tasteless art that was still good. This is void of any redeeming qualities.
@Smashville: Keep it Ben! Please! And ceriphim, get off the high horse. You’re on the Internet, aren’t you? It’s a bit rich to call foul on a site where information is provided to you for free, so you can’t ask for special treatment because you were offended. No one made you god of deciding what art is or isn’t.
That sad, please keep it up!
I can’t believe you decided to posted this. This guy is dead, I don’t understand why it’s OK to turn a death into some crappy social commentary.
@insaneo: So it’s not ok to make a statement over a person’s death? Even though all the idiotic people that just had to get into the store didn’t think anything about giving the man a minute to move to the side.
So no one should learn from this? Don’t most people learn from the standards set by society? And isn’t society ‘s standards usually set by the vocalizations of it’s inhabitants? Oh wait, I guess not since vocalizing your opinion could be considered commentary.
Commentary comes in many forms even artwork.
How many people do you think saw this and went to Google to look this guy up? Maybe they didn’t like this piece of artwork but maybe they learned about how greedy and idiotic humans can be.
People die every day. If we could learn from why or how maybe everyone would learn a little more about themselves and their society. Maybe they’d learn more about how unimportant it is to get a certain limited numbered toy for their spoiled ill begotten child.
Of course, those people probably think he should have moved out of the way faster. Idiots.
Tastelessness can be overlooked if it is humorous. Even if you aren’t offended by this, is just isn’t humorous.
hello new desktop wallpaper
I may not know art, but I know what I like.
/and it isn’t this.
Spectacularly tasteless.
yup, dont get it.
looks offensive too
I find it hilarious all this outpouring of “outrage” given Gawker media’s handling of Sarah Palin and her down syndrome child, and pretty much anything related to Palin in general.
@MrDo: Sarah Palin CHOSE to run for public office. Do you remember how Chelsea Clinton was treated brutally? Dog Faced was one of Rush Limbah’s sensitive comments. And as far as I am aware, Sarah Palin is NOT DEAD.
The outrage is because this man IS DEAD, brutally murdered because of people’s crazed mob frenzy to buy things, (to celebrate the birth of of Jesus).
Slight difference? You betcha!
@SkokieGuy: Not really, either case is tasteless. Did the child run for office?
@Incognito: No offense, but I don’t read Gawker.
@SkokieGuy: The comment was about her kid with autism. Autism > Ugly.
Also, more importantly it’s about the reporting some sensitive issues. And while Rush may have said that, that doesn’t make it right. These continued embarrassing cultural changes cant continue because you can point to someone else who did it previously. It’s all just wrong.
@SkokieGuy: We are nowhere near when Jesus was born. Immaculate Conception isn’t for four more days. Talk about celebrating early.
This is in shockingly bad taste. Consumerist, you should take down and apologize. I get that the “artist” (artwork self-described as “pseudo-religious pop-political crap”) is attempting to portray consumerism run amok, but that doesn’t work here. This is somebody who DIED. It’s not humorous or funny.
Oh… I get it… “Black Friday”… because he’s black.
Let’s through in a disco dancefloor for good effect.
Har.
Har.
Har.
If you died, would you want something like this headlining on a blog?
I guess we know what kind of memorial Ben wants someday… get your MS Paint ready. But remember… stay classy!
@corbyz: If you were dead, would you care?
@humphrmi: Not once I was dead, no. But until then I can say with certainty I don’t want any crap like this in memory of me.
Aside from that… humphrmi, the question isn’t so much if you were dead, would YOU care? More like, if you were dead, would your loved ones care?
Unless you don’t have any, in which case… sorry.
Actually, everyone, don’t pillory Ben, (first of all, comment code indicates you should email the editor, not use the thread).
In Chicago, where we have a wave of murders of young people, it is extremely common for t-shirts to be made featuring an airbrush art likeness of the deceased, often with slogans or messages surrounding it. It is worn by the family and friends as a sign of respect and honor, and they have even been worn at the funerals.
