|
|
Post by majorminor on Mar 2, 2015 14:51:12 GMT -5
Assuming this was to be a formal "presidentish" event I think it's a shit weasel thing to do: www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/portrait-artist-says-he-painted-lewinsky-reference-in-bill-clinton%E2%80%99s-official-painting/ar-BBi9uxiPortrait artist says he painted Lewinsky reference in Bill Clinton’s official painting  A cursory glance at the official painting of President Bill Clinton that hangs in the National Portrait Gallery would easily miss an ode to the lowest point of his presidency — Monica Lewinsky. But it’s there, the artist revealed in an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News. Philadelphia area painter Nelson Shanks cunningly included a shadow over the fireplace cast from a blue dress on a mannequin. Shanks said painting Clinton was his hardest assignment because “he is probably the most famous liar of all time.” So he added the nod to the Lewinsky scandal because it had cast a shadow over Clinton’s presidency. “He and his administration did some very good things, of course,” Shanks said, “but I could never get this Monica thing completely out of my mind, and it is subtly incorporated in the painting.” He told the Daily News: If you look at the left-hand side of it there’s a mantle in the Oval Office and I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things. It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him. Shanks did not reveal this nine years ago when the portrait was unveiled. But perhaps now we could read between the lines of what he did say. “I think the painting really feels like Bill Clinton,” he said then, according to The Washington Post. “It has — I would not call it swagger. . . . What? An informality? A looseness, a relaxed nature.” Shanks alluded in the interview with the Daily News that Bill and Hillary Clinton are aware of the symbolism in the painting. “And so the Clintons hate the portrait,” he said. A Clinton spokesman refused to comment. |
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 2, 2015 15:27:19 GMT -5
Compared to the feculent thing Clinton did, I don't think it's that big a deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 2, 2015 15:28:16 GMT -5
I guess the artist can forget about any endorsements from the Clintons on LinkedIn.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 2, 2015 15:43:25 GMT -5
I think it's great. Couldn't happen to a more deserving lying, feculent crud-weasel.
|
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Mar 2, 2015 15:48:53 GMT -5
Hmmmm. No Clinton lover I, but apparently I'm going to be in the conservative minority on this one. My feeling is this artist was hired(and I'm assuming paid) as a professional to do a very serious and prestigious thing. It's deceit plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 2, 2015 15:57:03 GMT -5
I think it will play well in history (to the extent that matters). He found a way of fulfilling and exceeding his contract at the same time. He made the work an even better, more meaningful one in a way that didn't detract from the portrait itself, but rather, said something about the Clinton presidency in an artful way. Without knowing the story, one would never know what that shadow is. But the scandal did cast a shadow over his presidency. One of only two presidents in our history to be impeached. I think something symbolic for such a thing is appropriate.
Maybe the guy will paint Wolfowitz's shadow over Bush if he gets that contract too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Mar 2, 2015 16:02:35 GMT -5
Looked some stuff up. The Clinton that hangs in the National Portrait Gallery is by Chuck Close. On their website, the enlarged view is unavailable. Whether or not it used to be the Shank portrait and they replaced it after the revelation is not mentioned.
As for how I feel about it, if we want to reduce presidential portraits to the level of political cartoons, then it's great. Maybe someone could brush a can of Billy Beer into Carter's hand, a swimming pig for Kennedy, a few dead Iraqis and phantom WMDs for Bush... ya know, level the playing field.
|
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Mar 2, 2015 16:07:05 GMT -5
I think it will play well in history (to the extent that matters). He found a way of fulfilling and exceeding his contract at the same time. He made the work an even better, more meaningful one in a way that didn't detract from the portrait itself, but rather, said something about the Clinton presidency in an artful way. Without knowing the story, one would never know what that shadow is. But the scandal did cast a shadow over his presidency. One of only two presidents in our history to be impeached. I think something symbolic for such a thing is appropriate. Maybe the guy will paint Wolfowitz's shadow over Bush if he gets that contract too. But John, you keep pointing out that he was impeached over perjury, not sex. So get the damn blue dress imagery out of there and put in something related to perjury. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 2, 2015 16:09:44 GMT -5
I think it will play well in history (to the extent that matters). He found a way of fulfilling and exceeding his contract at the same time. He made the work an even better, more meaningful one in a way that didn't detract from the portrait itself, but rather, said something about the Clinton presidency in an artful way. Without knowing the story, one would never know what that shadow is. But the scandal did cast a shadow over his presidency. One of only two presidents in our history to be impeached. I think something symbolic for such a thing is appropriate. Maybe the guy will paint Wolfowitz's shadow over Bush if he gets that contract too. But John, you keep pointing out that he was impeached over perjury, not sex. So get the damn blue dress imagery out of there and put in something related to perjury. Like what? Make his nose 3 feet long? |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 2, 2015 16:24:31 GMT -5
it was related to the perjury. It was the material proof that he lied to the grand jury.
