Wall Street Journal article on presidential portraiture
 

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on January 18 entitled Why Presidential Portraiture Lost Its Stature

John Howard Sanden has written a commentary regarding this article:

http://worldofportraitpainting.com/c...eetjournal.htm

The original text of the WSJ article can be found at a link at the bottom of John Sanden's commentary.

Wall Street Journal Version of Ford Portrait
 

apologies to Anthony VanDyke and Ray Kinstler

LOL - and Gerald Ford too?

Another Version
 

Here's another example of a portrait the journalist for the WSJ might like. Please excuse my cracked sense of humor.
Does anyone else have an example?

Actually, Gilbert Stuart is one of my heroes.

I went to the Boston Museum School and his portraits are among those that most impressed me at the Museum. I also live in RI, his birth place.

His paintings have the grandeur and style that I do think has been lost. They are very impressive in person, especially this Washington one with a horse, which he was said to have done in 10 days.

His skin-tones are amazing, quite impressionistic.

He only painted Washington from life about twice. He kept the painting posted below for his use in turning out a billion copies.

His paintings of the presidents Jefferson and Adams are wonderful as well.

PS.

Not to get political, but that is how I think of Ronald Reagan.

On futher thought, (not to get political) the subjects may have gone downhill since then.

This Kinstler of Blackmun has grandeur.

Steve, I love your portrait montages!

Though I disagree with Sanden on some things, I think he is right on the mark in his response to the Wall Street Journal article. I hope he sends it in as a letter to the editor.

If contemporary artists portrayed their portrait subjects with the pose and trappings of the Gilbert Stuart Washington portrait that was used as an example in the article, they'd be laughed out of Dodge and so would their subjects.

After reading both articles, two things pop into my mind right away:

1) If the Wall Street Journal article is trying to repeat the points made in the Blake Gopnick Washington Post article, the author picked on the wrong artists. Kinstler and Shanks, for example, work from life whenever possible and certainly possess the ability to use photographic references while still breathing life into their subjects.

2) I don't see why a presidential portrait (or a portrait of any prominent figure) shouldn't be able to be both a portrait of an approachable human being with readable personality and a symbol of power, authority, etc. with the appropriate symbolism. We don't have to copy the style of a Gilbert Stuart or a John Singelton Copley, or put trappings of 18th Century America in the portrait to use iconography successfully; in fact, it would be preferable not to. I believe that a 21st-century portrait should place the subject in the 21st century.

And by the way, I am a big admirer of both Stuart's and Copley's work.

I found this article on presidential portraiture at the National Portrait Gallery web site:

http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/travpres/tbios4.htm
or in case they move or delete the article in the future:

To search for a common strand or overarching theme in the National Portrait Gallery's collection of painted, drawn, sculpted, and photographic presidential portraiture is very nearly an exercise in futility. But the operative phrase is "very nearly": Viewed in its totality, the assemblage of images is, above all, eclectic. Indeed, the more than two centuries' worth of likenesses found in this trove of presidential portraiture are as widely varying as the personalities they depict and as diverse as the democracy that elected them to office.

Aesthetically, some of the likenesses represent the best and most sophisticated portraiture of their eras. One of the most compelling examples of this is Thomas Jefferson's portrait by Mather Brown. Painted in 1786 in London, during Jefferson's tenure as minister to France, the picture has an easy elegance that goes far in explaining the American-born Brown's quick rise as a portraitist of fashion in England. Another instance of painterly virtuosity is the Gallery's portrait of John Tyler, where artist George P. A. Healy's masterful rendering of skin tone invests Tyler's face and one visible hand with a palpability that is truly remarkable. Finally, there is Grover Cleveland's likeness by Swedish artist Anders Zorn, where the loose brushwork coalesces with a spontaneous quality of pose and natural lighting to make it an exceptionally fine example of the impressionistic portraiture fashionable in the last years of the nineteenth century.

Some Presidents, however, have not been concerned about enlisting the most able or fashionable artists of the day to paint their portraits. To meet the brisk demand for likenesses among his legions of admirers, Andrew Jackson, for instance, remained quite satisfied to rely on Ralph E. W. Earl, who actually moved into the White House when Jackson became President. Earl's portraits tend to be flat and more wooden than lifelike, and had it not been for his warm relationship with Jackson and all the patronage that came with it, his prosperity from painting portraits would have doubtless been substantially less than it was. Still, Earl's renderings of Jackson hold a certain charm for modern-day viewers, who can see in their awkward simplicity an evocative reflection of the rural culture that prevailed in so much of Jacksonian America.

Another President who did not worry about the talents of his portraitists was John Quincy Adams. In his old age, as a member of the House of Representatives, Adams seemed willing to pose for just about any artist who asked him, and in the last ten years of his life, he sat for his portrait on the average of three times a year.
One artist wanting to paint him was George Caleb Bingham. Though certain that this Missouri-born artist was unlikely to make "either a strong likeness or a fine picture," Adams consented to sit. Later to become much celebrated for his portrayals of life on the trans-Mississippi frontier, Bingham proved his subject wrong on both counts. The picture is a compelling testament to Adams's stony New England tenaciousness, and posterity is grateful for his willingness to sit for a painter in whom he had so little faith. Remarking on Adams's longevity, Ralph Waldo Emerson observed, "When they talk about his . . . nearness to the grave, he knows better, he is like one of those old cardinals, who quick as he is chosen Pope, throws away his crutches . . . and is as straight as a boy. He is an old rou who . . . must have sulphuric acid in his tea." That is the selfsame crusty old man whom Bingham recorded on canvas.

When we think of presidential portraiture, the image that most readily leaps to mind is a formally posed three-quarter or full-length composition. And with good reason many presidential portraits fit that description. Often the staged quality of these images seems almost calculated to keep the viewer at a psychological distance. That certainly is the case with the Portrait Gallery's likeness of Lyndon Johnson by Peter Hurd, where Johnson looks into the distance with the dramatically lit United States Capitol at his back. Sometimes, however, these more formal likenesses can be surprisingly intimate, and in George Bush's portrait by Ron Sherr, the potentially off-putting grandeur of the gilt-mirrored backdrop is offset by an easy intimacy that makes the picture eminently approachable.

But perhaps the museum's most intimate portrait of a President is Norman Rockwell's painting of Richard Nixon, done shortly after Nixon's 1968 election. Rockwell had trouble painting Nixon because, he said, his looks seemed to fall into that hard-to-capture category of "almost good-looking." Ultimately the artist, by his own admission, decided that if he was to err in this likeness it would be in the direction of good-looking. More noteworthy, however, than its intentionally flattering quality is the picture's relaxed informality. In scale, the portrait is small and looks all the more so when seen in relation to the much larger likenesses that normally surround it in the Gallery's presidential hall. Its engaging warmth, nevertheless, enables it to hold its own quite effectively in that imposing company.

Ironically, several of the Portrait Gallery's most satisfying presidential portraits originally were meant to serve only as preliminary studies for more ambitious pictures. One of them is George P. A. Healy's seated likeness of Abraham Lincoln. Healy conceived the prototype for this image mainly to serve as a template for the Lincoln figure in The Peacemakers, a much larger picture re-creating a conference that Lincoln had at the end of the Civil War with three of the Union's key military figures: Generals Ulysses Grant and William T. Sherman and Admiral David Porter. But the artist was quick to sense that his template made for quite a good picture in its own right, and he eventually made three replicas of it, including the one now at the Portrait Gallery and another that once belonged to Lincoln's son Robert and now hangs in the White House.

Another likeness initially meant only to be a study is the Gallery's portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which painter Douglas Chandor did in preparation for a substantial, never-realized tableau depicting Roosevelt with Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin at the Allied Yalta Conference in the final year of World War II. As most studies do, the picture looks obviously unfinished. Still, when combined with the hand sketches and the drawing in the lower left, mapping out the larger picture for which this likeness was intended, the central likeness carries as much weight as any good finished portrait. Indeed, one cannot help but think that a greater state of completion in the sketch might have diminished its impact. Certainly the artist came to think so, judging from the fact that he eventually adapted the picture's study-like qualities to a "finished" portrait of Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor (now in the collection of the White House).

Portraitists all work at different paces. Some can complete a good likeness in days; others take weeks; and some may require months. In the case of the Gallery's likeness of George Washington by Rembrandt Peale, it was more than twenty years before the artist declared himself done. Around 1800, working largely from a portrait of Washington that he had done in 1796, Peale began his quest to create a Washington likeness that was not only accurate but also captured the full grandeur of his character and accomplishment. But in attempt after attempt, he found his finished product wanting. Finally, in 1823, he told himself that he would have just one more try at producing his perfect Washington, and at long last he came up with a portrait that met his expectations. Framed in stone to underscore the monumentality of the subject, the image became known as "Patriae Pater," and for many decades Peale did a good business in painting copies of it for both private collectors and public institutions.

Peale, however, had aspirations for this portrait that went well beyond his many commissions for replicating it. He had wanted it to become the primary likeness by which posterity would know Washington, but in that he would be disappointed. Instead, "Patriae Pater" was eventually eclipsed by another image in the Portrait Gallery's presidential collections Gilbert Stuart's unfinished likeness of Washington. It can be said without fear of contradiction that no portrait is more familiar to Americans than this picture, and it has been said many times that if George Washington came back to life and did not look like his Stuart portrait of 1796, he would be declared the impostor.

Formal presidential portraiture by and large falls into fairly conservative stylistic patterns, and good, bad, or indifferent, a portrait of a President, particularly one commissioned for a public place, almost never reflects the avant-garde trends in the art world. The reason for this is simple: Like presidential politics, presidential portraiture is meant to cater to mainstream tastes, which by definition tend to shy away from adventurous extremes. There are exceptions, however, and one of the most memorable occurred in 1962. Just after Christmas that year, thanks to a commission from the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library, artist Elaine de Kooning arrived at the family home of John F. Kennedy in Palm Beach, Florida, where she began bringing to bear the influences of Abstract Expressionism on his presidential face. So fascinated with Kennedy's protean features that she could not stop at the one likeness, she eventually did an extended series of portraits that number among the most innovative in presidential portraiture. Thus in the Portrait Gallery's full-length version from the series, the free brushwork and restless, almost chaotic spontaneity clearly link it to Abstract Expressionism, a school of modernism that in so many respects is the antithesis of the rules that guide conventional portraiture.

During the first five decades of the presidency, painted, sculpted, and drawn portraits (or prints derived from them) were the only way in which most Americans could know their country's Chief Executive. The advent of photography, however, changed all of that. By the eve of the Civil War, the photographic print was well on its way to displacing the older forms of portraiture as the main vehicle by which Presidents were known. They were even further displaced in the twentieth century with the coming of movie newsreels and, later, television. Then, some ten years ago, a reporter investigating the presidential portrait tradition suggested that the formal likeness may have lost its relevance altogether in an age inundated by instant photographic and video images that seemed to capture "the Chief Executive in virtually every mood and every activity." In many senses, that may be true. Certainly the day is long since past when the public's familiarity with a President's appearance hinged on the availability of a painted or sculpted portrait. Still, there is an enduring fascination with the more traditional forms of portraiture and with the chemistry between artist and subject that goes into a non-photographic likeness. And if the enthusiastic visitor response to the National Portrait Gallery's presidential collections is any gauge, modern-day Americans take an especially lively interest in seeing how that chemistry applies to their Presidents, whether they be George Washington and Thomas Jefferson or George Bush and William Clinton.

Frederick S. Voss, Senior Historian
National Portrait Gallery,
Smithsonian Institution

Past or Future
 

Interesting article Cynthia. Thanks for posting it.
This author seems to place the greatest value on those portraits that are spontaneous and sketchier, the very portraits which we as portrait painters get beat out us more often than I would like to admit. There seems to be much admiration for Ron Sherr's portrait of Bush senior. I like the portrait too, but had I been working on it I'm not sure I could have held myself from finishing the edges around the suit. I can't tell you if that would be from bowing down to peoples expectations or a general pedantism from working too much from photos.

Not to change the subject, but I'd be interested in hearing what you all think about what the Brits are doing with portraiture. There's no grander subject than a monarch yet more often than not it seems the Queen or her family are painted flatly as ordinary blokes with mishapened bodies a la Lucien Freud.

I vacillate between thinking the Brits are way out on a dead limb with no connection to Zorn or Sagent or deLazlo and thinking that we look too much to the past for inspiration.

Surprising, isn't it, that much of American portraiture often looks to the past, and to artists who came from the European tradition, while a lot of contemporary European portraiture is far more cutting edge and, some would say, "forward looking". I personally love the Sargent/Zorn/deLazlo tradition but you don't usually think of American artists as being outpaced by their European peers in the race toward "the next new thing".

This subject of British portraiture sounds as though it could be a subject worthy of a new topic. Steven would you do this please?

I took care of it. The new topic "British portraiture" can be found here: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...9097#post69097

John Sanden has posted a follow-up to his original commentary on presidential portraiture: http://worldofportraitpainting.com/c...etjournal2.htm

Men in Suits
 

What CAN one do when you are faced with yet again another suit.

As I see it Presidential portraiture is suffering on three fronts, lack of interesting costumes, backgrounds and poses.

There are not any choices of exciting attire, a suit and a tie, that's it folks. A charcoal, navy, gray or brown one. The color of the tie IS the ONLY exciting diversion.

Backgrounds: snippets of Georgian architecture, billowing heroic American clouds with an equally energetic flag, White house balconies,the Oval office and so on.

The poses. The president should NEVER look like a slacker, even when he is sitting down he should look like he is ready to leap up or be signing a passel of bills to save the Union. A recent portrait of Bill Clinton was criticised as being too relaxed a portrayal. They can be leaning-but NOT too much (see Bill), hands in pockets are risky (see Bill). The best option is standing-frontal or three-quarter and this goes without sayng-NO reclining poses.

I suggest that to perhaps inject the genre with some excitement, the president should become a fashion leader. Here are some haberdashery ideas from a recent men's fashion show in New York City.

Hmmmm...
 

On second thought, that might NOT do at all. As a whole the lot is a bit conservative.

Ransacking the past on fine French and English portraiture, I came up with a few ideas for the Current Occupant. I hope the artist who gets this plum job will be inspired by these ideas I offer freely.

#1: Addressing Congress
#2: Supporting the troops
#3: At home on the ranch in Crawford

Thanks for the best laugh of the day! These are much, much, better. :D

Jean

Sharon! That is SO funny!

Hog Wash
 

John Howard Sanden doesn't follow trends he sets them. Catesby Leigh and The Wall Street Journal follow trends and are media whores. They are not worthy to even comment on Sanden and nothing they say is worthy of discussing here.
However, I enjoyed the opinions on style and tradition.

Mr. McMicheal,

I think your choice of an adjective to describe Mr. Catesby Leigh was an unfortunate one. He is in fact a thoughtful critic of modern art and architecture much like Mr. Kinstler's friend Thomas Wolfe and his opinions show up in Christian journals, much like Sanden's. Frankly I find him a bit too conservative myself and do not agree with some of his points of view but he makes reasoned and educated arguments.

I think criticism is good. We all need it from time to time even if sacred cows are gored. Otherwise, we and the genre become rigid.

Here is a thoughtful essay on art Mr. Leigh wrote which I found on the Mim's atelier site. http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

I can't see the 2nd picture
 

I cannot visualize the second image in the JHS's commentary page. Does it work for you guys?

Ant

I think JHS's response was that of a gentleman and very thoughtfully presented. I agree wholeheartedly.

I love the new styles you've suggested for president Sharon!

I think the image of presidency in America has changed so much so that the portraits that we see in George Washington's time reflect how folks saw the president, and today it does the same thing. In the beginning of our nation's history the president was lifted up to a kingly position. After all, it was a kindgom that the subjects of new America stepped away from. That is why you don't see an approachable president. Because the common man didn't want to see a person capable of making mistakes...they wanted to see someone who was completely in charge and completely capable of handling the affairs of a nation with out tarnish. So the image put before the people was one of royality.

Today a man is a man and the president is also a man (or has been so far) and that is exactly what you are going to see in todays portraits. Men that are less than pure, less than holy, less than all knowing. Your next door neighbor if you will. That is why when a president is elected the whole nation can criticize him without thinking twice. In the old days only a few felt worthy enough to comment negatively on a president's decisions.

Its a sign of the times. I think it is profound and completely appropriate that Clinton's portrait is relaxed. The whole country is relaxed. Art is still keeping its place as trumpeter of the times.

Just my humble opinion!
Dianne

Sorry Sharon, I just call them as I see them. Maybe we could see some of Casteby's work.

His critique is a bit like my dog Sparky criticizing my cooking isn't it? My dog isn

Check now.

Other Kinstler's in Philadelphia
 

Great discussion!

I have gathered up some personal snapshots from last summer to throw in. Two are portraits at the Union League in Philadelphia, which has an extensive collection of Republican presidents; some pretty dull. I do not care for their Eisenhower, Hoover, or Nixon portraits.

However I do like the two Kinstlers of Ford and Bush, Sr., and there is a nice Reagan by Shanks. Compositionally (to me), the Philadelphia Kinstler portraits are far more satisfying than the example Catesby Leigh chose from the National Gallery. The Portrait of Gerald Ford, seated, seems a companion to the standing image, authough it was painted some years later in 2004. I think the space is defined better atmospherically with that anchoring chair. Being less frontal, the pose is more interesting too. It says much about the man. The composition builds to the head, as the element with the most dramatic paint complexity and contrast. In general I really like and respect Kinstler as a leading portrait painter.

The National Gallery Ford portrait has a wonderfully strong head as well; certainly well observed from life. But to me, the rest of the painting falls relatively flat, and does not properly support the head. I saw it last summer in DC, and interestingly, I only photographed the head detail, because the portrait as a whole did not interest me enough. For me the space is confusing with its nebulous flatness. All the suit has the same paint handling as does the background, and there seem to be little if any value shifts to organize the elements in my reading of the image; so overall it is a relatively dull portrait to me. The face itself does have some depth of character though. It has wonderful passages of painting. One thing that is missing from the equation is the frame, which may be a fundamental element of the overall composition. I notice that the Philadephia Kinstler's require their frames to tie the whole image together. It's like we are deliberately viewing these through a window opening.

I hope this is not too brutal, so far...

Garth

Perfect :)

Ant

At the National Portrait Gallery:
 

Scott Bartner and I had the good fortune to visit the National Portrait Gallery last July, and it seemed we reflected many feelings about the state of presidential portraiture there. There was quite a frenzy around Nelson Shank's portrait of William Jefferson Clinton. It was hard to even get a picture of it. It seems one painting you only luke-warmly like or absolutely hate. If one has mixed feelings, it seems to be with good reason.

This is one contemporary portrait which does have the sartorial splendor thrown in, but perhaps with a dash of triteness and superficiality (to me). The central most bothersome aspect of this painting is how it has all the compositional forces working in concert to emphasize the importance of Mr. Clinton's genital region! No really, take another look: we are talking dead center in the painting, with many other surrounding elements pointing right at it (the fingers, the tie, the newspaper, the fire box edge, the angularity of the pose gesture; all arrows). Yet there is an unmistakable deftness and wise mastery to the execution, as only Shanks can uniquely do (in Philadelphia, his Union League portraits are arguably the finest and most masterfully conceived and composed in their collection). It goes without saying, as a colorist, Nelson Shanks is very much in brilliant control of a full spectrum palette in his color development. But compositionally and content wise, I am led to question his intent with this presidential portrayal.

In these next three examples, it could be argued for comparable purposes that the epicenter of these canvases represent respectively their subjects hearts......

The portrait I think Scott and I universally liked the most was that by Anders Zorn, of Grover Cleveland. This chromatic and compositional tour-de-force was allegedly mainly painted with just Vermilion, Black, Yellow Ochre, and Flake White! At any rate, the painterly passages are truly the most lush and sumptious in their deftness and economy. What a masterful and well organized complexity! What does this success of a portrait say of this president?

Another portrait most worthy in my mind is the brilliantly edgy yet lush iconic image of George Bush Sr., by Ron Sherr. I sense a real window into his personality; both calm cool assurance, and shivering controversy! However time settles the record, this portrait will work.

There is a tight and dead-on pastel portrait of Reagan at his casual finest. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this one by Aaron Shickler? It is a dynamic and introspective look at an intensely individual personality perhaps facing his twilight. The stark simplicity works for me. Sure, this one was worked up from a photo reference, but with impeccable skill and experience.

Okay, here's the pictures: (Mind you, these are only hand-held shots in museum lighting, so I apologize for imperfections).

Garth

I'm so glad you posted the portrait of Clinton. I searched earlier but had only been able to find shots of the upper part of the portrait and did not understand what the hubbub was about. Now that I see the full portrait, well, you have some excellent points - to which I will add: The tilt of his head and look on his face seem rather "come-hither" to me. And, with the fingers pointing along with the jacket pulled back - it does look quite insinuating.

Ron Sherr's portrait of Bush is one of my all-time favorite portraits. I'm glad you agree.

Come hither? From what I have read, half of the women's press corps would have.

I hate to comment on current presidential portraits as I think other than the fame, money and glory that goes with them, they are a thankless artistic task. That is said of course by one who has a flea's chance in hell to get one.

That said, I do not think that this is Shanks at his best. The portrait looks more like Ted Koppel. If is wasn't a portrayal of Clinton, it would just be a middle aged man in a surprisingly unpressed suit.

A World of Thanks
 

I am grateful to the WSJ writer for one reason only: prompting such fabulous commentary from Sanden. Once again, he leads with passion for this great art and knowledge. The final portrait he sights by CSOPA Senior Advisor, Bob Anderson is one of my favorites!

The National Portrait Gallery after the rennovations is definitely a sight worth seeing. I encourage you all to go and add your favorites to this list.

Thank you, Cynthia for alerting us to this thread. I have laughed out loud reading these replies!

Agree!
 

John Sandon, you have my respect. Your reply to WSJ articulated my thoughts better than I could have. Nobody could have replied with a better mix of restraint and clarity. Thank you.

Sharon, I haven

The Wall Street Journal and other such rag will print what they will. Will it generate interest and what will be the response? Each has the right to chose.

My respect and hat of to our advocate John Howard Sanden. It is my belief that the response made by Mr Sanden and others of his stature is quite adequate. Wisdom rests in the heart of him/her who has understanding, but what is in the heart of the one who has not understanding is plain to see. Mr Sanden speaks with wisdom and being that this is plain to see I shall not do or say anything that will diminish his words. All I can say is, thank you Mr Sanden. Thank you weary much!

Cynthia, thank you for starting this thread we truly appreciate your time and dedication.

Garth wrote about the Shanks portrait of Clinton: I also saw this portrait last year at the National Portrait Gallery and there is one other thing that comes across seeing it in person that I didn't notice from reproductions printed after it was first unveiled.

The coloring in the facial skintones, quite frankly, make it look like the man had too much to drink! The nose was very red and the face was quite flushed. I wonder how often you can infer an artist's voting record by the portraits they make?

On a side note, the Sherr portrait of Bush Senior is hanging on the next wall and when I saw it it had spittle on the face! Someone, just a few minutes before me, had come and spat on the portrait. That was a shock to see!

I have read an online article about presidential portraiture last year (can't remember the source) in which the author talk about hundreds of bland contemporary portraits that clutter the walls of White House, The Capitol, Supreme Court etc.
They do not know what to do with all those portraits since they do not mean nothing to anybody (except, perhaps to the sitters), stir neither emotion nor any other reaction. Even National Portrait gallery do not want them.

The bottom line is - their artistic value is very low or absent.
Unfortunately I can not post that article here, but I do agree with author's points.
In my opinion, it is not only the question of weather to instill symbolism in portrait or not, whether to work from photos ot not. I am talking about the formal qualities, composition, color scheme, mood, good taste (of the painter), and the way the paint was handled.

It is the indescribable quality which transforms a paint covered surface into a genuine piece of art. One looks at it and just knows that it will mean something to a generation hundred of years from now, just like portraits of Raphael, Titian, Velazquez, Van Dyck, Thomas Lawrence, Ingres, Sargent, Zorn etc mean something to today's generation (well, to those who care about art and have developed a good taste).
You can feel it in the works of, say, Silverman, Whitaker, Dinnerstein and some (but not too many) others.

btw, Shanks knows his trade, but (besides good point Garth made) he put Bill Clinton in an awkward pose and made him too short. It is not a good portrait.

Well in my humble, not knowing the truth opinion, of the pics above, the Kinstler of Blackmun and the Reagan are the only ones suitable for anything more than the cover of National Enquirer. I realize that I am a watercolor artist, and it is considered less noble than an oil portrait, but I do mostly children, and my moms wouldn't let me get by with a misplaced freckle or iris pattern. Somehow I have never touched oil, but I believe I could do better than anything I've seen here, if I couldn't, no one else would see it for sure. Hey somebody teach me to work with oils ;)

There are maybe a few others, but I do think Valentino is right on. These are made to be icons of our government, they rarely can be transformative in the way say a Manet is. The content is completely dictated as well as the rather rigid parameters.

It's OK, but is it art?
 

I pretty much agree with Catesby Leigh

Karin Wells, you have a poetic flare that I appreciate, and I agree. Ice Cream for everyone!

Michele, If Bush #41 wears spittle, and Clinton is maligned it seems, in his portrait, then given these times, what might we expect with Bush '43's turn at being immortalized? Are there any meaningful portraits of him yet?

Last Fall, while touring the retropective Nelson Shanks exhibition "Mastery and Meaning" at the Union League in Philadelphia (a decidedly conservative Republican club and bastion of portraiture of every Republican president up to Bush #41), the docent and I segwayed into a conversation about these portraits. I mentioned how nice it was to have the iconic image of Reagan by Shanks, and those two fine Kinstlers of Ford and Bush #41. The docent beamed with pride.... She was aware my newly unveiled League President portrait was hanging beside Lincoln's in the next room.

Continuing, I had the nerve to inquire who might be painting Bush #43 for this consecrated and prime collection? The docent turned a pale white with an aghast look on her face and uttered in her most horrified response tone "OH PLEASE DON'T GO THERE!" I caught her drift. :bewildere

By the way, there is one Democrat in their collection: President Andrew Jackson.

Garth