Now I don’t find this at all tasteful myself, but this art IS in that vein, which is very much in line with current culture, even if many of us find it distastful.
Now rather than all of us wring our hands (or slap Ben), is anyone aware if this man had any family? Any charity set up to help him or similar victims? That would be a nice way for someone upset about this artist’s tribute to throw some good karma out there.
@SkokieGuy: “That would be a nice way for someone upset about this artist’s tribute to throw some good karma out there.”
Or, using the cover of the First Amendment, we can type out on here that we thinks it’s in poor taste.
@Incognito: That is going to help the family how?
@SkokieGuy: What he said.
Ben, why would you post something tasteless like that ‘art’? Take it down, please. Or are you a closet racist who wants to get fired since your company is for sale?
Is this 4Chan?
WTF? Why post this?
Sad… I mean, he died by the hooves of a bunch of greedy jerks. I don’t see room for a joke.
I happen to enjoy this piece of artwork based on events reported on Consumerist. I like outsider amateur and underground art. I sort of saw it in the Shephard Fairey vein of iconifying individuals in current events.
@Ben Popken: Is this the kind of crap we can expect under the new owner?
@Ben Popken: I don’t think you should have to explain it. Tasteless or not, it’s still news.
@Incognito: Except it’s not. The trampling is the news. The fact that some guy posted a tasteless, offensive picture on his website is not news.
@Smashville: Well, I thought the same thing AT FIRST, but if you look at the other stuff this guy has done, you can clearly see the artist really didn’t mean it in a cruel way. Just one of those weird hippie folks, probably in San Fran and strung out on acid. I mean come on, do you think a guy that can cook up this shit is going to make fun of a dead person?
@Incognito: Not in a cruel way? Didn’t he? I agree the STYLE of the artwork is the same as others which have been posted here. But as far as subject matter, I don’t see any blatant racism in the others.
@Ben Popken: I like the idea, and I don’t think it’s beneath Consumerist to post a tribute to a man killed during events that Consumerist was reporting on. And now that you mention it, I can actually see it a little, but I still don’t much care for the picture.
@Ben Popken: Thanks for bringing this. Although it is not really a consumer issue, it is making everyone think which is always a good thing. Please keep up the great work and format you have for Consumerist. I like this website because I am never afraid to voice my opinion and you always find controversial topics that get people thinking.
@GoVegan: I’m with Ben on this one. I say leave it up. It’s topical.
The real hilarity is all the Black Friday insert ads that made it past Adblock.
I get it. It makes me sad. RIP.
@Maulleigh: Ditto.
I’m not usually one to critique the postings here on the Comsumerist, but this is just… bad. I’m not offended, or even really appalled, because this is something to be expected. Death is always a reason to produce social commentary like this. I’m just sad this made it onto Consumerist. The idea is there… RIP Jdimytai… but the picture itself trips over its tastelessness and falls miserably short of being either touching or humorous.
Furthermore, in my own opinion, the rest of his art is hard to look at. The symmetry is interesting, but the symbolism is… awkward.
People, I realuze you’re selling off Consumerist but tanking the site is not helping the sale price.
Well no one can accuse Gawker of good taste, that is for sure.
Oh Howdy!!!! This guy is friggen high!!! It explains it all.
@Incognito: It’s cool to bash things we don’t understand.
@Ben Popken: It’s cool to make fun of people who die!
@Smashville: I don’t think he’s mocking him. Nor I do I think “proper artist intent” is the principal determinant of whether a piece of art can be liked or not.
@Ben Popken: Isn’t that what we are suppose to do? I mean, if we all understood each other, there would be nothing left to bash.
@Incognito: I saw that too. My reaction was along the lines of: ummmmmmmm yeah. closing window now.
@Incognito: Oh look, more satirical juxtapositions of common iconography to get across a vaguely anti-capitalist sentiment, which automatically gets a pass because it’s “outsider” and/or “amateur” art. Yawn.
There are hundreds and hundreds of artists who do this sort of thing already, and do it better and more tastefully. The art of the newspost is neither funny, nor insightful, nor respectful, nor even adequately skillful. It’s just a cheap, hackish shot in the dark at using current events to get a point across. And you’re wasting Consumerist’s reputation on this?
@Ubik2501: Indeed. Rainbows exploding out of penises and naming a picture “Rainbow Fart” do not equal good. I am rarely offended…and generally only by people I’ve come to expect better from…which is why this offended me…I seriously thought Ben had more taste/sense.
@Ubik2501: eh?…
I just thought that looking at the other pictures or whatever this guy does, brings new light to the post.
I personal don’t find any new age art all that intriguing, but I also listen to KPBS and classical music when I’m driving around.
Is this weird to me? YUP, weird as FCK!!! I saw it as entirely distasteful as well, then I looked at the rest of the guys stuff and realized I was looking at the picture wrong. Apparently I just don’t get it, but at the same time, it’s also apparent the the artist didn’t have a cruel intent.
@Incognito: No, I realize what the guy’s trying to get across. I just think that he’s not doing it very well, in terms of thematic intent or technical skill. Trust me, I appreciate plenty of eccentric and bizarre art, but this stuff just smacks of slapping together some common symbols and icons in a haphazard way and hoping that the consumer looks at it and says, “Yeah, FUCK capitalism!”
And I don’t take issue with the guy’s other pictures, but the one Ben posted in this article is pretty tasteless and fails at getting a coherent or cogent point across.
From a page titled “pseudo-religious pop-political crap”
Well, at least 1 word in that description is correct.
Disapprove.
This is one of the most offensive items I have ever seen posted on consumerist.
@schiff: You haven’t been here long, have ya.
@schiff: Then your just easily offended…i find nothing wrong with the work…its not particularly good, but it has artistic merit and makes a statement…even if you people are all too stupid to understand that statement.
Reallt fucking poor taste.
Holy overreactin’ Tinactin, Batman, quit calling for a fatwa on the Gawker network just because of one picture. It’s not exactly the best tribute, but it’s far from the most offensive thing on the Internet.
@Kyattsuai: Thank you. I’m worried about the lack of sane voices in here right now.
@Kyattsuai: IAWTC
I’m rarely offended by anything, but this is definitely tasteless. I see no reason at all for Consumerist to have posted it, either.
I understand it. I like art, even the style of art. I also found it to be, to put it mildly, controversial. Mr. Popken, you posted a controversial piece of work on this site. So please don’t be shocked then controversy erupts.
Myself, I don’t much care for it on this site. Proselytizing was not really what drew me to Consumerist in the first place. This seems to be quite that.
This season, this dreadful economic time, I expect to see posts discussing the horrific behaviors of shoppers, and the victims thereof. But what I would really like to read about is how to avoid becoming either one.
Though this work of art seems lke an indictment of the system of sales, shouldn’t we really be concerned about the degrading humanity that allows this sort of thing to happen? If we truly are becoming a people whose social skills have failed, whose brittle veneer of civility has cracked wide open, shouldn’t we be addressing THAT?
This work of art, though attempting to indict (I think), ends up coming across as exploitative. If it was posted here as a controversial discussion starter, then I can hardly imagine a more cynical way to get hits on a website – barring showing CCTV footage of the event itself.
this thread reminds me of the debut of Stravinski’s ‘Rite of Spring’:
The complex music and violent dance steps depicting fertility rites first drew catcalls and whistles from the crowd. At the start with the opening bassoon solo, the audience began to boo loudly due to the slight discord in the background notes behind the bassoon’s opening melody. There were loud arguments in the audience between supporters and opponents of the work. These were soon followed by shouts and fistfights in the aisles. The unrest in the audience eventually degenerated into a riot. The Paris police arrived by intermission, but they restored only limited order.
