Back in October, we heard that George W. Bush’s retirement plan now includes painting dogs while out at his private ranch in Crawford, Texas. Now, thanks to hackers who’ve broken into the email accounts of Bush family members and close friends, we’ve been given a glimpse into a few works in progress by Central Texas’ favorite recluse. Just how good are these works? Let’s take a closer look with a comparison of two of his favorite subjects: himself and his dog.
Titles: Unknown
The Smoking Gun has identified these two paintings as self-portraits of George W. Bush in the bathroom. In both of these portraits, the bathers suffer from an overall flatness, a likely result of being works-in-progress. Each lack Bush’s distinct “43” signature, found on his Barney portrait, and the dark tones do not appear to have been added to the shower painting. Looking to the tones in the tub painting, many of which are dark, this may simply be a result of inexperience. (Side note: Thanks to Marina Galperina of ANIMAL for pointing out the painting on the right’s similarity to Frida Kahlo’s What I Saw in the Water (1938).)
As for the painting’s skillfulness, the figure’s sloping, alpine back with large swathes of orangey-flesh and shoulder blades akin to breasts, reveal one of the few instances of modelling going on in this overall, flat painting. Bush is not yet a master of flesh, one of the most difficult forms to render due to its translucency, an observation made evident by his shoulder blades, which resemble boobs. It’s a fixable problem, but only if he can see it.
Those aren’t the only oddities found in these paintings. There’s the irregularly shaped tiles, which smoosh together when canvas space runs out, and a surreal stream of water that pours forth from the showerhead, but leaves no trace of water on the figure’s back. We think that’s because Bush intends the water to fall in front of him, but we’re not sure.
Title: Unknown (portrait of Barney Bush)
George W. Bush is clearly a wildlife painter. For all our reservations about his modeling of the human figure, we can’t get past how charming his dog portraits are. This one shows Bush’s true talents: an attention to curvature, light, and differentiated brush strokes. It’s the only dog painting we’ve seen by him, but so far, so good.
{ 26 comments }
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He’s probably looking into another mirror behind him to paint his back; I’ve done this.
I think he just has little to no concept of perspective.
He’s a better painter than most students in Hunter’s MFA program
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.
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.
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.
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 😉
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.
Seriously? By this logic, media would only be able to say positive things about a terrible embezzlement scheme when the documents were obtained illegally.
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.
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.
I agree. It’s better than I think any of us expected.
I want to see him do a sunday-painting battle with the “Beast Jesus” lady. Winner takes all.
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?
I don’t buy it.
I don’t think it’s for sale.
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.
Barney Frank paints a great leaning Tower of Pisa.
He’s an alcoholic so I’m not surprised that he’s a decent artist.
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.
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.