Jdimytai Damour, RIP

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]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Bladefist says:

    Maybe I’m missing something here, but that doesn’t look well done or respectful.

  2. gmss0205 says:

    Is that supposed to be a joke? Tasteless.

  3. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    Is that even what the guy looked like?

  4. VOIDMunashii says:

    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.

  5. unobservant says:

    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.

  6. Bladefist says:

    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

  7. Ben Popken says:

    This is a 1993 photo of Jdimytai. [www.nydailynews.com]

    • corbyz says:

      @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?


      • Parapraxis says:

        @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.

    • AmericaTheBrave says:

      @Ben Popken:

      Ben, why would you post something tasteless like that ‘art’? Take it down, please.

    • Smashville says:

      @Ben Popken: No wonder this blog is for sale.

  8. Smashville says:

    Ben, is there any reason to post this? This is utterly distasteful and sad. You’re better than that.

    • bellabelial says:

      @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!

  9. NoWireHangers says:

    RIP, Jdimytai.

    What a tasteless piece of art.

  10. mdoublej says:

    it says it’s acrylic on paper…digital acrylic?

  11. roche says:

    Wow. I just lost a little bit of respect for this blog.

    Nice move there Ben…..

  12. umbriago says:

    So he liked Breakout, then? This is the conclusion I’ve drawn.

  13. SkokieGuy says:

    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.

  14. ceriphim says:

    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?

    • Traveshamockery says:

      What it (technically) is: art.

      What it isn’t: tasteful. funny. well-intentioned. well-accepted. classy…


      • Smashville says:

        @InfiniTrent: Or good. I’ve seen tasteless art that was still good. This is void of any redeeming qualities.

        • bellabelial says:

          @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!

  15. insaneo says:

    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.

    • Anonymous says:

      @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.

  16. ShyamaliAndreus says:

    Tastelessness can be overlooked if it is humorous. Even if you aren’t offended by this, is just isn’t humorous.

  17. MrDo says:

    hello new desktop wallpaper

  18. Traveshamockery says:

    I may not know art, but I know what I like.

    /and it isn’t this.

  19. Skipweasel says:

    Spectacularly tasteless.

  20. Echomatrix says:

    yup, dont get it.

    looks offensive too

  21. MrDo says:

    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.

    • SkokieGuy says:

      @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!

      • Cankles says:

        @SkokieGuy: Not really, either case is tasteless. Did the child run for office?

      • Bladefist says:

        @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.

      • Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★ says:

        @SkokieGuy: We are nowhere near when Jesus was born. Immaculate Conception isn’t for four more days. Talk about celebrating early.

  22. brandyk says:

    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.

  23. corbyz says:

    Oh… I get it… “Black Friday”… because he’s black.

    Let’s through in a disco dancefloor for good effect.




    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!

    • humphrmi says:

      @corbyz: If you were dead, would you care?

      • corbyz says:

        @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.

  24. SkokieGuy says:

    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.

  25. AmericaTheBrave says:

    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?

  26. resource says:

    Is this 4Chan?

    WTF? Why post this?

  27. Cankles says:

    Sad… I mean, he died by the hooves of a bunch of greedy jerks. I don’t see room for a joke.

  28. Ben Popken says:

    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.

    • Smashville says:

      @Ben Popken: Is this the kind of crap we can expect under the new owner?

    • Cankles says:

      @Ben Popken: I don’t think you should have to explain it. Tasteless or not, it’s still news.

      • Smashville says:

        @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.

        • Cankles says:

          @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?

          • corbyz says:

            @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.

    • BrianDaBrain says:

      @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.

    • GoVegan says:

      @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.

  29. YourTechSupport says:

    The real hilarity is all the Black Friday insert ads that made it past Adblock.

  30. Maulleigh says:

    I get it. It makes me sad. RIP.

  31. BrianDaBrain says:

    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.

  32. peggyhill says:

    People, I realuze you’re selling off Consumerist but tanking the site is not helping the sale price.

  33. vw195 says:

    Well no one can accuse Gawker of good taste, that is for sure.

  34. Cankles says:

    Oh Howdy!!!! This guy is friggen high!!! It explains it all.

    • Ben Popken says:

      @Incognito: It’s cool to bash things we don’t understand.

    • BrianDaBrain says:

      @Incognito: I saw that too. My reaction was along the lines of: ummmmmmmm yeah. closing window now. :)

    • Ubik2501 says:

      @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?

      • Smashville says:

        @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.

      • Cankles says:

        @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.

        • Ubik2501 says:

          @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.

  35. I speak Jive. says:

    From a page titled “pseudo-religious pop-political crap”

    Well, at least 1 word in that description is correct.


  36. schiff says:

    This is one of the most offensive items I have ever seen posted on consumerist.

    • bellabelial says:

      @schiff: You haven’t been here long, have ya.

    • Anonymous says:

      @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.

  37. MaliBoo Radley says:

    Reallt fucking poor taste.

  38. Kyattsuai says:

    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.

  39. f3rg says:

    I’m rarely offended by anything, but this is definitely tasteless. I see no reason at all for Consumerist to have posted it, either.

  40. jkinatl2 says:

    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.

  41. Mr. Guy says:

    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.

  42. Smorgasbord says:

    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.

  43. Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★ says:

    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.

  44. PsycheInamorata says:

    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.

  45. mbz32190 says:

    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.

  46. whitefang2001 says:

    I agree with everyone else (mostly): this is lame.

  47. jpdanzig says:

    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…

  48. Marshfield says:

    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?”

    • DrGirlfriend says:

      @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.

  49. Gatcha_Journalism says:

    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…

  50. Gatcha_Journalism says:

    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.

  51. TruthAndTheory says:

    Someone needs a lesson in Photoshop. I don’t think he meant offense, but this looks amateurish. It needs a LOT more thought, and the Wal-Mart logo in there somewhere to get the real message across to look less offensive.

  52. bellabelial says:

    This is the best artistic piece I have seen all year. It says so much. Let me illustrate why. The artist has chosen to have the Wal-Mart logo placed above a disco like dance floor image, as if it is a row of lights. To me this speaks to the showy, hollow image of Black Friday. The black man himself is below the words which makes his face all the more prominent on the black background. This draws attention to the racial and ethnic element of the story… especially with the exclamation point before the phrase. Finally, the reversed flags with the proper flag and words is really very clever: “sale” spelled backwards is “elas”, like “Alas”, lamenting the fate of the worker himself and the moral emptiness of the society. The garishness of the lettering and the design color choice is like society on that day: overwhelming and ugly.

    This is just my opinion. You can disagree. But this is still art, and it deserves respect.

  53. Anonymous says:

    wow, you people don’t get it. it seems that you’re more outraged at a piece of art than at the original event that inspired it.
    read the artist’s statement. this piece is meant to mimic the absurdity of a man dying at the hands of american greed and consumerism. the same greed opened that walmart the next day for shoppers to keep on spending, as if nothing happened. THAT is rediculous, inappropriate and offensive.
    i think this art speaks volumes. well done, jeremy.

  54. whitefang2001 says:

    What happened to you Consumerist? It just seems like there’s more and more sloppiness here. Bring Joel back, this blog has been on a long decline ever since he left.

  55. jessi5000 says:

    yes, this is offensive, but it’s made more offensive due to the excessive amount of attention it’s getting. we should be focusing on how to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again, not arguing about whether a stupid drawing by an untalented “artist” is offensive or simply a reflection of our society.

  56. Anonymous says:

    I’m shocked that almost none of you understand this piece, but then again I usually end up thinking people are much smarter than they turn out to be.

    To those who are offended by the art and cannot understand it in any other way besides as an affront to your sensibilities- this is precisely the kind of selfishness that allows the insanity of what happened to Jdimytai Damour. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    If this further confuses and angers you: I’m not even going to try to explain myself or try to show you the truth in the piece. If you are as much in an emotional trance as most of the comments here represent, no explaination will satisfy you.

  57. LandruBek says:

    This is challenging art, and I think it’s effective. I am glad you posted it, Ben. One way art helps keep us as a society healthy is that it shows us who we are, where we have been and what we are becoming. That kind of news is often unwelcome and shocking.

    I think everyone who is freaking out in disgust is reacting to how this picture is exactly as shocking and horrifying as it is meant to be. This is not a joke, nor is it meant to be a subdued tribute to the fallen. This is about a nation of shoppers who literally crush one another underfoot for the sake of shopping. The “blaxploitation” theme reflects the sad and evil fact that racism still blights our nation, so not only do we commit manslaughter for the sake of discount goods, but the ones we step on are often starting from disadvantage anyway. (I know, we aren’t all precisely that evil, yadda yadda.)