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 2, 2015 16:30:19 GMT -5
All well within the "portraits of great people" tradition going back hundreds and hundreds of years.
Any student of art history will tell you that the countless European royal portraits throughout history are choc-a-block with this sort of thing.
I don't see why a rapist war criminal should deserve any different.
ps: I think the portraitist did his thing with brilliant artistic subtlety, but I do think that now is a curious time for him to come forward. The timing looks too obviously political, with the Hillary candidacy on the near horizon.
pps: It is already clear that there is going to be an awful lot of discussion of (Bill) Clinton's appetites over the coming year and a half. This portrait kerfuffle is the least of it. The connection with the billionaire pedophile is just the tip of the looming iceberg.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 2, 2015 16:56:04 GMT -5
I think it would be entirely appropriate if similarly artfully done to "shadow" an event or issue that loomed over a presidency. If an artist found a similarly symbolic way to shadow Reagan with Iran Contra, or as I already said, Bush with some sort of neo-con symbology.
I'd more than half expect it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 2, 2015 18:21:15 GMT -5
Hmmmm. No Clinton lover I, but apparently I'm going to be in the conservative minority on this one. My feeling is this artist was hired(and I'm assuming paid) as a professional to do a very serious and prestigious thing. It's deceit plain and simple. Artist have been doing that for some time. Think of Woody getting paid to promote the Bonneville Powers dams on the Columbia. From that came Roll On Columbia and other non complimentary songs. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 2, 2015 19:09:56 GMT -5
Hmmmm. No Clinton lover I, but apparently I'm going to be in the conservative minority on this one. My feeling is this artist was hired(and I'm assuming paid) as a professional to do a very serious and prestigious thing. It's deceit plain and simple. Yup. All well within the "portraits of great people" tradition going back hundreds and hundreds of years. Any student of art history will tell you that the countless European royal portraits throughout history are choc-a-block with this sort of thing. I don't see why a rapist war criminal should deserve any different. ps: I think the portraitist did his thing with brilliant artistic subtlety, but I do think that now is a curious time for him to come forward. The timing looks too obviously political, with the Hillary candidacy on the near horizon. pps: It is already clear that there is going to be an awful lot of discussion of (Bill) Clinton's appetites over the coming year and a half. This portrait kerfuffle is the least of it. The connection with the billionaire pedophile is just the tip of the looming iceberg. Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 2, 2015 19:15:41 GMT -5
I'm looking at the painting right now. I don't see a blue dress. I see a bunch of shadows that could be from anything, but none of them look like a blue dress. Who sees a shadow from a blue dress in that painting? How the hell do you know it is blue or is a dress? Who will ever look at that painting and see a shadow from a blue dress unless they read this article and were told and really wanted to see it. So what's that amount to? (hint, nothing)
Symbolism. How about the shadow from the urn? We can tell that it is a shadow from an urn because we can see the urn and the shadow is right next to it. The urn is many colors, the shadow is only one color. That symbolizes that in shadow colors become lost like little sheep in a woods that has no sunlight, just wolves with paint brushes determined to paint dinner plates on the sheep in order to foreshadow the fate of being a lost sheep in a woods with wolves, with paint brushes.
Or, so says the artist.
Never listen to the artist.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 2, 2015 19:18:23 GMT -5
The more I look at that shadow, the more it is starting to look like a giraffe. What the fuck is the symbolism in that? I need a book of symbols.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 2, 2015 19:30:28 GMT -5
The more I look at that shadow, the more it is starting to look like a giraffe. What the fuck is the symbolism in that? I need a book of symbols. The symbolism is that Clinton would probably fuck a giraffe. |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 2, 2015 19:56:53 GMT -5
Out of bounds
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 2, 2015 20:26:33 GMT -5
 The real question is, "Was it really a blue dress?" |
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 2, 2015 20:55:08 GMT -5
If you want to know something about what makes a guy tick play eighteen holes of golf with him.
Googling Bill Clinton, Golf, and cheating is interesting.
Just to keep it bipartisan do the same for Richard Nixon.
|
|
