Bush’s Art Is News Because Bush Was President of America
Critics must take their profession seriously: This also applies to George W. Bush’s art.
So George W. Bush is a painter. Naturally, there are others with murder to their name whom history has treated mildly because of their art: Caravaggio, Benvenuto Cellini, William S. Burroughs. Eadweard Muybridge shot his wife’s admirer. This pales in comparison when it comes to the amount of people who died under Bush’s accountability — but still.
The 24 portraits of world leaders that Bush painted will be exhibited at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas. Some photographs of Bush’s self-portraits were leaked previously, including one of him in the shower, but those will not be on display. A pity, since they seemed quite interesting from a distance.
Publishing Pressures
Distance has not appeared to prevent critics from immediately forming an opinion prior to viewing. Perhaps this can be attributed to publishing pressures: The specialist must speak out. No, of course one doesn't need to visit Dallas first; the article otherwise wouldn’t be available until the day after tomorrow. Alistair Sooke’s two-star review in the British Telegraph begins as follows: "It is notoriously hard to judge the merits of a painter without seeing his work at first-hand – unless the artist in question happens to be George W. Bush," summarizing that "… it turns out that, whether artfully or not, Bush paints in a similar fashion to the way he talks." How can he know this from reviewing an image on his computer screen?
Jonathan Jones of The Guardian refers, quite surprisingly, to "amateur clumsiness" and "lacking coherence," compares Bush to Forrest Gump and even makes his argument political — suggesting that at least statesman-slash-amateur-artist Winston Churchill deserved a friendly reception.
Is this how we form opinions today, art critics? By simply applying the most done-to-death opinion about Bush’s presidency – dumb and superficial – to his art? Haha, that silly Bush, he even paints from Google images. Really, what did you expect, that Putin came to pose for him over 33 sessions? The Süddeutsche’s review was not much subtler; Jerry Saltz panned the work on Vulture. He did not see the work in person. Can a doctor make a diagnosis without first seeing the patient?
Physical Presence
Bush’s art is news because he was the president of America. No, he has not studied at the Rijksakademie (Royal Academy of Visual Arts). So maybe his art is indeed “very bad.” But still. The fact that the portraits are not recognizable does not mean anything – who says that Bush intended it? Googling the pictures hardly matters: Marlene Dumas and Luc Tuymans do it too, and guess what, those portraits are not about what people look like, but about our views and public perception, as well as media and manipulation.
Physical presence at a work of art is a requirement for the critic. With the exception of, for example, Nico Dijkshoorn, who for his column is sent images to which he then applies his characteristic Dijkshoornian opinions, the critic must see the work in order to form an opinion. If he fails to do this, he can only half see the work. The Internet is pixels, boys. The scale, the thickness of the paint is important, and even the way in which the work is exhibited – in this case, very relevantly, beside photographs of Bush’s actual meetings with those portrayed. Of the well-known critics, only Roberta Smith of The New York Times traveled to Texas. She weighed up all the factors, and wrote: "They remind us of art’s insidious function as evidence and of its almost inevitable tendency to tell at least some of the truth, if not the whole truth."
Wieteke van Zeil is art editor for De Volkskrant.
So George W. Bush is a painter. Naturally, there are others with murder to their name whom history has treated mildly because of their art: Caravaggio, Benvenuto Cellini, William S. Burroughs. Eadweard Muybridge shot his wife’s admirer. This pales in comparison when it comes to the amount of people who died under Bush’s accountability — but still.
The 24 portraits of world leaders that Bush painted will be exhibited at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas. Some photographs of Bush’s self-portraits were leaked previously, including one of him in the shower, but those will not be on display. A pity, since they seemed quite interesting from a distance.
Publishing Pressures
Distance has not appeared to prevent critics from immediately forming an opinion prior to viewing. Perhaps this can be attributed to publishing pressures: The specialist must speak out. No, of course one doesn't need to visit Dallas first; the article otherwise wouldn’t be available until the day after tomorrow. Alistair Sooke’s two-star review in the British Telegraph begins as follows: "It is notoriously hard to judge the merits of a painter without seeing his work at first-hand – unless the artist in question happens to be George W. Bush," summarizing that "… it turns out that, whether artfully or not, Bush paints in a similar fashion to the way he talks." How can he know this from reviewing an image on his computer screen?
Jonathan Jones of The Guardian refers, quite surprisingly, to "amateur clumsiness" and "lacking coherence," compares Bush to Forrest Gump and even makes his argument political — suggesting that at least statesman-slash-amateur-artist Winston Churchill deserved a friendly reception.
Is this how we form opinions today, art critics? By simply applying the most done-to-death opinion about Bush’s presidency – dumb and superficial – to his art? Haha, that silly Bush, he even paints from Google images. Really, what did you expect, that Putin came to pose for him over 33 sessions? The Süddeutsche’s review was not much subtler; Jerry Saltz panned the work on Vulture. He did not see the work in person. Can a doctor make a diagnosis without first seeing the patient?
Physical Presence
Bush’s art is news because he was the president of America. No, he has not studied at the Rijksakademie (Royal Academy of Visual Arts). So maybe his art is indeed “very bad.” But still. The fact that the portraits are not recognizable does not mean anything – who says that Bush intended it? Googling the pictures hardly matters: Marlene Dumas and Luc Tuymans do it too, and guess what, those portraits are not about what people look like, but about our views and public perception, as well as media and manipulation.
Physical presence at a work of art is a requirement for the critic. With the exception of, for example, Nico Dijkshoorn, who for his column is sent images to which he then applies his characteristic Dijkshoornian opinions, the critic must see the work in order to form an opinion. If he fails to do this, he can only half see the work. The Internet is pixels, boys. The scale, the thickness of the paint is important, and even the way in which the work is exhibited – in this case, very relevantly, beside photographs of Bush’s actual meetings with those portrayed. Of the well-known critics, only Roberta Smith of The New York Times traveled to Texas. She weighed up all the factors, and wrote: "They remind us of art’s insidious function as evidence and of its almost inevitable tendency to tell at least some of the truth, if not the whole truth."
Wieteke van Zeil is art editor for De Volkskrant.
Previous article![]( "The Cold War Veteran Was Secretly Anti-American")
