George W. Bush Paintings.

[Esmeralda]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder." That's not necessarily true. It's a platitude. The idea that there are no specific qualities that make something art is a myth.

Artists don't think that anyone who makes money being an artist is a sell out. They also don't believe that the final test of whether somethng is good art or not is if it does make money. It is not that simple. But certainly, the fact that something doesn't make money or that it is not valued by the multitudes, that does not mean it isn't art. As well, because something makes a lot of money and is valued by the multitudes, that doesn't mean it is good art. If someone buys a Bush painting, it won't be because it is quality art. It will be because of who painted it.

 

[hjmick]

I guess if it's not scat on a portrait of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix in a jar of urine, or the homoerotic photography of Robert Mapplethorpe, it's not art...

Those things are not art either. Those things are efforts to garner attention and make money, and they emphasize why good art does not equal money: crap art often sells for various reasons, shock value is one. Many so called artists today get attention and money via shock instead of talent.

My point is, like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't particularly care for Bush's works, but some folks do. Some because of who he is, and some because they see the art.

Smarter people than you and I have said he has talent, that the portraits show this. Whatever, I'll not be buying the stuff... I'm betting you won't either. I won't be buying it because I don't like it...

 

[Meathead]

They look like caricatures.

caricatures

No, caricatures take real talent. Seriously. The shrub's paintings are clumsy and heavy handed, very amateurish. If he were not the ex-prez, we would never see them, never know about them.

The terrible tragedy is that his name is Bush and bin Laden's money bought him the presidency. If he had just churned out his childish paintings, he would not now be a war criminal and the shame of our country.

Except, no, these aren't "amateurish".

The first time I heard about Bush painting was something he did of himself in the shower.

I wanted to have a laugh and had a look at it.

And it showed remarkable talent.

I'll agree as a president Bush was terrible. But not everything he did as President was terrible.

He saved a great deal of people in Africa from AIDS.

He deployed the US military on life saving missions in Iran and Thailand.

He was the most colorblind President in history.

He created an underwater sanctuary near Hawaii.

He got the Israelis to give up Gaza.

He was the author of the Road to citizenship and cap and trade.

On the whole, I view the guy as a good person that got into the wrong crowd and made some very bad decisions.

Who are you and what have you done with Swallow?!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Absolutely not. That is not true. People who know nothing about true artistic value might think so, but it is not true at all.

You need a pin in your bubble. Art is about commerce. If you can't sell your shit, you are a worthless artist. Rent a storage space. Decorate that.

Real art has nothing to do with money. Money does not equal artistic quality. Think of the many great artists who were not even recognized as great artists until after their deaths. Making a lot of money does not mean one is a great artist anymore than making a lot of money means one is a great man, a great person. Money is not the test of quality in any area. Take actors or writers. Those who are the real artists are generally not those who are making the most money. A box office draw may get a huge salary per picture, but he/she is not generally the best actor. A book that tops the bestseller list may make a lot of money, but is generally, in literary terms, not a very good book, usually junk, in fact.

They were not recognized because they lived in a time when it took a day to travel 20 miles, and the people who appreciated art didn't always hear about an obscure fellow sitting in a bar. You can pretend it still works that way if you want, and that you are being true to your art, but, in a time when I can travel around the world in less than a second, if your art isn't making money it isn't any good.

 

[Katzndogz]

The man likes to paint so what you either like them or you don't.

This is the real point: he has a hobby. Bush is not trying to be an artist, therefore critical review of his paintings (good or bad) is meaningless.

That's what losers say when they don't get an artistic award.

 

[G.T.]

Theyre half decent. Wouldnt call them special in terms of quality, except a world famous leader painting them certainly adds value.

Painting photo realism is very difficult. Id call his a b minus roughly if we're critiquing.

 

[Esmeralda]

I guess if it's not scat on a portrait of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix in a jar of urine, or the homoerotic photography of Robert Mapplethorpe, it's not art...

Those things are not art either. Those things are efforts to garner attention and make money, and they emphasize why good art does not equal money: crap art often sells for various reasons, shock value is one. Many so called artists today get attention and money via shock instead of talent.

My point is, like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't particularly care for Bush's works, but some folks do. Some because of who he is, and some because they see the art.

Smarter people than you and I have said he has talent, that the portraits show this. Whatever, I'll not be buying the stuff... I'm betting you won't either. I won't be buying it because I don't like it...

Just because someone holds himself up as an art critic, that doesn't mean his opinion is to be valued. There will be other critics who disagree with him. I agree, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a cultural thing. But it does not apply to art. There are specifics, there are parameters that define good art. Whether anyone wants to accept that or not, it's true. Anyone, teachers or whatever, who has been telling people it doesnt' matter and anything can be art if each individual says it is, these people have been doing you a diservice. It simply isn't true. There may be art you like and I don't: music is a good example. Though you don't like something I like, it doesn't mean the music is good or bad art based on personal response to it. What makes it art are certain values that good art holds. For example, last week I was in a car in traffic with someone from the culture where I live. A car next to us had their music up blaring. It was Miles Davis. She hated it. She began to rail at how awful it was. Well, I'd do the same with some of the music from her culture. However, neither one is good or bad art, but they are art because of artistic values that override culture or personal response. It isn't just in the eye of the beholder.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

WHO can deny the TALENT behind the art in this painting?

