Alice Neel

[Morley]

Great topic, Huck.

I admit that Bush’s pretense at being a painter kind of irritates me. But then, so do the self-identified painters Britney Spears, Sylvester Stallone, Hunter Biden, and Macaulay Culkin.

To identify as an artist in the visual arts, all one has to do is announce to the world that you are now, indeed a painter. It helps if you say that you’ve always wanted to paint, but you just didn’t have the time, and that now (by God!) you are free to pursue your passion and be true to your inner, creative self.

I find it amusing how the field of the visual arts seems to present such delightful opportunities for exploitation. Any affable celebrity past their prime, or anyone’s bored, obnoxious, retired uncle can watch a Bob Ross video, take private watercolor lessons, and call themselves a painter. When they do this, people will usually just shrug and take them at their word. This is because, for the most part, the general public neither cares about art, nor knows what to look for when they’re looking at art. If it’s true that anyone can be an artist, it’s even more so that every one of us is a brilliant and informed art critic. After all, it’s just painting, right? My five-year-old could do it!

But back to the topic. What is it about Bush’s painting that needles me the most? It’s not his lack of technical skill, nor his deficits in composition. It’s that he seems to be looking for post-presidency redemption. His trumped-up neocon war in the Near East helped to generate the cluster folk that we have in the region today. Now Bush paints former soldiers, the people he was responsible for maiming when he sent them into war. His limned veterans are presented as smiling, placid, recovered faces. I dunno, maybe I think a bombed out Iraqi village would be more appropriate. If I were in his place, and trying to portray the aftermath of war, I’d go for a little more Edvard Munch or Kathe Kollwitz.

[Morley]

That said, I'm happy that Bush is painting. He could be doing so much more harm in other ways.

In an art world where we reward KAWS, Schnabel, and Koons, Bush should fit right in.

[huckelberry]

That said, I'm happy that Bush is painting. He could be doing so much more harm in other ways.

In an art world where we reward KAWS, Schnabel, and Koons, Bush should fit right in.

Hi Morley , good to hear from you. Bit frustrating how celebrity gets so much attention when there is a good deal of competition in art. I had forgotten or brushed aside the fact Hunter Biden is selling painting for big prices. Checking the internet I read, USA Today, that Republicans are investigating this. His gallery owner thinks hes great but of course gallery owners are salesman.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 170330002/

Berges told USA TODAY he couldn’t comment on the committee’s request. But he said he strived to maintain the integrity of artists and the privacy of art collectors.

“I know that there’s a lot of politics involved at the moment which is a shame because his work is not only good it’s important,” Berges said. “Hunter Biden will become one of the most consequential artists in this century because the world needs his art now more than ever.”

I saw one image of a gallery installation of Hunter's work I confess I thought they look more interesting than Koons or KAWS.

I agree, the idea that the US going into Iraq with an army would generate democracies in the middle east was not well thought out.Bush painting do not touch the actual aftermath of the war. There is a large amount of visual and reported record of that aftermath. Few painters would be able to make a significant addition to that.

[Morley]

I had forgotten or brushed aside the fact Hunter Biden is selling painting for big prices. Checking the internet I read, USA Today, that Republicans are investigating this. His gallery owner thinks hes great but of course gallery owners are salesman.

Are they conducting a parallel investigation into Melania Trump's NFTs? At least with Biden, you get a canvas that can be reused.




edit: We denigrate art when (and because) there's celebrity involved, but celebrity is often part of the context of production. To some extent, it's always been so.

[Morley]

I agree, the idea that the US going into Iraq with an army would generate democracies in the middle east was not well thought out.Bush painting do not touch the actual aftermath of the war. There is a large amount of visual and reported record of that aftermath. Few painters would be able to make a significant addition to that.

I disagree. A painter might be able to tell the story in ways that a photographer or videographer would never be able to. And if it was GW who painted the images, the visceral impact could be even more significant.

You can read things in poetry that could never be conveyed in prose.

[huckelberry]

I agree, the idea that the US going into Iraq with an army would generate democracies in the middle east was not well thought out.Bush painting do not touch the actual aftermath of the war. There is a large amount of visual and reported record of that aftermath. Few painters would be able to make a significant addition to that.

I disagree. A painter might be able to tell the story in ways that a photographer or videographer would never be able to. And if it was GW who painted the images, the visceral impact could be even more significant.

You can read things in poetry that could never be conveyed in prose.

If I think of Goya I find I can believe you. I thought at first of how often paintings concerning a war start making it ideal and grand. Its a big splash. I have to rumage around a bit in my memory for exceptions. You are correct they exist and why not hope for even better.

There are civil war photographs that say a lot. It is difficult to perhaps not possible to show what really happened at Gettysburg.