I think they might be over thinking things just a tad. :hmm:
As always, there are a bunch of embedded links in the actual article.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/02/08/george_w_bush_s_paintings_and_self_portrait_critics_weigh_in.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fbrowbeat%2F2013%2F02%2F08%2FBush_stonechurch.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg&hash=1898ccce21562721280dbb5a7cd5ed67de07aaa8)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fbrowbeat%2F2013%2F02%2F08%2FBush_shower.jpg.CROP.article250-medium.jpg&hash=3905eed7a77c3c782101b60091a86c95ef36a413)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fbrowbeat%2F2013%2F02%2F08%2FBush_bath.jpg.CROP.article250-medium.jpg&hash=1881ef60b54ff804a138795a40a510604f112493)
QuoteGeorge W. Bush: Great Painter? Or Greatest Painter?
By Forrest Wickman
Posted Friday, Feb. 8, 2013, at 5:12 PM ET
Email accounts close to George W. Bush have apparently been hacked, exposing several private photos of the former president, according to a post from the Smoking Gun. The most interesting of the photos show what appear to be three paintings by W. himself.
Are they any good? Are they great? Several art critics have weighed in already, and we consulted a few more for their expert opinion on the 43rd president's budding oeuvre.
Slate art critic Christopher Benfey offered insight into Dubya's influences from the world of high art:
Has W added looking at art books to his hobbies of cutting brush and falling off mountain bikes? Is he a fan of Bonnard's paintings of his naked wife in a bathtub, or Mantegna's supine dead Christ? Hockney's swimming pools, maybe? An interesting riff, in the shower scene, on the self-portrait painted with the aid of a mirror, since we have to imagine the painter holding a brush—but, hey, easy to rinse it in the shower.
Benfey also detected a theme of surveillance and accompanying guilt:
I see one face peering out of the mirror, but is there another head emerging from between those two pigeon-toed feet? Privacy! Why can't a president get any privacy? Eyes are watching everything you do. It's like Psycho. Even poor Barney, in that portrait based, of course, on a photograph, is looking at 43 a little accusingly. "For here," as Rilke wrote in his poem about a statue of naked Apollo, "there is no place that does not see you. You must change your life."
It wasn't just Benfey who picked up on a sense of heavy remorse. Contacted via email, Los Angeles Times art critic Christopher Knight compared the painting to Shakespearean tragedy:
Is George W. finally coming clean? Out, damned spot! Out, I say!
Bush_bath
In a review for Vulture, New York critic Jerry Saltz raved about the paintings, taking exception with Gawker's proclamation that they were "awkward and simple." Instead, the bathing paintings "border on the visionary, the absurd, the perverse, the frat boy":
These are pictures of someone dissembling without knowing it, unprotected and on display, but split between the promptings of his own inner drives and limited by his abilities. They reflect the pleasures of disinterestedness. A floater. Inert. The images of a man who saw the entire world from the inside but who finds the smallest most private place in a private home to imagine his universe. Of almost nothingness. Sweet sublime oblique oblivion. The visibility of invisibleness.
After Saltz declined to psychoanalyze "why the water is running in both pictures," the New Republic gamely piped up with a Freudian reading. "Man in Shower," Michael Shaffer says, reflects latent turmoil over Hurricane Katrina:
Consider the composition. The subject of the painting is not actually under the water. Physically, he stands back, reticent, his body still dry. In the shaving mirror, he watches from above, as if surveying the scene from an aircraft, a vaguely confused look on his face.
"Man in Bathtub," on the other hand, is quite obviously a rumination on enhanced interrogation:
Why put up with the discomfort of lying down in a half-empty tub waiting for the water to pour down? The answer is clear—subconscious remorse about waterboarding. Consider the white item above the faucet. Perhaps it is a bunched-up curtain, or a towel hanging from a rack. But there is no window on that wall, and it is doubtful that the Bush family's bathrooms are so cramped as to require that towels be hung within the tub itself. No, that item is likely a representation of the interrogator himself, preparing to give the helpless captive a dunk in the water even as the prisoner tries to distance himself.
