Marilyn Manson Donates Original Painting to Benefit West Memphis Three

Beginning July 13th, the venerable Skeleton Key Auction website will take bids on a painting created and donated by musician Brian Hugh Warner, better known as Marilyn Manson. The proceeds will go to fund the defense effort for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. in their bid for a new trial. The Arkansas State Supreme Court (ASSC) gave the circuit court the green light in September 2010 to conduct evidentiary hearings that the defense attorneys hope will exonerate their clients. This is the same hearing that was denied by former Judge, and now state senator, David Burnett back in 2008.

Manson has deliberately kept a low profile in the past, even though he is a long time supporter, fearing that his presence would hurt, rather than help the cause of the West Memphis Three. Supporters have long alleged that it was out of fear and ignorance of the occult and heavy metal music (Manson’s music is in a dark sub-genre known as "industrial metal"), that two juries convicted the WM3 in 1994. So why is he coming out of the closet now?

At the 2010 Golden Gods Awards he told the crowd, "I’ve always been a big supporter of the cause, but I chose a long time ago not to be involved because I thought I would add to the problem. But now I think it’s an important time to stand up and be a part of the problem." After repeating the time-worn "Salem witch trial" and persecution for "looking like we do" rationale, Manson said that he wouldn’t compare himself to Echols, but that he wished he had Damien’s "strength", and that it was time for everyone to "get behind the West Memphis Three and fix it."

Still, while his money is no doubt appreciated, it’s hard to imagine how associating himself with "the cause" will help the defense. It might be best if Mason makes himself scarce should the occasion arise to voir dire a new jury.  Manson, the "Antichrist Superstar", has seemingly had as one of his goals, the annihilation of Christianity. At the MTV Video Music Awards (VMA) in 1997, Manson was ushered onto the stage by a full marching band playing "Hail to the Chief", with a desecrated American flag hanging in the background, and had this to say:

"My fellow Americans, we will no longer be oppressed by the fascism of Christianity. As I see you all out there . . . trying your hardest to earn your way into heaven. Well let me ask you: do you want to be in a place filled with ASSHOLES???" (He gave no hint as to other, more desirable destinations.). At this, he launched into one of his best known songs, "Beautiful People." This appearance was said to be the zenith of his career, the band giving a performance that electrified the crowd.

A lot of things have changed since 1994, but the good people of Arkansas are still decidedly Christian, and associating Echols too closely with the androgynous shock-rocker who was once dubbed a "minister in the church of Satan" by a deceased friend (Manson denies he was actually associated with the church) is something that should be avoided, one would think.

"People can look at Christ on a cross and say this is an image of murder, this has sexual imagery in it", Manson told Bill O’Reilly. "I think it’s my job as an artist to be out there pushing peoples’ buttons and making them question everything . . ." It’s hard to imagine anyone viewing a crucifix this way, although the Catholic variety, with the crucified Christ still nailed to the cross, is pretty gruesome.

All this is not to say that some of Manson’s views on religion and "sprituality" are all that outrageous. He makes the allegation that spirituality and religion have very little to do with churches, a view that an increasing number of Christians share. He also equates the hatred he invokes by Christians with that vested upon Jesus by the Jews 2000 years ago, and that, while a tad self-serving, isn’t in itself blasphemous. But the words and images he uses to express himself will not, as they say, play well in Peoria. Or Jonesboro. On his website, the latest "journal" entry is entitled, Rapeture: Christianity Manufactures Yesterdays Killers. It reads, in part, as follows:

Art will be the burning churches, burning beds, burning witches, burning bridges, burning Cadillacs, burning forests, burning flags, and the burning human remains that are the evidence of the burned books, filled with stories of our razor and rope burns.

Maybe someone else can take a stab on interpreting this, but the imagery is plain enough.

Manson has hit something of a low in his career since being dropped from longtime label Interscope after the release of The High End of Low in 2009, which sold only 142,000 copies. According to Boston.com, Manson has mounted a comeback this year, forming a collaboration between his own imprint, Hell, etc., and British indie label, Cooking Vinyl. But it’s hard to believe that his donation of the painting has anything to do with publicity; he gets plenty of that on his own. No, we have to take his actions at face value: he wants to help. And he loves symbolism, as all artists do.

Most problematic, however, is the $5,000 starting bid on the painting (which is based on Grove Pashley’s now iconic image of Echols on death row). The average WM3 supporter does not have this kind of money. Who’s going to buy it? Eddie Vedder? Johnny Depp? The auction, located at www.skeletonkeyauctions.com, will run from July 13th through July 31st. This, according to the auction house, represents one day for each year the WM3 have been in prison. With any luck, the painting will fetch a good price at auction and someone will wind up with conversation piece that is truly one of a kind, perhaps even of investment potential.

The whole thing seems to go against the grain for Manson, who makes it clear that he abhors capitalism (lots of rich people do). Consider these lines from "The Beautiful People":

The horrible people, the horrible people
It’s as anatomic as the size of your steeple
Capitalism has made it this way
Old-fashioned fascism will take it away

This hypocrisy is nothing new in the world of show business. The instances are too numerous to list. They all hate money. They’re ashamed of their success.

So why donate a caricature of Echols instead of cash? Manson has sold well over fifty million records, 20 million more than Pearl Jam. He’s got the money. Although the Echols portrait is not his best work, some of his paintings are actually pretty good ("I will kill you all" and "Experience is the Mistress of Fools" are a couple of my favorites).

One thing is true, however. The untitled painting is of much higher quality than some others that have been auctioned to benefit the three. The twisted art of Emmeric Konrad comes to mind, with his "RIP" painting depicting the theory of the day, that John Mark Byers committed the murders ("Byers is a motherfucker", Konrad told running mate Chad Robertson, husband of wm3.org co-founder Kathy Bakken. Robertson himself is actually quite talented). In Konrad’s rendition, Mark Byers, wearing his signature striped shirt a la Revelations: Paradise Lost 2, is shown with dripping blood ringing his mouth, apparently meant to correlate with the inset image of victim Stevie Branch, depicting the "bite mark" wound on his forehead.

It still seems easier for Manson to just to write a check (it’s tax deductible), maybe one of those giant ones like Publisher’s Clearinghouse shows on their commercials, with a photo op somewhere with Manson presenting it to Dennis Riordan.

Can’t you see it?

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 7/11/2011 6:42 PM wm3org wrote:
    You know that Byers himself auctioned some artwork for the WM3, right?
    Reply to this
    1. 7/12/2011 4:04 AM Greg Day wrote:
      Yes, of course I know that, and I believe it to be a noble thing to donate art and other personal objects to raise money for a cause one believes in. Mark has no money to speak of, so he donated his art, though I'm not sure whatever happened to it.

      And your point would be . . . ?
      Reply to this
  • 8/22/2011 12:38 PM Nate Legend wrote:
    I think your post is not well thought out. What is your point? That because Manson is rich, he is pro-capitalism? I think you have veered away -- far away -- from the original intent of your article. And at the same time you have skipped right over a world of nuance in favor of black and white thinking. Money does not equal capitalism. And what does this have to do with Manson's painting and his support of the WM3, anyway? No wonder you got so many negative votes for this article. You need to take a course in critical thinking.
    Reply to this
    1. 8/23/2011 7:46 AM Greg Day wrote:
      Hi Nate. Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure what the "black and white" is that you refer to, or what the "world of nuance" is that you said I "skipped right over."  Maybe you could share?

      Capitalism is merely the using of the means of production in order to make a profit (personally, I'm a big fan). It has to do with the creation of wealth; in Manson's case, as in most, this wealth comes in the form of money. Manson makes art and sells if for a profit. He is a capitalist. No real point to argue there. In this case he made a tax-deductible donation, just as I and thousands of others have.

      The "point" of the article was merely to present news (hence the title), and give some background and recent history of Manson, as well as some opinion. If I simply wrote that Manson had donated the painting, I'd be writing about what most people already knew.

      I don't think you really feel that I need a course on critical thinking. I think you simply disagreed with what I wrote, and this is also why there were "so many negative votes", which is cool. This is America right?

      Reply to this
  • 10/17/2011 6:39 AM publicenemynumerouno wrote:
    Marilyn hasn't seemed right since Dita left him. He doesn't seem to handle rejection well. But Greg, let's back up a bit. I found a little video on Youtube, couple of them, that I think sort of puts this in perspective.
    Mark Byers appears in his suit announcing that he was "his own worst enemy" and he "blames nobody but" himself for thinking he was guilty. Then there is another more recent video, where he and Mara Leveritt are talking as he enumerates his grievances where he specifically faults her for people thinking he is guilty.
    Just curious, Greg, which one is the true one? Must be a real enigma, trying to sort the intellectual side of Mark.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/17/2011 7:50 AM Greg Day wrote:
      I guess none of us handle rejection too well Shaun

      I guess I don't see the problem with the two (or more) videos, since we all contradict ourselves at times. I think we might be dealing with two situations:

      1) The HBO films. Mark has, at least since I've known him, always admitted that he allowed the producers the opportunity to take advantage of him. I'm not sure,  but I really don't think he knew how badly he was coming off, especially in PL2. In fact, in one letter home from prison he stated, "the first flick didn't make me look so bad", whereas most people thought he looked very bad. So it isn't surprising that he signed on for PL2. But he has always taken responsibility for his actions in those films, as readers of Untying the Knot will see.

      2) Devils Knot. This confrontation with Mara Leveritt was a long time in coming. I was there when that video was shot. No objective reading of the book would leave any reader believing anything but that she was deflecting the focus off the WM3 and onto Mark Byers, and doing it with incomplete, misleading, and often totally false information. The book was also published two years after the release of PL2, and I'm sure it caught Mark by surprise.

      One of the main issues they discussed that day outside the ASSC was the story she told in DK of Mark holding his parents at knife point demanding drug money. If you knew the family (and I do), you'd know how ridiculous this assertion was, but Mara accepted it at face value because it added to the image she wanted to create of Mark (I'm sure you have read the book).And Shaun, she did lead many unsuspecting readers down the path of believing in Mark's complicity in the deaths of his son, Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and his wife Melissa. Read the chapter on Devil's Knot in my book. You may find a few surprises there.

      Sorting out the "intellectual side" of Mark? In the introduction to the book I wrote the following:

      "Mark is nothing if not charismatic and engaging with the ability to make people feel that they are something special, the proverbial lone person in the room. He can put people at ease with a few stories, some homespun humor, and some good natured, country-boy ribbing. He can be polite to a fault, often showing the gentility of a true Southern gentleman. Coincidentally, these are also the ideal traits of a successful con man, and therein one sees the dilemma. Is Mark Byers a con man, an actor shedding “crocodile tears” over the deaths of his son and wife as more than one reviewer has charged? Or is he a man who was beaten into the ground by the tragedies of his life, succumbing to rage, grief, and self-destructive behavior that nearly killed him? Will he ever be able to dispel the persistent doubts regarding his complicity in the events of so long ago?"

      Mark is indeed an enigma. This is what made him so fascinating to write about. But I don't have to reconcile the contradictions of Mark Byers; I just have to write about them, which is what I did as honestly as I know how. I hope you give it a read.

      Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.