If only because TBogg is busy, I feel slightly obligated to note today’s epically weird revelation that, thanks (or not) to a phone hacker who broke into various family email accounts, a handful of paintings by ex-president George W. Bush have been posted online.
It’s easy to snicker at the quality of private (and perhaps unfinished) works by a thoroughly and deservedly unpopular politician. And anyone could be excused for marveling at the potential Freudian complexity of a formerly powerful and famous man sending his sister paintings of himself in the shower and bathtub.
But there’s also something fascinatingly unguarded in those choices, especially for a man who was a cipher in so many ways when he occupied the White House. Notoriously unreflective in office — and in his autobiography – now we see Bush pondering himself in solitude, and sharing the results with close family members. (Note to my siblings: Don’t ever do this to me!)
As Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan notes for Co.Design, there’s something particularly striking about the one that
… shows us Bush’s back as he faces the shower, while a reflection of his face stares from a hanging shower mirror. It’s a startling effect… Bush is using the mirror to point out his presence and reject the gaze of the viewer at the same time.
It’s also noteworthy that, as Jerry Saltz points out, Bush’s paintings “show someone doing the best he can with almost no natural gifts — except the desire to do this.” Like David Bowie recording a new album after several years of apparent retirement, there’s no motivation for Dubya’s artworks aside from the fact that he really, really wanted to create them. (Indeed, Dubya’s depiction of the late Barney captures some of the same brooding quality as Bowie’s portrait of Iggy Pop.) And that sincerity, so absent in his public life, deserves some respect.
I’ll take them over former Iraq-occupation viceroy Paul Bremer’s paintings any day.




25 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Well, that’s something I can never unsee….
Could not have put it better myself. Now, let us never speak of this again.
Wow… Uncanny. The Bowie/Bush comparison reminded me of meeting George W. during the intermission when Bowie did “Elephant Man” on Broadway back in 1980. We were both (along with everybody else there) totally blown away by Bowie’s performance – done entirely without make-up.
I thought I saw him later during the Glass Spider Tour, but I can’t be sure.
In this instance, I am glad he quit his day job to pursue something he has very little natural talent for. His instincts are improving, anyway.
Is there anything Dubya does have a natural talent for? Making brown people dead, I suppose….
*heh* Clearing Shrub, possibly…! ;-)
Knee jerk reaction:
“Hitler Painted Flowers”
Apologies to Ellison, Godwin, and the anyone else concerned.
That’s an awesome anecdote. And cheers to you for your fine work; I’m a longtime fan.
How long before he cuts off his ear?
Heh! If you hadn’t posted that, I would have.
Actually, they’re really not too bad, considering everything; I wonder what long-repressed part of his inner self got him to take up a brush?
Not soon enough…! ;-)
To pivot off what Casey Campbell-Dollaghan said, Baby Bush’s painting takes the opposite tack from Velaszquez’s “Las Meninas,” in which viewers of the artwork appear in the painting (as the King and Queen of Spain, no less!) and stare out of it, bringing the viewer into communion with the other subjects of the painting; here, the subject turns his back on the viewer (“Who cares what you think?” as Bush told someone at one of his rallies) while sneakily staring at (spying on?) him (or her).
The main difference between Velasquez and Bush, of course, is that the latter has no talent and is a mass murderer.
Be careful what you say about artists. You know what happened before.
His modest talents are displayed in all fields of human endeavor. sidebar. Does anyone have any qualms whatsoever that his ‘privacy’ was ‘invaded’ by the hackers? I for one do not under the Golden Rule.
in my opion, nope
sorry, there are tons of interpretations for just about everything, that one is reading far too deep, far deeper the bush can even consider reasoning, and no, it’s not his subconsciousness taking over
here’s what’s really going on in that painting;
*I want to paint my back but I can’t see my back so I will use two mirrors and foil the fact that I do not have an eye in the back of my head*
THAT is the depth of bush’s reasoning in that self portrait
I forget the exact quote or who said it but it goes something like “when I wrote my poem only me and god knew what it was about, now only god knows”
I do , I am no fan of bush, everyone knows that, but these are his private thoughts that have nothing to do with his public life or politics, it’s hackers like this that will destroy hactifivism
to play devils advocate though, it was bush who championed the very idea that anyone anywhere can be spied upon with no oversight
live by the sword and all that
Barney’s painting.
Did Shrub sign it, “43″?
Really? What does that say about the psychopath?
You know who else liked to paint? Hitler.
On a more serious note, both of Bush’s self-portraits show him cleansing himself (in the shower and in the tub). I suspect this is an expression of a need to cleanse a guilty conscience.
And THAT is why he so richly deserved the invasion.
I don’t think “Golden Rule” means what you think it means.
So it’s true! The Chimperor has no clothes!
HAR!
Sociopaths don’t have guilty consciences.
edit
This guy?
Yes. Art is in the eye of the beholder. The one of Barney is good. I wouldn’t pay money for it, but …
That said, he painted a picture of himself naked, and sent it to his sister? Huh? A self portrait is one thing, but naked? To his sister? He has issues