The painting of the stone building, though we can readily identify it as St. Ann's Episcopal Church in Kennebunkport, Maine, remains the most opaque. Saltz suggests that it might represent "the purity of the lone American farmer," while the New Republic sees "the inner divide that dominated Bush's public life: The New England traditionalism of his actual father versus the mountainous Wyoming ruggedness of his presidential tutor, Dick Cheney." So which is it? That may be for later generations of art historians to decide.
I do hope the Secret Service finds the guy who hacked Bush's computer. Then stake him out to die.
Classy move by Slate. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2013, 06:00:34 PM
Classy move by Slate. :rolleyes:
The line between satirical and merely mean-spirited is a thin one, and this piece crosses it. Slate needs some new editors.
Slate: a bag of dicks, or a collection of douchebags? Indeed, whither Slate?
This portrait of his dog is pretty good.
RIP Barney.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/01/rip-barney-bush-age-12/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftimeswampland.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F02%2Fbarney-bush.jpg%3Fw%3D656&hash=a7d02df2be95dc55e3eab328f2dd4583bcdf4758)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2013, 06:00:34 PM
Classy move by Slate. :rolleyes:
What's wrong with it? :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2013, 12:21:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2013, 06:00:34 PM
Classy move by Slate. :rolleyes:
What's wrong with it? :blink:
They were in on the hack. It's like the News Corp thing, only hopefully the secret service will execute some hipsters and pseudo-intellectuals.
Quote from: Neil on February 10, 2013, 12:28:21 AM
They were in on the hack. It's like the News Corp thing, only hopefully the secret service will execute some hipsters and pseudo-intellectuals.
How so? I thought Smoking Gun posted all of this. They got some art critics to comment.
They're bloggers, not nuns.
I'm confused why he would paint Clinton in the shower.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2013, 12:40:02 AM
How so? I thought Smoking Gun posted all of this. They got some art critics to comment.
They're bloggers, not nuns.
Actual art critics don't comment on private amateur art. Slate just got some snarky faux critics to write some snarky faux critiques. It isn't amusing, or even adult. It's just Slate: the Online Magazine for the Timmays of the World.
The Smoking Gun stuff was news. SG didn't feel the need to go all juvenile like Slate does; they know their audience doesn't go for that shit.
Quote from: grumbler on February 10, 2013, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2013, 12:40:02 AM
How so? I thought Smoking Gun posted all of this. They got some art critics to comment.
They're bloggers, not nuns.
Actual art critics don't comment on private amateur art. Slate just got some snarky faux critics to write some snarky faux critiques. It isn't amusing, or even adult. It's just Slate: the Online Magazine for the Timmays of the World.
The Smoking Gun stuff was news. SG didn't feel the need to go all juvenile like Slate does; they know their audience doesn't go for that shit.
I don't see the point in criticizing the paintings: they are better than I can do. What I think is more interesting is that it seems Bush 43 has an interest in art. It is one more piece of evidence that his Texas cowboy persona was complete bullshit. He came from a new england family, went to a new england prep school, got a degree from yale and another from harvard. And as soon as he leaves politics he moves to a big city rather than staying on his ranch. Culturally he is probably close to a carbon copy of Mitt Romney, but a better politician because he was able to cover that up.
I think we need to know which of the last dozen presidents had the best fashion sense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2013, 12:21:40 AM
What's wrong with it? :blink:
It's exploitation of illegally obtained images. They're incredibly snarky comments about a guy's personal hobby.
I don't see how having a ranch is mutually exclusive with painting. And I agree with Yi, this is a personal thing. He's no longer President. If he wants some privacy he should have it.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2013, 06:08:11 PM
I don't see how having a ranch is mutually exclusive with painting. And I agree with Yi, this is a personal thing. He's no longer President. If he wants some privacy he should have it.
