Bush's Brush Gets "Personal"
Maybe it's an easy mark, but I can't resist: "The Art of Leadership: A President's Personal Diplomacy," an exhibition of George W. Bush's paintings of world leaders now on view at (where else?) the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, is a laughably terrible show.
The first thing I cringe at is the way this showcase of Bush's hobby paintings is couched in a theme of "personal diplomacy," as if these embarrassingly simplistic images were secondary (though essential) to telling the story of Bush's down-home approach to interacting with his international counterparts. The less-than-impartial Stephen Hadley (Bush's national security advisor) observed that "what’s interesting about [the paintings] is less that they’re representational
pictures of these people, because a photograph would do just fine." I agree with Mr. Hadley that photographs would do just fine, but expressionistic intent is not the reason these paintings are less than life-like representations. The real reason is painfully obvious: Bush's portraits aren't ready for prime time. He hasn't graduated from his strange shower selfies and primitive pet paintings to the challenge of conveying the complex characters of Sarkozy, Putin, Bush Sr. and the Dalai Lama. These paintings are more on par with the tortured "realism" one typically sees at a Junior High school art exhibition. But we shouldn't be surprised: hanging these pictures in public is the exhibition equivalent of the sycophantic propping-up that Bush's entourage provided throughout his administration. No one in his circle was bold enough to say that the Emperor had no clothes then, and few seem willing to be honest about Bush's lack of talent now.
Hadley's suggestion that Bush's work is sophisticated enough to encapsulate something of the soul of the world leaders portrayed has only one germ of truth: the paintings are unique likenesses simply because Bush painted them. As Bush himself observes, "the signature is worth more than the painting." It's easy to read any degree of intent into Bush's muddy portraits. His painting of Russian leader and current international super-villain Vladimir Putin has been described as "haunting," and "full of menace," but I see a sallow, grotesque mask that betrays Bush's struggle with Putin's likeness - whether out of a conflicted concept or pure lack of skill. It's hard to say, but Bush's Putin is one of the less successful portraits among an array that's mediocre at best. Putin's eyes may be haunting - like those of many of the leaders portrayed - because they have a beady, close-set quality shared with the artist and his self-portrait, included in the show. It's almost as if Bush is saying "I see these leaders through my eyes, so I've given them my eyes to stare back at you." What a brilliant stroke of self-reflexivity!
The poor quality of these paintings aside, the ultimate sin may be the title of the exhibition itself. Since the "Art of" formula first cropped up (in the 80s or earlier), it has been flogged until the dead horse is a pulverized meat by-product. In this case, it carries the unwanted connotation of raising non-art to the realm of art (e.g. The Art of the Motorcycle at the Guggenheim, 1998) - organized, exhibited, professionally lit and reviewed. Then again, maybe this is one case where that tired old trope is apt: Bush's approach to foreign policy was as two-dimensional as his paintings; the legacy of his leadership requires a great deal of creative repackaging to elevate it to diplomacy as art.
Bush is hardly the first major world figure to take up painting. Presidents Grant, Eisenhower and Carter all tried their hand at painting, as have Prince Charles and Winston Churchill (whose work inspired Bush to pick up a brush). But it's unsettling to realize that Bush's painting is being taken as the focus of his ex-presidential life. Brian Resnick observes in the National Journal that "Bush has become one of the more interesting former presidents. Jimmy Carter builds houses. Bill Clinton focuses on the developing world. But George W. Bush paints." As if Bush's amateur painting is on par with Clinton and Carter's application of presidential cache for substantial philanthropic ends. Carter, for that matter, has painted in addition to his tireless work for Habitat for Humanity and human rights initiatives through the Carter Center. Guess what Mr. Bush? You could attempt to do some real good in the wake of your dubious accomplishments in office, while you continue to develop your artistic 'talent.' But there's no indication that Bush will do anything but paint for the rest of his days, reflecting on a solipsistic, frat boy presidency through an equally solipsistic passtime.
If you've the stomach for a softball interview / walk-through of the exhibition with Bush's daughter, Jenna Bush Hager, here's the video.
 |
| Bush's portrait of Vladimir Putin. Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times |
Hadley's suggestion that Bush's work is sophisticated enough to encapsulate something of the soul of the world leaders portrayed has only one germ of truth: the paintings are unique likenesses simply because Bush painted them. As Bush himself observes, "the signature is worth more than the painting." It's easy to read any degree of intent into Bush's muddy portraits. His painting of Russian leader and current international super-villain Vladimir Putin has been described as "haunting," and "full of menace," but I see a sallow, grotesque mask that betrays Bush's struggle with Putin's likeness - whether out of a conflicted concept or pure lack of skill. It's hard to say, but Bush's Putin is one of the less successful portraits among an array that's mediocre at best. Putin's eyes may be haunting - like those of many of the leaders portrayed - because they have a beady, close-set quality shared with the artist and his self-portrait, included in the show. It's almost as if Bush is saying "I see these leaders through my eyes, so I've given them my eyes to stare back at you." What a brilliant stroke of self-reflexivity!
 |
| Bush's self-portrait. Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times |
Bush is hardly the first major world figure to take up painting. Presidents Grant, Eisenhower and Carter all tried their hand at painting, as have Prince Charles and Winston Churchill (whose work inspired Bush to pick up a brush). But it's unsettling to realize that Bush's painting is being taken as the focus of his ex-presidential life. Brian Resnick observes in the National Journal that "Bush has become one of the more interesting former presidents. Jimmy Carter builds houses. Bill Clinton focuses on the developing world. But George W. Bush paints." As if Bush's amateur painting is on par with Clinton and Carter's application of presidential cache for substantial philanthropic ends. Carter, for that matter, has painted in addition to his tireless work for Habitat for Humanity and human rights initiatives through the Carter Center. Guess what Mr. Bush? You could attempt to do some real good in the wake of your dubious accomplishments in office, while you continue to develop your artistic 'talent.' But there's no indication that Bush will do anything but paint for the rest of his days, reflecting on a solipsistic, frat boy presidency through an equally solipsistic passtime.
If you've the stomach for a softball interview / walk-through of the exhibition with Bush's daughter, Jenna Bush Hager, here's the video.
Comments
Post a Comment