Comments moderator Roz, i see, has yet to restore the order to this rabble.
I am not commenting on the art. There is only one exception where the stars of the American flag are allowed to be on the right side when the flag is displayed. That is when it is on the right sleeve of a military uniform. The reason it is allowed for THIS SITUATION ONLY is so our flag doesn’t look like it is running away from the enemy. ALL OTHER TIMES THE STARS SHOULD BE ON THE LEFT.
@Smorgasbord: It is shown as a reflection. I don’t think I have ever seen a photo of the flag where they altered a reflection of the flag.
@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: Ironically, it is facing the correct way in the reflection.
@Smorgasbord: Also, according to flag code, it can be shown on other sides, on vehicles mostly. This is to give the impression that the flag is being affected by wind.
@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: Thanks for the update. I was going by what a female soldier in Iraq told a reporter. She is the one who said it is the only exception to the rule. The rules I download a long time ago don’t mention it being on people or things, just the flag pole or wall. I will get the updated version now. Thanks.
The flags are running towards his head to show their respect to Jdimmy.
@Smorgasbord:
Ben, my only suggestion would be to put up some of the artists other works so that people can see that this is representive of his “style”. Taken alone, this does seem bad, but when compared/viewed along with other works of the artist, the basic themes that many of the pictures share, i.e. the mirroring, the coloring, the message.
In viewing his other works, and reading a statement from the artist: [www.jeremyscheuch.com] I can see where he comes from and what he intends his art to be. In fact, after reading it, and seeing how he uses religious imagry, and also the lack of anything “comical” such as kittens, car, rainbows, I almost see this like a stained glass window for a Saint. Those windows usually show us the saint in their mortal form, surrounded by the cause they fought against/died for and sometimes how they died, and their name. This almost seems to say, this person died for our sins, the main sin being greed, a greed which Americans seem to have increased in. He died, but do not forget his name, or the reason for his death. DON’T take it down Ben. Just my two cents.
@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: I agree 100%. It wasn’t until I looked at his other work before disgust turned to *sigh* ‘oh, one of those types’… Alone this image looks entirely insulting, but when you compare to his other pictures, it has a much more solemn tone.
@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★:
That’s the best description of this art I’ve read – the part about him being a saint that was martyred for a cause. It makes so much more sense to me now.
If he were offended, why is he promoting this cheap, tasteless image?
Are you guys really so desperate to fill space that you dig this up?
Shame on Jeremy Scheuch and shame on you.
I don’t think the image is appropriate, even if it is meant to be. Why don’t we just stop posting things about this poor individual and let him rest in peace? His death was already discussed enough on here.
I agree with everyone else (mostly): this is lame.
An appalling story gains a ghastly new chapter.
I think I’ll put off shopping for another week.
I have lost what little appetite I had for the holidays…
I think many of the posters aren’t giving the artist enough credit. What I see is excitement and anticipation, with the colors, the flags, Black Friday, SALE SALE SALE, and then, in the middle, the face and name of the fallen worker, standing against all the hoop-la of the rest of the piece.
It works for me as an indictment of Black Friday and the mobs of “shoppers” whipped into a greed induced frenzy by the stores. And we should ask “consumer society — at what price?”
@Marshfield: I agree with you, the thing with social commentary in art is that it is very easily misconstrued. Not to say I don’t agree with the idea of social commentary in art, but that gut reactions to superficial visual cues tend to be as far as a lot of viewers will go before deciding that they are offended. So, anyone who creates this kind of art has to anticipate that.
Can you believe there’s a WalMart commercial on right as I type? Now their rearing up to kill another victim for Christmas. Happy Shopping, Folks…
I personally feel in some way that this artist is attempting to put this tragedy into artistic perspective to show us how seemingly senseless this act was. It should remain on the site, and the Waltons should receive the original artwork on canvas so that they never forget how their greedy intentions to remain in the BLACK, has caused this man his life.