I agree American citizens should have privacy. George W Bush didn't so why I think this is pretty gross and tasteless I am not particularly outraged by it.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 10, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
I don't see the point in criticizing the paintings: they are better than I can do. What I think is more interesting is that it seems Bush 43 has an interest in art. It is one more piece of evidence that his Texas cowboy persona was complete bullshit. He came from a new england family, went to a new england prep school, got a degree from yale and another from harvard. And as soon as he leaves politics he moves to a big city rather than staying on his ranch. Culturally he is probably close to a carbon copy of Mitt Romney, but a better politician because he was able to cover that up.
Where does he live now?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 11, 2013, 01:11:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 10, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
I don't see the point in criticizing the paintings: they are better than I can do. What I think is more interesting is that it seems Bush 43 has an interest in art. It is one more piece of evidence that his Texas cowboy persona was complete bullshit. He came from a new england family, went to a new england prep school, got a degree from yale and another from harvard. And as soon as he leaves politics he moves to a big city rather than staying on his ranch. Culturally he is probably close to a carbon copy of Mitt Romney, but a better politician because he was able to cover that up.
Where does he live now?
Dallas, apparently.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:26:21 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 11, 2013, 01:11:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 10, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
I don't see the point in criticizing the paintings: they are better than I can do. What I think is more interesting is that it seems Bush 43 has an interest in art. It is one more piece of evidence that his Texas cowboy persona was complete bullshit. He came from a new england family, went to a new england prep school, got a degree from yale and another from harvard. And as soon as he leaves politics he moves to a big city rather than staying on his ranch. Culturally he is probably close to a carbon copy of Mitt Romney, but a better politician because he was able to cover that up.
Where does he live now?
Dallas, apparently.
Wow, welcome to Metropolis, Smallville.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 11, 2013, 02:48:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:26:21 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 11, 2013, 01:11:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 10, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
I don't see the point in criticizing the paintings: they are better than I can do. What I think is more interesting is that it seems Bush 43 has an interest in art. It is one more piece of evidence that his Texas cowboy persona was complete bullshit. He came from a new england family, went to a new england prep school, got a degree from yale and another from harvard. And as soon as he leaves politics he moves to a big city rather than staying on his ranch. Culturally he is probably close to a carbon copy of Mitt Romney, but a better politician because he was able to cover that up.
Where does he live now?
Dallas, apparently.
Wow, welcome to Metropolis, Smallville.
I think this counts as a large urban area.
QuoteDallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan area (the DFW MSA) that according to the March 2010 U.S. Census Bureau release, had a population of 6,371,773.[10] The metroplex economy is the sixth largest in the United States, with a 2010 gross metropolitan product of $374 billion.[
Well, he's been living in big cities like Washington and Austin for most of his life. Hardly surprising.
Quote from: grumbler on February 10, 2013, 12:18:07 PM
Actual art critics don't comment on private amateur art. Slate just got some snarky faux critics to write some snarky faux critiques. It isn't amusing, or even adult. It's just Slate: the Online Magazine for the Timmays of the World.
Sure they do, once it's public. They'll comment on Churchill's paintings, snarkily on Harry's A-Level art entrance and any other celebrity whose paintings are made public.
QuoteIt's exploitation of illegally obtained images.
They're in the public domain. They're an online paper/blog thing, not nuns. Frankly I'm surprised the NYT didn't get their art critic to comment, I think most British papers did.
QuoteThey're incredibly snarky comments about a guy's personal hobby.
Yeah. I still don't see the problem.
QuoteI agree American citizens should have privacy.
He was a politician for years and President for best part of a decade. His security is still being paid for by American taxpayers. I don't think he could get away with claiming a desire for a private life.
I agree his e-mails shouldn't be hacked, but no-one's should. That seems to me to be an issue of law. But more or less anything Bush does is of interest so once it's out there, by whatever means, it's legitimate for the media to comment.
Quote from: mongers on February 10, 2013, 04:37:50 PM
I think we need to know which of the last dozen presidents had the best fashion sense.
Reagan's one of the only men ever able to pull off a brown suit. That deserves some respect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 07:27:06 PM
They're in the public domain. They're an online paper/blog thing, not nuns. Frankly I'm surprised the NYT didn't get their art critic to comment, I think most British papers did.
Profiting by one degree of removal from a criminal act is not ethical IMO.
QuoteQuoteThey're incredibly snarky comments about a guy's personal hobby.
Yeah. I still don't see the problem.
The problem is the mean-spiritness and pettiness displayed by the writer and the critics.
Just being a dick may pass as "tough journalism" in the UK but here it's just being a dick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2013, 07:45:20 PM
Profiting by one degree of removal from a criminal act is not ethical IMO.
What level of public interest makes it ethical?
But we don't deserve an ethical media. If we did, they'd be profitable.
QuoteJust being a dick may pass as "tough journalism" in the UK but here it's just being a dick.
It's not tough journalism or being a dick. It's, just celebrity journalism about a former politician.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 07:29:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 10, 2013, 04:37:50 PM
I think we need to know which of the last dozen presidents had the best fashion sense.
Reagan's one of the only men ever able to pull off a brown suit. That deserves some respect.
He was a movie star, not really fair to judge other politicians by the same standard.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 07:53:20 PM
What level of public interest makes it ethical?
To justify use of hacked materials? I think you need a crime.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2013, 08:20:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 07:53:20 PM
What level of public interest makes it ethical?
To justify use of hacked materials? I think you need a crime.
Of hacked materials already in the public domain?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 08:23:59 PM
Of hacked materials already in the public domain?
Yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2013, 08:28:25 PM
Yes.
So what's the ethical limits of reporting on the hacking?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 08:33:40 PM
So what's the ethical limits of reporting on the hacking?
Don't be a dick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2013, 08:46:56 PM
Don't be a dick.
It's not being a dick it's the actual problem of ethics. It normally leads to angels dancing on pinheads.
For example is it content or intention that's creating an ethical problem for papers? The British press will get their art critics to write a comment on this sort of hack, almost as standard. Is that really worse than a more po-faced paper publishing them as pictorial examples of the hack? When in fact they're publishing the same pictures and, more often than not, getting bought by people who want to have a look at the picture what's the difference?
The public interest is distinct from whatever the public happens to be interested in.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 08:57:18 PM
It's not being a dick it's the actual problem of ethics. It normally leads to angels dancing on pinheads.
For example is it content or intention that's creating an ethical problem for papers? The British press will get their art critics to write a comment on this sort of hack, almost as standard. Is that really worse than a more po-faced paper publishing them as pictorial examples of the hack? When in fact they're publishing the same pictures and, more often than not, getting bought by people who want to have a look at the picture what's the difference?
Those are both examples of dicks being dicks.
You don't need the pictures to report the story. "Friends of Bush had their phones hacked and images of his paintings stolen."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 11, 2013, 07:55:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 07:29:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 10, 2013, 04:37:50 PM
I think we need to know which of the last dozen presidents had the best fashion sense.
Reagan's one of the only men ever able to pull off a brown suit. That deserves some respect.
He was a movie star, not really fair to judge other politicians by the same standard.
A brown suit's a brown suit, whether you're a movie star or not.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 10, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
I don't see the point in criticizing the paintings: they are better than I can do. What I think is more interesting is that it seems Bush 43 has an interest in art. It is one more piece of evidence that his Texas cowboy persona was complete bullshit. He came from a new england family, went to a new england prep school, got a degree from yale and another from harvard. And as soon as he leaves politics he moves to a big city rather than staying on his ranch. Culturally he is probably close to a carbon copy of Mitt Romney, but a better politician because he was able to cover that up.