    So I liked this one. Unfortunately the only other thing I liked in this artist’s online portfolio was the picture of Johnny Cash. I found everything else disappointing.

  58. motojen says:

    Tasteless, party of one, your table is ready.

  59. jimmydeweasel says:

    Peter Max part Deux.

  60. Anonymous says:

    To the artist, thanks for posting. Not a lot of people know about this. To all, this is relevant across all sectors. Consumerism or not someone died because we were trying to get the right gift for someone else who will might not like next year. All please recognize someone is dead, gone for doing their job. It is life and should be respected. To all who serve in wars and police offices, firemen, thank you.

  61. katinka says:

    I don’t mind it at all, if I get killed by a black Friday mob or a SUV while riding my bike, I hope I get some sort of art like this in my memory.

  62. humphrmi says:

    Wow. Just wow. And here I thought that trying to rid the world of things we don’t find pretty or don’t agree with was a thing of the past.

    As I read these comments, this video keeps running through my head:

  63. MooseOfReason says:

    “Black Friday” and a picture of a black guy. And then it has the Wal-Mart logo – a bunch of times – and then a disco floor.

    Very distasteful.

    I thought this would give more details about what happened to Mr. Damour. Unfortunately, it was a very stupid picture, as well as an advertisement.

  64. synergy says:

    Hrm. When I saw it I didn’t think it was tasteless. I thought it was making a statement on the exploitation of the man who died. Which explains the Blaxploitation look to this.

    Now the question is, will the Walmart workers comp company try to get out of paying for his death?

  65. GoVegan says:

    I am not fond of it myself but I do think it has meaning and shows how low society can sink over a sale. I don’t really think the picture is disrespectful, it just shows how trivial and cheap life has become. I also saw some comments about how the artist is trying to capitalize on current events. I actually see nothing bad about that. Art is supposed to be a reflection of how we view life and major events are just a part of that view.

  66. Danj3ris says:

    Doesn’t seem like anyone really “gets” it. But I’ll tell you what I got.

    You can call this tasteless, trashy, too-soon, stupid, or any other number of names. You can call it art or not art. You can like or dislike it. Call it racist even. It really doesn’t matter.

    What matters is that you have an opinion on it, that it stirred something up within you, and that small stirring of emotion keeps this story in the public eye. In all honesty I had forgotten about the fact that someone was trampled to death at Walmart as people got caught up in buying some random odds and ends for less than usual. Thanks to this post, which for some reason readers are associating with the overall quality of the posts on this blog, I am once again reminded that something senseless and horrible occurred and society as a whole needs to remember this mistake in order to learn from it.

    If you conveniently “forgot” this event, or failed to see the significance when it happened, maybe now that there is a piece of “artwork” inspired by it, you’ll remember it, and maybe even form an opinion about it.

    Mission accomplished I believe.

  67. Anonymous says:

    I think it’s great. really. and I’ll be spending the next two days at Art Basel…

    And it’s almost the perfect thing to post on a blog called The Consumerist.

  68. IrvCrapper says:

    This should be removed from this website.

    It would aloso be very cool if people made color copies and put them up around their local WalMart.

  69. moore850 says:

    As a degreed fine artist, I would like to point out that although it looks easy, apparently not everyone is good at modern art.

    • CountryJustice says:

      @moore850: As a fellow degreed fine artist, I would like to point out that the credentials “degreed fine artist” are worth diddly and squat, and that criticizing any form of modern art from such a podium is laffable.

  70. CountryJustice says:

    Quick, everyone! To the Righteous-Indignation Cave! The Joker’s afoot!

  71. ObtuseGoose says:

    So, based on the artwork, Jdimytai Damour enjoyed dancing on rainbow colored disco floors? This looks like it came from one of those old Fat Albert cartoons. Not exactly a heartfelt artistic statement.

  72. Consumerist-Moderator-Roz says:

    Folks, just a reminder to keep comments civil. It’s fine to not like the art in the OP (much of art is controversial) but let’s keep the comments constructive and appropriate. Calling the art tasteless or poorly done is fine, but let’s not attack the character of the artist or the editor.

    • IrvCrapper says:

      Whole problem could be solved by pull the entire post.

      • humphrmi says:

        @IrvCrapper: Yeah, we should solve the problem of uncivil commenters by censoring the blog.

        • IrvCrapper says:


          I suppose given your absurd definition of “censorship,” to the extent that every story in the NY Times isn’t in this blog, it is already censored.

          I’m talking about editorial restraint. This story is TMZ worthy.

          That’s what I meant.

          Besides, this site has staff that censors comments. So, if that’s a problem for you, perhaps you should find a home elsewhere?

  73. salaboutme says:

    so, its ok to post it at walmart, but not here? where it can be discussed? Contradict yourself much?

    Its art- not everyone has to get it or like it. but (god bless america) you need to allow it. Its called freedom of expression.


  74. Anonymous says:

    As appalling the events are, regarding the context of this piece, the artist not only does not owe anyone “respect,” but accusing him of seeking publicity, of having no taste…of having no talent…is utterly condescending.

    There are valid reasons not to like a piece: Form, Content, Style…and there are plenty of constructive ways to explain that viewpoint. “I don’t get it” is inane. It’s worthless information to anyone.

    Personally I like it. I don’t think the artist owes a complete stranger a wonderfully beautiful homage. He drew what he felt, and that should be enough, and I think it’s beautiful. Grow up.

  75. salaboutme says:

    and if you READ the comments from the artist, here, i’ll make it easy for everyone….

    “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.”

  76. Anonymous says:

    This image did what are is supposed to do…it started a conversation, made all of you think, made you question your morals and what you stand for. I’m surprised how many closed minded people are out there. People deal with tragedy/death in so many ways, which way is the “right” way? There is no right way to mourn. I think the artist is an amazing person. I know him personally. People criticized all the greatest cutting edge artists from the past. You might wanna keep this guys name in your back pocket.

  77. femmeknitzi says:

    I get this. It’s not offensive, its ironic.

    Okay…the black friday part is actually offensive since this man’s death had nothing to do with race. But I actually get the rest of it.

    I would really like to see a Boycott Black Friday movement next year in Jdimytai’s name. I’d like to see this day of consumer madness turn into a protest day.

  78. kc2gvx says:

    I find it to be an interesting piece. Sort of a sad reminder of what corporations have done to brainwash the country with their shopping habits.

  79. ZukeZuke says:

    RIP Jdimytai Damour.

    Jeremy Scheuch < steaming pile of doodoo.

    • thedreamingtree says:


      This is a much better dedication.

      • motojen says:

        @thedreamingtree: “This is a much better dedication.”

        Better for who exactly? Personally I would have preferred it if he’d jumped down from his pulpit long enough to actually talk in depth about Mr. Damour and his family instead of using the mans death as an opportunity to evangelize.

    • bellabelial says:

      @ZukeZuke: Thank you for that well-put comment. Obviously this artist will never recover from being compared to a third grade word for fecal matter.

  80. Anonymous says:

    This is pretty awful. And I got to this picture not because I normally read this blog, but because there was a link to here from the LifeHacker blog. So apparently the people at Gawker Media think this “art” is just fabulous.

    I’m a big fan of art that makes people think– a good example being Serrano’s “Piss Christ” in which the artist was making an actual statement… and more importantly could *defend* those statements. This doesn’t fall into that class.

    I can think of many ways the artist could have gone. He could have made a statement about consumerism, putting a price tag on Jdimytai’s head. He could have represented the people who trampled him in some abstract way that reflected their herd nature. He could have taken the advertisement for the sale and replaced the prices with “One Human Life”.

    In short, he could have found some statement more deep, more meaningful, more cutting, or even just more clever than “gosh, I was appalled and decided to render my outrage in this image that says nothing.”

    You watch. The artist will probably retroactively claim, “my point was to spark discussion” or some other nonsense. That’s always the last refuge of art hacks.

    • mados123 says:

      @MaraSpezza: “This is pretty awful” but a photo of a crucifixion of Christ dropped in the artist’s urine is better at making people think? And placing a price tag on a Black man’s head to make a point about consumerism – ever hear of slave auctions and think how that direct association might be made? “This image that says nothing” says a lot to people who recognize it means something – especially to the artist and those who chose not to judge him nor the editors.

  81. maddencorner says:

    Disgusting!!! This is by no means art, or a respectable way to pay respect to someone who lost there life.