A fruitcake* Zapata


MUCHOS MEXICANOS, yours truly included, are incensed at this painting of my father as a raging queen astride a horse with a raging woodie.

That this exists is yet another example of corrupt Gringo culture and mindset filtering south of the border where most of us do not want it.

Shockingly, this painting is on exhibit in the Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City where it has been the focus on plentiful protests. Good.

That it sits in the Palace of Fine Arts instead of a privately owned gallery, which would be bad enough, puts the government Seal of Approval on it, which is pathetic, but we have ignorant left-wing regimes now on both the federal level and in Mexico City too.


In the same vein, Netflix has just released a Christmas special about a gay Jesus. All I can say to this is: Jesus!

* * * *

* Superlative fruitcakes are available at the Collin Street Bakery. I endorse those tasty things. Just keep them off horny horses.

27 thoughts on “A fruitcake* Zapata

  1. I do agree with you that the government should stay out of this. However, freedom of artistic expression is worthy of protection and a crucial building block to a free society.

    Think of Diego Rivera, your native cousin, who expressed the plights of the common man in his works.

    Let the freedom of artistic expression ring!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Marco: Diego Rivera was an imbecile communist. And so was his wife. I’ll cut them a little slack, however, because in their day the horrors of communist regimes were mostly unknown in the Western world. That all came out later. Rivera was a communist because it was stylish at that time, especially in his artsy-fartsy circles. Same goes for Frida.

      This painting of Zapata, and the poor taste in which it revels, should not be given the official approval of the government. It belongs in a private gallery at best. A garbage can would be better. The painting reflects a juvenile mindset. It was done for shock value and absolutely nothing more. And it worked. Sad. If someone slashes it with a knife or tosses acid on it, no tears will be shed on my end.

      Zapata was, I think, one of just two — Madero being the other — revolutionary leaders who were not in it purely for personal gain. He was a great man, naive to a huge extent, but a great man nonetheless.


  2. I can understand you not wanting your dear father to be portrayed as gay. I got a chuckle out of how triggered some people are over it and yet they gloat over the many imbecilic depictions of Trump. It’s pretty tame compared a lot of what passes as art. And then there’s that postmodern trash art like the banana taped to the wall which fetched $120,000 at auction. Then some performance artist ate it! I thought that was funny.

    I agree that this Zapata piece should reside in some gallery safely away from the mobs with pitchforks and firebrands. It will eventually be forgotten.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Brent: Did you see the news story from a couple of days ago that reported a police department somewhere — Florida? — that taped a doughnut to a wall and called it art. I forget the high price it asked. It was well-deserved mockery of that banana art.


  3. I am glad it was your tax dollars spent on that rather than mine. Mine will be spent on a B1 bomber or a new and improved war in the Middle East. Or maybe on some of the thousand refugees as a result of that war. An ugly painting is small potatoes in comparison.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Señor Gill: I think you are comparing apples and Chevrolets. As for B1 bombers, they have their place, especially if other nations have B1 bombers too, or something similar. As for new wars in the Middle East, have you not noticed? Trump’s priorities are different. He’s making America great again, not trying to make other nations, well, something or other, which is almost always doomed to failure, something recent history has proved repeatedly.

      As for the painting, it is not ugly. It is quite well-crafted. It’s the reason it was painted that was and remains ugly.


  4. Tumescence is a welcome sign of virility and anticipation, Felipe, that should be celebrated, particularly by guys our age. True, the horse does have a somewhat lecherous look on face, but so what? Maybe Emiliano and the pony were headed to a wild party.

    Remember, too, that in classic painting female nudity was quite acceptable. So why shouldn’t men also be shown au naturel even if, ouch, it would be totally unrealistic for a guy to gallop around without any protection?

    And whether Emiliano perhaps played for the Gay Blades of Morelos—either pitching or catching—that shouldn’t diminish our respect for him as a national hero.

    Figure that Alexander the Great was gay and so was Lawrence of Arabia and, whether astride a horse or a camel, the troops didn’t seem to care.

    What I are object to, however, are those high heels and the pink hat. Who picked those hideous colors?


    Liked by 1 person

    1. Señor Lanier: The issue here is not nudity. It’s how my daddy is portrayed. He was not gay, of course. As for Alex the Great and Larry of Arabia, different thing altogether. This “art” was done for publicity and shock value 100 percent. By the way, the artist is gay too. Big surprise there.


        1. Señor Lanier: Not only was my daddy not gay, he was a well-known womanizer.

          Again, this artwork is a publicity stunt and intended to be offensive to all of us patriotic Mexicanos.


          1. Argh. Why won’t you play along with what I was trying to say? Zapata is not your daddy; he is your adopted daddy, at best. And being a womanizer doesn’t make you straight; at best a bisexual. And, face it, you’re about as Mexicano as Taco Bell. Don’t be so damn serious.


            1. Señor Lanier: Okay, I’ll play along … but Emiliano was my daddy, and saying otherwise is fighting words!

              It amuses me that gay folks find other gays under every rock or at least they hope so. Gays are a minuscule percentage of the population. The probability of any given individual being gay is tiny. My daddy was not gay. Everybody knows that. It is common knowledge.


  5. I much prefer the portrait of Bill Clinton in the infamous blue dress and high heels. It is even better than that portrait of former Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in a teddy.

    I wonder who now has both of these pictures?


    1. Señor Gill: Voilá! You answered your own question. I had never seen that before. Haven’t seen Harold Washington in a teddy either, and don’t particularly want to. Yuck to both.

      By the way, Jeffry Epstein did not commit suicide.


  6. This is how formerly obscure artists become famous. And you too fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

    By the way, this kind of thing is also why Trump is President.


    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where it seems the right wing has done more than anyone to make outrageous left-wing artists famous.


    1. Kim: It is a pleasure to witness the ongoing greening, so to speak, of Señor Kim.

      And yes, this is the sort of thing that helped put the Blond Bomber in the Oval Office.

      I did not “fall for” anything. I am pointing out the horror of it all. Nada más.


      1. But pointing out the horror is the very definition of “falling for it.” This painting wasn’t done in order to be hung over a sofa with coordinating colors. Nope. It was done so that as many people as possible would tut-tut over it. Were it in a museum in Denmark, no one would be talking about it at all. But in Mexico? Yes, it has hit its mark, dead-on.


Comments are closed.