Since when does a "Texas cowboy persona" disqualify oneself from an interest in painting or the arts? I'm sure somewhere along the republic's history, there's been evidence of a Texan painting a picture of something, somewhere? Or is southwestern aesthetics a domain solely reserved for the artsy fartsies in Santa Fe, NM?
I await a Velvet Dubya.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 11, 2013, 09:46:53 PM
Since when does a "Texas cowboy persona" disqualify oneself from an interest in painting or the arts? I'm sure somewhere along the republic's history, there's been evidence of a Texan painting a picture of something, somewhere? Or is southwestern aesthetics a domain solely reserved for the artsy fartsies in Santa Fe, NM?
Actually I remember GWB did like artists and did alot for them as Governor but of course when he was President the art establishment thought he was worse than...well you know. I remember a meeting of prominent US poets at the White House where they all brought poems attacking him and his policies. You can guess how many times he did that again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 07:29:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 10, 2013, 04:37:50 PM
I think we need to know which of the last dozen presidents had the best fashion sense.
Reagan's one of the only men ever able to pull off a brown suit. That deserves some respect.
One must possess the complexion and hair to properly complement a brown suit, during the right season and the right climate.
You sunless, pasty types in England just don't have it, so keep your Fifty Shades of Gray Suits and don't be hatin' on brown. :blurgh: :bowler:
Hell, his stuff is still better than anything I could slap together with finger paint. My artistic progression is still in stick-figure mode. Although I do remember to draw the whiskers on the cat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2013, 09:10:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 08:57:18 PM
It's not being a dick it's the actual problem of ethics. It normally leads to angels dancing on pinheads.
For example is it content or intention that's creating an ethical problem for papers? The British press will get their art critics to write a comment on this sort of hack, almost as standard. Is that really worse than a more po-faced paper publishing them as pictorial examples of the hack? When in fact they're publishing the same pictures and, more often than not, getting bought by people who want to have a look at the picture what's the difference?
Those are both examples of dicks being dicks.
You don't need the pictures to report the story. "Friends of Bush had their phones hacked and images of his paintings stolen."
I think Shelf just likes Celebrity type news. I agree that this is a dick move, but then I'm not into gossip type news.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 11, 2013, 09:46:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 10, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
I don't see the point in criticizing the paintings: they are better than I can do. What I think is more interesting is that it seems Bush 43 has an interest in art. It is one more piece of evidence that his Texas cowboy persona was complete bullshit. He came from a new england family, went to a new england prep school, got a degree from yale and another from harvard. And as soon as he leaves politics he moves to a big city rather than staying on his ranch. Culturally he is probably close to a carbon copy of Mitt Romney, but a better politician because he was able to cover that up.
Since when does a "Texas cowboy persona" disqualify oneself from an interest in painting or the arts? I'm sure somewhere along the republic's history, there's been evidence of a Texan painting a picture of something, somewhere? Or is southwestern aesthetics a domain solely reserved for the artsy fartsies in Santa Fe, NM?
It doesn't, but I'm guessing it isn't the most common hobby among texas cowboys. It is just one more characteristic that makes his political persona seem like BS.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2013, 09:10:03 PM
You don't need the pictures to report the story. "Friends of Bush had their phones hacked and images of his paintings stolen."
It's not a matter of need. So austere and priggish :o
Quote from: Neil on February 11, 2013, 09:07:28 PM
The public interest is distinct from whatever the public happens to be interested in.
Yep. But I think that public interest needs way, way less than a crime to justify intrusion.
QuoteI agree that this is a dick move, but then I'm not into gossip type news.
I still don't see it. Hacking the e-mails is dickish. In my view acting 'all above this' is smug and dickish. Having fun with it, isn't.
I hated w bush the president with the white hot passion of a thousand burning suns, but I didn't find this funny at all and think it definitely crossed a line.
Then I snickered a tiny bit. :blush: