I read that he only started painting in 2012. That's amazing. The Dalai Lama is nice...but I don't get the sense that Bush had much insight into him. The one of his father is just inexplicable; it doesn't even look like him, and there's no sense whatsoever of the personality that I can see. The Putin portrait is apparently Bush's favorite. It's certainly scary, but I'm not sure what it's saying about Putin. My favorite is the Blair; that man is haunted, not a happy fella.
The Bush we love to hate shows up pretty clearly in the self-portrait... Yes, I know what you mean. He's one of those people that make me grind my teeth in anger. It's a surprise that he has any interests other than playing golf. But he has got a way of catching people - sometimes - his one of the Dalai Lama is well jolly. Hitler's stuff gets pooh-poohed but I like it, seems quite subtle to me and I like that type of European scenery anyway. But people are way harder to paint. The Putin one scares me, I hope that isn't an accurate insight.... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : IMO, if he were to take lessons in painting technique, it might kill what talent he has. The portraits, at least, are to my eye very "right-brained"; he has just enough technique to be able to do a recognizable likeness and get his very vivid sense of the personality on the canvas. If he had to think too much about what he was doing, it could get in the way of that process. Maybe if he'd started studying when he was much younger it would have become second nature by now. I'm startled, frankly, that he has as much insight into people as the portraits reveal. There's a lot more in them than in anything Hitler ever painted, as far as I'm concerned. If I had more money than I knew what to do with, I might buy a portrait or two if they were for sale and the price was reasonable (thousands, not millions). I'm surprised at myself that I find them so appealing, because I REALLY hate Bush! I'd like to know how much they would go for. Not sure how much of a draw his name would be even as the work isn't that good. Hitler's watercolour daubings would probably sell for a lot even though they aren't anything special. I suppose it's what history thinks of the celeb doing the work. Dubya needs training too much and that's obvious, so they won't be going for the sort of stupid prices a Van Gough or Monet would. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Salyavin, It all depends if he can sell these artworks for millions during his lifetime, and if the art collectors in the future would value them like those of Van Gough and Monet. But I would have to give him credit for expanding his creative talents after leading the US into expensive war campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : George W. Bush has recently displayed his works of art, as shown in the link below. What do you think? He's a better artist than he was a president. http://news.yahoo.com/photos/portraits-by-george-w-bush-slideshow/ http://news.yahoo.com/photos/portraits-by-george-w-bush-slideshow/
