Posts: 25,452
Threads: 2,519
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Oh hello!
Is everyone in a foul mood today? I'm not! Hope your day gets better.
Anyway, no, this is not standard operating procedure for original portraiture.
This is not somebody's garage hobby, these paintings are on exhibit at a Presidential Library and supposedly reflect personal impressions of the people from the perspective of the POTUS, not something anybody could paint by number off the internet.
I found it humorous but of course if you did not, thanks for sharing.
Posts: 6,663
Threads: 424
Joined: Oct 2023
Oh hello!
Is everyone in a foul mood today? I'm not! Hope your day gets better.
Disagreeing with you = foul mood. I get it!
(I'm having a lovely day, by the way. Thanks for asking!)
Posts: 25,452
Threads: 2,519
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Uncle Wig wrote:
Oh hello!
Is everyone in a foul mood today? I'm not! Hope your day gets better.
Disagreeing with you = foul mood. I get it!
(I'm having a lovely day, by the way. Thanks for asking!)
yeah that's it, of course!
There's hardly anything that can't be made into a prickly negative personal attack! it's so awsome!!
glad your day is going well
Posts: 1,412
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2017
Sounds like W is making progress from needing someone to program his iPod.
Posts: 39,657
Threads: 10,325
Joined: Jun 2025
Reputation:
4
Churchill famously used painting as a relief from depression...Bush's paintings mainly cause it.
Posts: 25,452
Threads: 2,519
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
[quote=Ombligo]
[quote=mattkime]
eh, its a legit way of working.
No it is not - it is simply plagiarism. (bad plagiarism at that)
ug, nope, copying is legit in the art world for a variety of reasons. there are limits on it but they're far more liberal than most people would assume.
the general rule is - do you want to copy something? go ahead!
THIS
In amateur and student painting (and drawing) this is a centuries old practice. Even before photography students would set up their easels in museums and (attempt to) copy a masterwork.
You can encounter this practice in galleries and museums to this day.
The practice can teach a great deal about medium application and technique, proportion, and composition among other skills.
The interesting thing is not that he copied from a photo, which of course is common. It is WHAT photo he copied from. That is the interesting thing.
Sorry I caused so much confusion over something I simply found amusing.
Posts: 7,749
Threads: 397
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Lemon Drop wrote:
Oh hello!
Is everyone in a foul mood today? I'm not! Hope your day gets better.
Anyway, no, this is not standard operating procedure for original portraiture.
This is not somebody's garage hobby, these paintings are on exhibit at a Presidential Library and supposedly reflect personal impressions of the people from the perspective of the POTUS, not something anybody could paint by number off the internet.
I found it humorous but of course if you did not, thanks for sharing.
I would say that the following artists would negate your statement. I don't consider them to be paint-by-number garage hobbyists. Picasso, Degas, Chuck Close and Frida Kahlo worked from photographs to paint portraits. Artists term the photos reference photos.
We had our daughter painted by a fairly well known artist, he also used two photos that we gave him as reference photos and the paining turned out wonderful.
Besides, what does it matter what Bush wants in his library? He was President of the United States, if he wants his childhood scribbles hung in the library, who are we to say no? I agree with the above statement, out of all the things to worry about and debate, this is certainly way at the bottom.
Posts: 25,452
Threads: 2,519
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Wow- what an exercise in futility on my part.
There is nothing wrong with copying a photo. It's what portrait artists normally do. It's certainly what I would expect Bush to do in this case, he's not sitting live with these people. But portrait artists are usually trying to create something interesting therefore the photo they choose to copy is important.
It's WHAT photo he used that is interesting and that undermines how he has projected the value of these portraits. He used the wiki photos for his subjects, which are usually the first images that appear in google searches of these people.
This is a man who has access to private, unpublished photos by White House photographers of many, if not all, of these subjects. Surely there are more interesting perspectives, that he could have shared, than the ones on wikipedia. Perhaps he has private photos of his own from his actual visits and meetings with these people?
that's the point of the article, that's the point of the OP
a point that was completely lost in pretty much every comment except the hilarious one by Steve G so thank you Steve for that!
Posts: 25,452
Threads: 2,519
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Posts: 46,542
Threads: 2,629
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
I don't think that copying from a photo would preclude an artist from adding "insight" to the portrait. I also don't think that Bush is artist enough to do so. But as a former President, he is going to enjoy perks such as exhibits and interviews on national television conducted by his daughter. Personally, I am kind of fascinated with his paintings, they are so bad: he's kind of a reverse Hitler, as it were, if I may be so bold as to Godwinize the thread.
|