I was sold at shirt collar.

Although, I have to admit

it doesn't look all that much like Merkel and Putin.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Good for George! Well done.

You're a moron.

 

[Katzndogz]

George W. Bush was an excellent president. Far and above better than the poseur we have in the white house today. He has shown himself to be quite a good artist too. Liberals can deny it all they want. Bush's success can't be changed any more than obama's failures.

 

[Meathead]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder." That's not necessarily true. It's a platitude. The idea that there are no specific qualities that make something art is a myth.

Artists don't think that anyone who makes money being an artist is a sell out. They also don't believe that the final test of whether somethng is good art or not is if it does make money. It is not that simple. But certainly, the fact that something doesn't make money or that it is not valued by the multitudes, that does not mean it isn't art. As well, because something makes a lot of money and is valued by the multitudes, that doesn't mean it is good art. If someone buys a Bush painting, it won't be because it is quality art. It will be because of who painted it.

Stop with the dingbat platitudes ffs.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Hm.

That could cause damage to the cornea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Absolutely not. That is not true. People who know nothing about true artistic value might think so, but it is not true at all.

You need a pin in your bubble. Art is about commerce. If you can't sell your shit, you are a worthless artist. Rent a storage space. Decorate that.

Van Gogh sold one painting during his lifetime - to his brother.

And you're an idiot.

Van Gogh was a disagreeable man who lacked personal hygiene. On top of that, he painted in a style, Post Impressionism, that he basically invented. Given the fact that the artsy fartsy folk during his life didn't like Impressionism, it is little surprise that his work was less than popular. Despite that, he was actually gaining traction among critics before his death. Just because he is portrayed as a starving artist in popular culture does not mean that he was actually starving.

By the way, the painting was not sold to his brother.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, and one more thing.

Three cheers for Sallow.

He clearly is no fan of W. But that didn't deter him from making a thoughtful and even appreciative comment about W that was outside the realm of politics. Simple objectivity.

It's a good thing.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Art is definitely not in they eye of the beholder. Some art is total crap. Some homo could urinate on canvass and sign it with fecal matter and some you hipsters would think it was cool. Another tool in the commie take over of this country was the concept of abstract art, lewd, art, etc.

 

[JimH52]

Great job! He made Putin look like a Thug...wait....he is a Thug.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Absolutely not. That is not true. People who know nothing about true artistic value might think so, but it is not true at all.

You need a pin in your bubble. Art is about commerce. If you can't sell your shit, you are a worthless artist. Rent a storage space. Decorate that.

Art = Money
So if an artist dies a pauper, he's a failure? What if a few years later his art is discovered and the stuff really sells. Is he now no longer a failure? Art is not about money, although money's nice to have.

Then that proves his art has commercial value, even if he didn't live to see it.

On the other hand, if your argument that good art transcends commercialism were actually true, museums would be full of art that is great that no one would ever buy. Can you show me any examples of that?

Didn't think so.

 

[Katzndogz]

You need a pin in your bubble. Art is about commerce. If you can't sell your shit, you are a worthless artist. Rent a storage space. Decorate that.

Art = Money
So if an artist dies a pauper, he's a failure? What if a few years later his art is discovered and the stuff really sells. Is he now no longer a failure? Art is not about money, although money's nice to have.

Then that proves his art has commercial value, even if he didn't live to see it.

On the other hand, if your argument that good art transcends commercialism were actually true, museums would be full of art that is great that no one would ever buy. Can you show me any examples of that?

Didn't think so.

Well, there's this

The Museum Of Bad Art (MOBA)

 

[Connery]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder." That's not necessarily true. It's a platitude. The idea that there are no specific qualities that make something art is a myth.

Artists don't think that anyone who makes money being an artist is a sell out. They also don't believe that the final test of whether somethng is good art or not is if it does make money. It is not that simple. But certainly, the fact that something doesn't make money or that it is not valued by the multitudes, that does not mean it isn't art. As well, because something makes a lot of money and is valued by the multitudes, that doesn't mean it is good art. If someone buys a Bush painting, it won't be because it is quality art. It will be because of who painted it.

The specific qualities of what is "art" are assigned by a human being(s) whose eye is beholding that which they may deem as art. I may or may not agree, it surely is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[dannyboys]

They look like caricatures.

caricatures

Here's the fun thing, deany.

You can't separate your hatred of the man for his talent.

These aren't 'caricatures'.

This is expressionism.

Expressionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a very talented artist.

They are certainly not Expressionism.

He's an ordinary man of ordinary talents who should never have been a world leader: he was completely incompetent. Now he is an ordinary retired man who likes to paint. Nothing wrong with that, but his his talent is very ordinary too. They are nothing more than any other average retired person might paint, and about a step or two above paint by number.

You mean like Obama right? He never had any experience running anything but his mouth. He was elected solely based on the color of his skin by people who had the same skin color and 'White Guilt' soccer moms who make a special point of NEVER driving within five miles of any 'inner city'.
He has proved himself to be totally incompetent and a joke on the world stage. The best part is HE knows it. He's been a 'poser' all his life and a closet gay.
Here's a little gem for all you fucking stuuuuupid LIB boys who pee sitting down when ever you want to run your mouth about who said what before the Iraq war: