Not terrible, but I’m glad somebody else brought up Hitler’s art because that’s the second thing I thought of. The first was “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.”
True on so many levels. And I don’t like either much.
My favorite headline of the week was in the Houston Chronicle
Despite media reports, George W. Bush didn’t paint as well as Hitler
Damn, that kid can’t do anything right.
I don’t see how that’s surprising. Hitler harboured artistic ambitions from an early age while former President Bush did not. Churchill’s paintings are better too.
Well as something made by a President of the United States, they would have considerable value, despite their “artistic” value. These could be sold for quite a bit, especially as a fundraiser for charity or perhaps the republican party.
Certainly better than I could have painted.
We should give credit where credit is due. George W is a better painter and shoe-dodger that I thought he was.
This. Some training in perspective and anatomy may help, but they’d still be amateurish.
I dunno–I don’t think their amateurishness would have a lot of bearing on how much they sold for, given who painted them. Case in point: Our local gelato joint has a bunch of paintings done by kids (like 10-13 years old) and they’re for sale–some for rather astonishing amounts of money (seriously–$200 for a really awful painting of a unicorn and a tree that looks like you’d see it on any kid’s school folder–minus the terrible brushwork? And it sold! And I didn’t see any signs around that the money was going to charity, either). Hell, people pay hundreds of dollars for an autograph by a famous person (sometimes more, especially if the person is no longer alive). I’m sure the same people–or at least those who are Bush fans–would pay significant amounts of money for a painting created by someone they admired. Just because they don’t exist around these parts don’t mean they don’t exist.
These paintings remind me of when my grandmother took up painting for the first time in her late 80s. None of her stuff would have hung on the wall of any museum or sold for any kind of money, but for someone just doing it as a hobby I was shocked that you could be painting something that decent after just a brief period of practice.
Artistic talent is just something I was never born with, I actually took a “real” art class in my early 20s (as opposed to what you might take in High School where everyone is basically given an A for showing up) and while I definitely thought I got a lot better at sketching than I ever would have without that class when it came to color, shading, perspective, etc there was just clearly part of me that just simply was not good enough to ever do that stuff well or even competently. So as someone who a long time ago played around with painting, I’m saying Bush is a lot better than other people like me and certainly better than someone who picks up a brush for the first time. But there were also people I knew back then who were on sort of an artistic career path and they blew his stuff out of the water, so obviously Bush didn’t miss his calling as a great artist, but I can’t feel anything other than admiration for a retired person picking up an artistic hobby for their own enjoyment.
His shoe-dodging skills are unparalleled.
The Barney painting is pretty good, and they are all way better than anything I could do. My aunt took up painting at 60-something, and Bush’s portraits remind me of hers. So, my completely unqualified opinion is that they are good amateur paintings. I might have thought that I would make a better Presidnt than Bush, but I would not make a better painter.
Oops, right, he was rejected. But he at least spoke to an art school. And sold some of his work.
Here are a couple of more paintings released by the hacker today:
I have to say, I really like the one at the top of the kitty sitting on a post.
For a minute there, I thought the name in red at the top was “Lucifer”, and an indicator of both his spelling and penmanship.
And in those tub paintings – where are the yellow rubber ducks? You know he has to have them.
The Barney one seems completely different than the others. I don’t know if the others were all done by the same person, but that one really seems like it was done by someone else.
I hadn’t noticed GWB signs his paintings with “43” before. You can see it clearly in the dachshund painting.
Very paint-by-number.
.
(Bolding mine)
This is America, kid. We don’t go in for those extraneous "u"s.
Cut him some slack - it took us 8 years to get rid of an extraneous “W”.
I find it more interesting to note the paintings seem to be of Dubya in the bathroom. Perhaps a jar of Metamucil would be helpful moving his easel to the outdoors. And I do hope the bathtub painting is complete and not “cropped” for an “R” rating.