Is it just me...

[Steerpike_Denver]

or do do the interlaced fingers of Bush's hands in the new "official" presidential portrait seem to form a distinct swastika?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. What's with those pockets?

[MercutioATC]

3. Maybe he's nursing.

Jesus! The intolerance here!

:)

[Vickers]

6. Bwahahahaha!!!

:rofl:

Somebody should photoshop some "leaks" on his shirt.

:thumbsup:

[Deja Q]

2. I was thinking 'cherry pie', but Rorschach had different impressions for everybody

These are two sheep and two large budgies gettin' busy with the Liberty Bell.

[MercutioATC]

5. Scary, but reading your description, I saw it immediately.

There's obviously something wrong with me...

[lunatica]

13. That's two Chuhuahuas eating a turkey n/t

[hunter]

21. Two flying republican vampire elephants feasting on nuns who secretly voted "No on Prop 8."

The nuns were kissing.

Ugh, I'm trying to think like a right wing Christian...

French kissing.

Oh No!!! For just a moment I thought Sarah Palin was hot.

Whew. Whew.

Clear my mind. Won't try that again.

Merry Christmas!

[jwirr]

4. Possibly.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Just you. nt

[Heidi]

8. NOTHING like a swastika.

His fingers aren't all running clockwise as the Nazi swastika did. However, the body language does depict a certain guardedness. In terms of composition, I'm a lot more troubled by the fact that the artist included several unnecessary background elements at the expense of the subject's feet. How weird. Don't show the ankles if you're not gonna show the feet.

[lunatica]

14. As an artist I agree with your WTF about the background

It's just stupid filler for no good reason whatsoever. Who gives a crap about a static dining room setting? What's the message? If you're going to paint everything in the background then pick a background that's either interesting or one that makes sense, like the oval office or the flag or even bookshelves if you think you can get away with using that symbolism. What the hell does a dining room say about him or anyone?

[Heidi]

15. Agree completely as an artist.

Would it have killed the artist (or the commissioning client) to add another six to eight inches to the length of the portrait to include his feet if for some mysterious reason they can't just knock out the distracting crap in the background? In other respects, I think it's an okay portrait -- not Simmie Knox or Nelson Shanks quality, but okay in terms of technical prowess with the materials.

It also looks like it was painted from primarily from photos.

[Merlot]

9. What a weird picture. I think it's full of a lot of strange symbols

Yes, indeed the fingers are weird. Since they are the closest thing in perspective, they take the whole focal point of the picture.

What is up with the background? There are two chairs, one pulled away from the table slightly as if the artist moved it to make it easier to "read" as a second chair. Had both chairs been pushed into the table the same distance, it would have been harder for the artist. Why not just take the second chair out completely?

And the vase on the table, same problem. Instead of being centered on the table, it's pushed back, and to the left.

Why is his foot cut off?

There is a disturbing mix of photo realism and painterly effects. The couch and flor are soft, but contrast that to the detail in the flowers and the fabric folds on the right sleeve. The hands are also more photographic, and next to the left knee which is more painterly, looks very jarring.

Like bushco, the picture is off balance, disturbing, and not quite right.

So, I guess it's successful.

[Taverner]

10. It looks as if the photog said "just fold your hands together in a clasp and stop figiting!"

[Steerpike_Denver]

11. It's subtle, but unmistakable, in my opinion

I just don't think artists put subliminal images like that into portraits by accident.

Maybe it was the painters own subtle jab at his subject...



edited for spelling

[Heidi]

17. Are you an artist?

If you're not, how do you know what artists do? Many, many contemporary portraitists paint from photos tendered by the commissioning party. Technically and academically, it's not good practice; a realistic portrait should be painted in large part from life in order to achieve the best result. But if you, as an artist, are offered an opportunity to paint a sitting president and offered only photographs rather than opportunities to paint and study from life, this is the sort of thing that can result.

I'm not blaming the artist at all. In fact, I'm fully in favor of artists making money; the fewer starving artists we have, the better for our culture. :hi:

[Steerpike_Denver]

22. So, only an artist can comment on art? interesting.

I always figured artists intended to communicate with everyone, not just other artists. Imagine my surprise. And imagine my chagrin at thinking there might be obscure nuggets for viewers to wonder about in something so mundane and un-artistic as a portrait. All this time I mistakenly thought all intelligent observers had the right, even the obligation, to interpret an artist's techniques, and speculate about his or her intentions. Silly me, I didn't realize a high-powered artist was incapable of injecting subtle symbolism or individuality into a work of art, if he or she is working from photographs. Obviously no artist would ever consider emphasizing or altering any part of his or her subject as a way of stimulating thought or discussion. Why, it's amazing the "art" of portrait painting has survived into the age of photography at all, considering the fact that it is merely a straightforward process of representation, as you have so graciously explained.

To answer your question, yes, I am an artist, and a fairly serious student of art history and interpretation. What a waste of an academic career and a lifelong avocation, huh? All this time, all I needed was a camera. Who knew?

[ogneopasno]

12. Nope, just you.

[question everything]

16. Nah. He is trying to appear casual. Cheers! (nt)

[bushmeister0]

18. Where's his flag pin?

And the bag of pretzels?

I recall that when he supossedly "choked" on a pretzel in 2002, he was watching the Ravens/Dolphins playoff game. (As a long suffering Dolpins fan, I have to say I wish I had choked, too)

If the Jets manage to choke this coming Sunday against the Dolphins, the Ravens will be back in the Miami for the first round of the AFC playoffs, so . . . keep hope alive for a pretzel replay!

[NMDemDist2]

19. that's not what bothers me about this pic

this is the Official Portrait.


why does he look so casual? I don't think it shows any respect for the Office he held. Although, on retrospect, that makes perfect sense.

He didn't respect the office when he held it, his portrait reflects that I guess.

[chucktaylor]

20. Yes, it is just you.

[RC]

23. You're right, I can see it now that you mention it.