Many didn't like him but frankly I think he was OK...Sure..he was a dry drunk but so are many American leaders. Nixon was too. No question about it....both were above par in foreign relations.
Obama is shite! Kissinger said Obama would "need deep guidance on any issues of significance (foreign policy and procedure)''
A President may not and cannot rely on the Secretary of State!!!!
Last edited by cgymike; April 5th, 2014 at 01:40 AM.
Well those are embarrassing.
Although I never aligned with the president on his policies, his paintings have merit. The style is decidedly flat, and evokes a bit of a feeling of paint by numbers in how colors in the faces are plateaued or layered, he does capture a significant degree of the character of each leader.
This illustrates the paint by number effect:
As a world leader, he is gutsy in allowing his work to be displayed, as it has the potential to provide fodder for his enemies as well as distract from his legacy, which he is presumably proud of. The link below is but one predictable and embittered example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...bush-paintings
I think a web site dedicated to the hobbies of great men and women would be a highly successful enterprise. People would like to see motorcycles collected or built by Jay Leno, furniture made by Jimmy Carter, etc. Hobbies remain popular.
Last edited by Dejavudoo; April 5th, 2014 at 03:37 AM.
Timed out for edits. Dammit.
His inability to accurately paint mouths has the unintentional effect of feminizing his male subjects in many cases, to wit:
But, even the masters had infamous problems painting or carving hands, etc.
Far from being embarrassing, the president has balls. He knows his abilities are amateurish and isn't afraid to put them out there, as he isn't presenting his works as any masterpieces. True to his father's famous "warts and all" comment in that interview years ago, he has the healthy self-acceptance we all should have, and want our children and friends to share.
His policies bear their own legacies, and his character should survive on its own merits as well. At least there is no suggestion that his art is some deliberate ploy to counter his political past.
Mr. Bush's foibles remind us of our own. To be sure, they won't erase the legacy of his wars or his demagoguery or outrageous benefices in tax breaks to the outrageously wealthy, but the rest of us will actually be the beneficiaries of being released from the caustic effect of harboring so much dehumanizing hatred for the politician and the leader.
Of course, there will remain countless men who choose to maintain that bitterness, and in so doing, be diminished by it.
Last edited by Dejavudoo; April 5th, 2014 at 03:51 AM.
He can certainly paint better than I ever could, at best he is an amateur painter just as he was an amateur President, a sophomoric person who got to where he was at by virtue of his last name, sadly this is common in America.
It should not be overlooked that for many people dealing with their personal demons (a recovering alcoholic in this case) painting is therapeutic...with Winston Churchill coping with his chronic depression by painting, and writing....George W. has clearly expressed his impression of various world leaders through portraits that speak to his face, to face experiences......personal impressions are just that...not masterpieces calculated to attract praise for their artistic merit.
At least we go through the sham of pretending to elect the oligarchs who front for corporations and dynasties, rather than accept an overt peerage.
I hold our nation to a higher standard than others, in school we heard countless stories of how the little guy could succeed if he would just try. I still believe in that, success though is a term that changes with the person. To me success means that I am content with simple life style, I don't care about being wealthy or having a "Mc Mansion", I love living in my paid for mobile home and owing no man nothing.
To others success means money and power, kind of sad, if you ask me, those that have these things are so afraid of losing their hold on them that they have tried to put a low ceiling on how far those who were born into a meager existence can go.
It is tragic that we see "leaders" in all nations pop up by virtue of heritage rather than ability, sham is indeed a good word for politics in our nation.
Oh, I didn't mean the highest elected office, just politicians in general.
But, the House of Lords is what it is.
Notably, the only region in America that worships blue blood is New England.
Last edited by Dejavudoo; April 5th, 2014 at 05:22 AM.
Few of the members who sit in the House of Lords are actually hereditary peers, most are appointed as life peers the result of their services to the community, or as former members of the House of Commons who bring the wealth of their experience to bear without being unduly restricted by political allegiances....
Effective political power in the United Kingdom is a matter for the House of Commons where all members are elected by the people....which is why Winston Churchill refused the offer of a earldom, fearing he would lose real influence having to vacate The Commons.
I knew that about Churchill, but not of the watered down influence of the hereditary peers.
Any data on what percentage are hereditary?
Last edited by kallipolis; April 5th, 2014 at 06:10 AM.
If W wants to live out his days painting that's fine by me. I actually like his animal portraits.
Politics aside, I think he chooses his background colours well to contrast with the subject in the portraits. If I didn't know he was the POTUS at one time, then, as a painter, I think though there is a child like charm to them, he does actually capture some essence of the subject he's painting. Who else have met so many leaders and painted their portraits? That would be very few on this planet of so many billions of folks. Overall, I think it's a winner this painting as a hobby business.
legal gangastas ans con folkys etc so on thereepy excericses
_ hands a qucik which a pick pens a make alls atrick -
Like his 8 years of president he has no taste for art.
I am loathed to give the man a compliment but I do have to admit that I like his paintings.
There are some people like Emily Dickinson who nurture their genius in private because they actually care about their art.
I would contrast her with Mr. Bush who seems in a rush to publicize his little hobby. Perhaps he's lost any reasonable kind of judgement, being used to flattery and privilege.
These amateurish efforts ought to have been pursued as a strictly private affair. Without the oddity of their origin, they wouldn't find much welcome outside the walls of a shabby coffee shop.
“Why is it that we rejoice at a birth and grieve at a funeral? It is because we are not the person involved.” ~ Mark Twain
is nose a new area a art thang
Total crap, tbaft.
Wow, not only is he a fucking moron he also can't paint for shit.
Politics are politics, and grudges last accordingly, but there is no question that his animal portraits, even stripped of celebrity attribution, would be commercially viable.
His cat painting posted above could easily be a poster, a greeting card, or other commercial art.
And, has been noted, he captures the spirit of his world leader subjects, if not perfect likenesses.
From an unsurprisingly complimentary Dallas article:
It is a very good assessment and I was surprised to find virtually my own thoughts in the excerpt above.Mr. Bush has an uncanny ability to translate photographs into more awkward images enlivened by distortions and slightly ham-handed brushwork. His skill may be disconcerting for people who love painting and dislike the former president, but still, everyone needs to get a grip, especially those in the art world who dismiss the paintings without even seeing them.
If Mr. Bush’s portrait of Mr. Putin were an anonymous find in a thrift shop, most of us would happily snap it up. That these works are by Mr. Bush makes them more complicated, and useful as another lens with which to examine the personality and legacy of a man who may remain the greatest known unknown of his own presidency. They mostly confirm the version of Mr. Bush we are familiar with: a man who is extremely comfortable in his own skin, who is seemingly open and charming but also closed and opaque. And don’t forget slyly self-deprecating.
For anyone relishing the easy pickings of the former president's amateurish accomplishment, I challenge you to execute as competent a self-portrait as Bush's.
GWB's paintings: Google images as art:
I guess he did learn to use The Google. And Wikipedia.George Bush's paintings bear uncanny resemblance ... to Google images
Art critics point out that 30 portraits of world leaders appear to have been based on photos thrown up by search engine
Rather than have his subjects sit for him or use printed photographs, Bush seems to have based his portraits on the first picture thrown up by the search engine.
That George W. has refreshed his memory, with Google sourced images of the world leaders does not change the fact that the portraits he has exhibited are his workmanship......
Using a photograph of my late partner I commissioned a local artist to paint his portrait ...the result impressed me...
^the brush is mightier than the sword
maye he a job parkins metar folk ans pants locals wildlife ans save world
Some of them aren't all that bad. The one of John Howard makes him look like he's got his cheeks filled with acorns for the winter though
Honestly, I can't paint for shit, and these are better than I could produce. There's a certain something about them. I don't know what it is.
Not good by any standards I adhere to, but better then I expected, and way better then I would ever do...