alix finkelstein February 8, 2013 at 4:52 pm

I don’t understand why everyone is kvelling over the bathroom images on Saltz’s fb page, but thanks for digging up Bush’s canine effort. Dog portraits are the best.

Brian Sherwin February 11, 2013 at 8:08 am

Saltz spends 99% of his time bashing Republicans… the other percent is spent on basic life functions, penis fixation (he LOVES phallic art), and churning out articles.

Brian Sherwin February 11, 2013 at 8:09 am

The irony being that the Bush paintings are probably now more known than Jerry’s artwork, from back in the day, ever was. Ha, ha.

Manuel del Cuevo February 8, 2013 at 5:00 pm

I’m just not seeing the Kahlo thing people are fixated on. It’s just not there. And it is much weirder anyway. Thanks for the dog image though. It’s great.

Daniel Luna February 8, 2013 at 5:01 pm

You forgot to mention the strange reflection the in the Bush painting. Is he watching someone shower from behind and that is his reflection? Or is it more abstract and the reflected face is more of a displaced reflection? Not to read too deep into it, but his face being isolated as such seems very lonely to me.

Charles R Kiss February 9, 2013 at 12:34 pm

He’s probably looking into another mirror behind him to paint his back; I’ve done this.

Brian Sherwin February 11, 2013 at 8:03 am

I think he just has little to no concept of perspective.

xam grey February 8, 2013 at 11:45 pm

He’s a better painter than most students in Hunter’s MFA program

Paddy Johnson February 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm

I’ve made studio visits at Hunter, SVA, NYU, Brooklyn College of Art, and CUNY this year. I can tell you with some degree of authority that he would be in the bottom 20 percent.

xam grey February 10, 2013 at 7:30 pm

I’m an actual MFA student at Hunter, I went to SVA for undergraduate, i’m from NYC, i’ve seen tons of MFA student work, and i can tell you with some degree of authority that these paintings are more interesting than most MFA student painters. That’s an opinion, so take it for what it’s worth.

Paddy Johnson February 10, 2013 at 7:47 pm

I have to admit, I wrongly assumed you hadn’t seen much, so sorry for such an assine response! I 100 percent disagree with your opinion.

xam grey February 10, 2013 at 7:52 pm

Well, i will admit that these paintings are probably quite a bit more interesting because i know that W painted them. Otherwise, if it was a random student or artist, then you’d probably be right & it would be bottom 20% (or worse). My original comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek 😉

Sand Lazzar February 9, 2013 at 12:27 pm

interesting, you criticize a former president for his painting while you consciously accept illegally obtained media of his families personal information and make it public. the hypocrisy in the article is in the unethical writer and magazine mocking the unethical former president of the US.

Paddy Johnson February 9, 2013 at 1:38 pm

Seriously? By this logic, media would only be able to say positive things about a terrible embezzlement scheme when the documents were obtained illegally.

Brian Sherwin February 11, 2013 at 8:01 am

It is not unethical to report… at least in a case like this — especially when the person is a public figure. Bush is a public figure.

Charles R Kiss February 9, 2013 at 12:40 pm

I think the flatness is the result of looking into mirrors. It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to perceive depth in the reflections from mirrors; also flatness and age are correlative.

I’m surprised by the quality of the work, notwithstanding the lack of entrepreneurial spirit.

Paddy Johnson February 9, 2013 at 1:35 pm

I agree. It’s better than I think any of us expected.

theakita February 9, 2013 at 3:15 pm

I want to see him do a sunday-painting battle with the “Beast Jesus” lady. Winner takes all.

ArtLab February 9, 2013 at 3:57 pm

In the shower painting, the face in the mirror seams to reference Beast Jesus by Cecilia Giménez. Could it be that he sees himself as a God that has been damaged by his inept followers?

Corinna Kirsch February 9, 2013 at 4:01 pm

I don’t buy it.

ArtLab February 9, 2013 at 5:05 pm

I don’t think it’s for sale.

Judd Dolin February 9, 2013 at 4:27 pm

I too am surprised by how interesting these actually are. The psychological import of his little weasel face constrained by the shaving mirror, coupled with the theme of water (cleansing), makes me think that we don’t know the real, embattled, George. He is just a number now. Anyone else getting a little Fairfield Porter vibe?
As for the problem of the modeling, I think he probably had Laura take some photos of his back while she was sitting on the shower bench. Photographic references are usually a studio no no for a reason.

JP Herr February 10, 2013 at 4:36 pm

Barney Frank paints a great leaning Tower of Pisa.

Duane Thomas February 10, 2013 at 9:23 pm

He’s an alcoholic so I’m not surprised that he’s a decent artist.

eric February 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm

These are very strange paintings for a former president to make. I would be very interested to hear what a phycologist has to say…I mean, doesn’t anyone recognize the homoerotic/ over sexualized nature of the portrait on the left?! Are we certain these are not a hoax? Why of all the subjects in the world to choose from would you paint yourself in this way? I think these deserve more study.

Tatu Virta February 14, 2013 at 1:54 pm

I went through the effort to register only to criticize this piece: would you consider hacking into the hard drive of any other artist and doing art critique on his works, finished or not, without any consent of him to make them available to the public eye, acceptable journalism? When it comes to politics, he without a doubt is answerable to a lot of people for any actions of his, but his art is another case and I find this article quite.. unethical, even.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: