|
|
Post by dradtke on Mar 2, 2015 20:57:00 GMT -5
I don't see why a rapist war criminal should deserve any different. Bush was a rapist? 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. LOL. Ya think? pps: The connection with the billionaire pedophile is just the tip of the looming iceberg. 23 is underage? You better delete your entire porn collection. |
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Mar 2, 2015 21:04:32 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. Liz Warren would never cheat at golf. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 2, 2015 21:08:14 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. Liz Warren would never cheat at golf. Do American Indians even play golf? |
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Mar 2, 2015 21:10:20 GMT -5
Liz Warren would never cheat at golf. Do American Indians even play golf? See. That was funny. And not a single nod at fertilizer. |
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Mar 2, 2015 21:17:54 GMT -5
Well, I'm assuming that Lonnie is correct in his research, so it's all mute. If not, 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. I've gotta agree with Majorminor here. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 2, 2015 22:51:39 GMT -5
The artist says that the Clintons are aware of the "Blue Dress Shadow" and its symbolism. Hmmm....
How would that be?
"Bill?"
"Yes, turtledove?
"Come look at this painting."
"Yes, lambikins."
"Do you see that shadow, the one by the fireplace?"
"The one that looks like a giraffe?"
"Yes, I mean no, I mean look again, real close... No, get back here, not that kind of close. Look at it carefully, what do you see, other than a giraffe?"
"Umm, a llama? A tower of turtles? A lamppost with monkeys?"
"No, you dummy, it is a blue dress. Plain as your big red nose that is a blue dress."
"Oh, ok, dear, it's a blue dress. Don't know why I thought it was a giraffe. So?"
"Blue Dress? Blue Dress? Who do you know that had a Blue Dress?"
"Oh my..., Angelica!"
"Not Angelica!"
"Heather? Mercedes? Doreen? Peyton? Lexus? Loressa?
"You asshole, Monica! Monica and the blue dress? There it is. That son of a bitch painter painted the shadow of blue dress for all the world to see plain as day."
I suppose it could have gone that way. If the moon is made of green cheese, and storks deliver babies, and toads cause warts, and ducks rule the planet. And if you are an idiot.
There is only one way the Clintons, or anyone else, could have become aware that there was a shadow of a blue dress in that painting and that is if the painter told them.
"Hey, Bill. You know that shadow in that portrait I painted, the one that kind of looks like a giraffe? Well, it isn't a giraffe. That is the shadow of a blue dress, and I'm going to tell everyone I know, and several I don't, that it is a shadow of a blue dress. And I will tell them that it represents Monica's blue dress, just to be sure they make the connection. And then I will tell them that it was my clever insertion of symbolism into the painting, and that the shadow symbolizes the effect, or is it affect, I can never remember, the aeffect of your presidency on this nation. And fart smellers will discuss it everywhere! Neener neener!"
"You mean it really isn't a giraffe?"
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 2, 2015 23:01:22 GMT -5
The painter is an asshole. And out of bounds. But, mainly, an asshole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Mar 2, 2015 23:08:01 GMT -5
And so, once again I agree with epaul.
|
|
|
|
Post by lar on Mar 2, 2015 23:09:06 GMT -5
 The real question is, "Was it really a blue dress?" Why this story has shown up on supposedly legitimate news shows puzzles me to no end. Marshall, you're a photographer. You know about the use of shadow and light. In all of the discussion I've heard about this no one has pointed out that the two photographs were taken under completely different lighting conditions. And the photo in which the dress appears to be white and gold is overexposed. Not much mystery there. Except for Matt Lauer and his talking head friends. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 2, 2015 23:12:35 GMT -5
23 is underage? You better delete your entire porn collection. The old "I flew repeatedly to the billionaire, convicted pedophile's private love-nest island on the billionaire, convicted pedophile's private jet, but hey! The girl was over 18!" defense. 60% of the time, it works every time. |
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 2, 2015 23:37:31 GMT -5
The entire thing is a bit bizarre. Maybe he hasn't gotten a decent commision in a while, and he's stirring up some interest.
I'm on the deceitful asshole side. And as much as I dislike Bush, I don't think it would be right to mar his portrait, either. Or any other president.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 6:05:14 GMT -5
When the death toll from Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky approaches the death toll from George W. Bush's lies about Iraq, then I'll care about Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky.
And I think we know what our friendly neighborhood wingnuts (not to mention Fox News) would say if the portrait artist commissioned to paint Bush stuck some allusion to those lies/dead American soldiers/dead civilians in the painting. We'd never hear the end of it and they'd want the artist hung for treason.
|
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Mar 3, 2015 8:12:40 GMT -5
And so, once again I agree with epaul. I have to agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Mar 3, 2015 12:22:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 3, 2015 12:28:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 3, 2015 15:36:58 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. Therein lies the rub for me. If the artist had made his artistic decision to include this for posterity and let it be known posthumously (for the artist or the subject), then it would be artistic expression that is consistent with it's place historical art. But the fact that it is revealed in a political election environment greatly cheapens the artistic intent. It makes it mean-spirited and in decidedly poor taste. The painting should be burned. Of course the Clintons won't comment on it. They will ignore any such reference. To show any emotion or concern merely gives legs to the story. But if Hillary is to run and win the election and move into the whitehouse, don't expect to ever see this portrait again. |
|
|
|
Post by frazer on Mar 3, 2015 20:40:08 GMT -5
fauxmaha is spot on about the history of royal portraiture. Goya's paintings of the Spanish royals show that he was not a fan, for example.
I don't have a problem with the inclusion of the shadow for the reason given. What's a shame is that the artist felt the need to explain it. In doing so, he tells us something about himself. Namely, that unlike Goya, his intellect does not match his artistic ability.
The shadow works perfectly well as a metaphor without us knowing what's casting it.
|
|
