... according to the artist, Nelson Shanks.
“If you look at the left-hand side of it, there’s a mantle in the Oval Office and I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things,” the painter said.
“It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.”
That is, Bill Clinton
posed for this artist, who nevertheless took it upon himself not just to subtly interpose an allusion to the Lewinsky scandal but also
to tell the world that he did so.
Shanks claimed that the Clintons have been lobbying the National Portrait Gallery to remove it, but a gallery spokeswoman denied that to the Daily News. Clinton reportedly chose Shanks to paint the portrait back in 2001.
Oh! Clinton even
chose him. Wow. Smacking your
patron around. That must be an old portraiture game, right? Can anyone cite historical examples of this sort of thing?
পোস্টগুলি
৭৬টি মন্তব্য:
I think it's awesome.
These people aren't royalty, Ann.
Delicious.
Where is the shadow of the cigar?
Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony (in particular the fourth movement) was a jab at Stalin. However, Stalin wasn't really Shosty's "patron" (just the man who could make or break his career). And the man of steel liked the piece, so it's not really analogous. Interesting story though.
If you look closely, I think the artist left a Peyronie reference as wll in one of those fire place tools. I think it's the poker.
- Krumhorn
Yes, Marge Simpson's portrait of Montgomery Burns.
Well, did Clinton use his own money or did tax payers buy it? Did Clinton have any approval rights? It could be the shadow illusion is so subtle, no one but the artist ever noticed and his ego has gotten the better of him.
Rembrandt's self-portraits?
It's entertaining that the artist did this and is talking about it, but has anyone really looked at the painting?
It's not just the blue dress. It's a ghastly image of Clinton. His face holds an arrogant, somewhat sneering expression. His left shoulder is arched up, making the line of his shoulders look crooked. His suit appears big and baggy, and the blue shirt is somehow jarringly odd looking.
Hand on his hip, pulling back his coat, with his pelvis thrusted forward as if he's getting a blowjob right there.
Not a flattering image in any case.
Goya famously painted his royal patron (King Charles IV of Spain) and his family in a brutally realistic way to highlight his ineptness as a ruler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV_of_Spain_and_His_Family
Michelangelo had a notoriously antagonistic relationship with the Papal Chamberlin, Biagio da Cesena. Pope Julius II was Michelangelo's patron, and Biago's boss. Biagio was of the opinion that the large heroic nudes painted on display in the Sistine Chapel were obscene, and inappropriate for a church. In vengeance, Michelangelo painted Minos, the King of Dis (with serpentine coils and asses ears) in the likeness of his enemy, Biagio. You can see him in the bottom left of The Last Judgement on the wall of the chapel.
If anyone deserves to be punked, it's the President who said "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. "
...A shattered visage lies, whose frown, and sneer of cold command,
Show that the sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
- Ozymandias, Shelley
The sculptor revealed the King of Kings for the arrogant and vicious tyrant he was, but it is the King who survives, though only as fragments; and the sculptor who is sunk in the vast backward and abysm of time.
Shanked by Shanks. "Et tu, Shanks?"
It's unethical, and the passive-aggressive act of a craven coward. Either put the dress on its mannequin in the room while the President is posing, so he can either punch you in the nose/have you fired, or do the job you were paid for. Don't be a little pussy and sneak it in after the President leaves.
Google fails me at the moment, so please pardon the lack of specific names/dates.
I was in Cuba a while back I saw a colonial era statue of a former bigwig. From the front he is standing proudly holding his staff of authority. From the side, he is standing proudly holding his "staff of authority".
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!
This is the sort of thing an art critic might speculate about. I never took the finding of hidden meanings in pictures seriously. Evidently I should do so.
See Edward Steichen’s photograph of JP Morgan holding a knife — there’s a Smithsonian.com article that’s easy to google.
I think the whole picture is an attack because it looks like the pictures painted by John Singer Sargent of Edwardian aristocrats. The stance of the men in those pictures just reeks of entitlement. For instance, the one of Lord Ribblesdale:
http://www.wikiart.org/en/john-singer-sargent/lord-ribblesdale-1902
So why is a democratic leader swaggering about like a disgusting aristocrat? as if his family had a hereditary right to rape and rule simply because they are that family? That's why the picture seems to me like a criticism
Every day that Bill Clinton wakes up and finds he is not in jail, is a day he should thank his lucky stars.
To then complain, about anything, is beyond the pale.
I hate Clinton's guts, but that's a scummy trick by the artist. Reminds me of that piece of shit photographer for the Atlantic who sabotaged McCain's session then bragged about it as if it weren't a sneaky, disgraceful stab in the back.
Family legend has it that a rich great, great grand father commissioned a popular painter to do a floor to ceiling painting of him, and when it was finished he refused to accept it or pay for it because the painter had added a necktie to the painting.
The poor artist then put it up for sale at his gallery, where Jack sent a ringer to buy it at 10 cents on the dollar of the commission price.
That was on my father's side of the family. Which was where I got MY eccentric side. The Donaldsons had gotten rich selling bricks in Re-Construction days after Sherman taught Atlantans about the danger of building wooden houses.
and, BTW, that's a mantel, not a mantle.
Machiavelli's Florentine Histories has been interpreted as a thickly veiled attack on the Medici, who commissioned the work.
speaking of photo tricks with chairs, google bill clinton esquire magazine cover
A few thoughts:
1) The floodgates are open for this sort of artistic commentary -- Republican Ganders, be prepared for a healthy dollup of the Democrat Goose's sauce. On the other hand, it was inevitable that it would happen sooner or later. How happy Conservatives should be that they got the first laugh!
2) This portrait will be one of the most popular in the gallery. Who is interested in portraits? Stuffy old pictures! But this portrait is a puzzle, with a secret -- and, even better, the secret refers to a juicy scandal! What fun! Many generations from now, people will seek out the Clinton portrait to spy the secret shadow.
3) This will heighten Clinton's fame. Without the picture, who is Clinton from a long-term perspective? Did he fight a big war like Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, or Eisenhower? No. Did he create some long-lasting legacy like Jefferson or FDR or Kennedy or LBJ? No.. But now, like Michelangelo's enemy (thanks Amichel for the story), Clinton will be remembered due to this remarkable portrait. And it is not all bad -- as time goes on, the scandal will fade (after all, who gets worked up about John Singer Sargent's "Portrait of Madame X" these days?) but the fame -- and the fun -- of the portrait will remain.
4) What has been painted cannot be unpainted. Destroyed and replaced, perhaps, but the story would remain. Any replacement would be notable primarily for the LACK of a shadow. People would look at the replacement, but still see the original! How interesting!j
Didn't some woman do this to John McCain during the 2008 presidential election?
Purposefully shot him in bad lighting and made him out to be some sort of devil?
It is odd that Clinton would not have questioned the shadow as it has no relation to any object. It is just there.
So is this portrait of Clinton from the artist's blew period?
This reminds me a bit of that lady (well, woman) photographer who took pics of McCain for a mag cover -- and then published altered images from that shoot on her website. One image had a chimp pooping on McCain's head.
Here, of course, the betrayal is more direct.
To be clear: any of these actions is unprofessional and should, justly, end the artist's commission-taking career.
We'll be stuck with these grifters forever. I shudder to think about having to face THE WON year-after-year when HE leaves the White House.
I liked it when ex-Presidents kept their mouths shut and just faded away after the end of their terms in office.
There's the Boston example of the image of Ho Chi Minh supposedly painted on the natural gas tank along the Southeast Expressway in Dorchester.
That's never been acknowledged by the artist, so it may just be an urban myth.
This could be a myth too, but the fact they artist says he did it makes it true, right?
I could have sworn there was a similar incident with an official portrait of Thatcher, but I can't find any references to it.
Re: Archilochus, I thought the 10th Symphony was the anti-Stalin symphony (published after he was safely dead).
I had heard the theory that the last movement of the 5th was intended as a kind of parody (and dutifully recapitulated that interpretation when I was in school), but honestly, when I listen to it, it really doesn't sound that way at all. There's a certain amount of tension from the repeated A everyone points to, sure, but it's an effect Shostakovich uses elsewhere without it being assigned such significance as far as I am aware, e.g. in the finale to his first piano concerto where there's a trumpet blowing the same note over and over. If anything, it sounds more like Shostakovich's own solution to the famous "finale problem." Indeed, one could project a similar "parody of triumph" interpretation onto other composers' works, e.g. Bruckner in his 7th and 8th symphonies (because they really are over the top, however much I may enjoy them).
I think Shostakovich was one of the greatest composers of the 20th century, and I have enjoyed playing some of his pieces for piano. I think his genius stands even if he crumpled in the face of the terrifying world-historical evil that was communism -- we don't need him to be both a genius and a subversive hero.
On a lighter note, the 4th movement of the 5th symphony has kind of been ruined for me because of how it was used in Kekkon Dekinai Otoko as the music the main character would put on when he wanted to annoy his neighbours.
Smacking your patron around?
Thomas Gainsborough made a career out of it.
The court house in Waxahachie, Texas, is decorated with gargoyles carved out of the native sandstone. An Italian stone carver was imported from Italy for the job. He fell for the Mayor's daughter. He used her image for the gargoyles. When he was hopeful about their romance, the gargoyles were quite beautiful. She rejected him and the gargoyles became quite ugly. You can follow his hopes turning into despair by walking around the court house.
This should be an episode of House of Cards. And you know what happens to those who betray Underwood.
Bite the hand that fed you.. nice! Hopefully he never works again. Who will trust him?
I have a reasonable suspicion that the Clintons are behind releasing this story as a pre-emptive soft shot taken at Bill to remind people how long ago this all happened, and that it was Bill and not Hillary. It was seventeen years ago. That is forever.
"Clinton in Semen" pays homage to libertinism and is a realistic counterpart to the liberal artwork "Christ in Urine". Another allusion or perhaps a delusion. I suppose choosing a Carrie metaphor would be considered impolite.
The painting shows exactly why Obama hates Bill. Bill Clinton has more personal presence and charm than the earnest Smiling Obama emotes. And Obama cannot accept that.
How happy Conservatives should be that they got the first laugh!
You're just trolling us now.
Personally, The more we see lefties twist their own morals out of shape to defend the rapist, the better.
While it's a thin field of study that you stumbled upon, probably the most famous example of this is the chilling photographic portrait of Alfred Krupp done by Arnold Newman
It's here
Winston Churchill found Graham Sutherland's 1954 portrait insulting. His wife actually cut it up and burned it.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/bbc-radio-4-churchill-portrait-destroyed
Or maybe a better link is here
When I took art history, we were told that one of the people going to hell in Michelangelo's painting of the Last Judgment was a pope who owed M money. If that's true, I think a pope counts as an even bigger target than a president. . . .
Strangely relevant:
http://i.imgur.com/CcSJOHq.gifv
This reminds me of why I declined to let Isthmus do a photo portrait of me when they did that cover story on me a while back.
"Greenberg also crowed that she had tricked McCain into standing over a strobe light placed on the floor - turning the septuagenarian's face into a horror show of shadows.
Asking McCain to 'please come over here' for a final shot, Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.
The resulting photos depict McCain as devilish, with bulging brows and washed-out skin.
'He had no idea he was being lit from below," Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either. 'I guess they're not very sophisticated,' she said. - The Atlantic
The example with Clinton may be the *only* example of this having been done to a liberal, probably by somebody to his left, if history is any guide.
I agree with MikeDC, though the thing I find jarring is Clinton's face and nose. The artist made him look dissipated.
Quoting Samuel Johnson's "Letter to Chesterfield" (From Wikipedia):
"Seven years, my lord, have now past since I waited in your outward rooms or was repulsed from your door, during which time I have been pushing on my work through difficulties of which it is useless to complain, and have brought it at last to the verge of publication without one act of assistance, one word of encouragement, or one smile of favour. Such treatment I did not expect, for I never had a patron before. . . . Is not a patron, my lord, one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help? The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind: but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it; till I am solitary and cannot impart it; till I am known and do not want it."
I like Dan Brown's theory that da Vinci' s first version of The Virgin of the Rocks was subversive, which is why it was rejected. Something about the symbolism of the herbs.
What difference at this point does it make?
The portrait was sufficiently flattering to meet with Clinton's initial acceptance. The shadow is such a vague reference that no one would have interpreted it as a Lewinsky allusion unless the artist hadn't pointed it out. Maybe later the artist will say it's actually an allusion to the impending arrival of Dick Cheney or of Hillary's dark moods......Goya's portrait of the Spanish royal family is still the benchmark for portrait assassination. Unless the royal family were truly butt ugly, and the picture actually flattered them.
Whistler's Peacock Room contains an insulting reference to the owner.
"Perhaps in retaliation, Whistler took the liberty of coating
Leyland’s valuable leather [me: antiques from the 16th century] with Prussian-blue paint and depicting a
pair of peacocks aggressively confronting each other on the wall
opposite The Princess (see fig. 3). He used two shades of gold for the
design and highlighted telling details in silver. Scattered at the feet of
the angry bird are the coins (silver shillings) that Leyland refused to
pay; the silver feathers on the peacock’s throat allude to the ruffled
shirts that Leyland always wore. The poor and affronted peacock has
a silver crest feather that resembles the lock of white hair that curled
above Whistler’s forehead. To make sure that Leyland understood his
point, Whistler called the mural of the fighting peacocks “Art and
Money; or, The Story of the Room.” "
http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/online/peacock/images/PeacockRoom.pdf
That could as easily be from Clinton's blue shirt--the painting's a mess, shadows everywhere (a common mistake in Hitler's art, by the way). I think it's funny the artist did that, but he's a jerk for talking about it.
"This reminds me of why I declined to let Isthmus do a photo portrait of me when they did that cover story on me a while back."
Yeah, the Margaret Hamilton Wicked Witch costume they wanted to use was a dead giveaway...
Actually, I could buy McCain at least having done a deal with the devil, in light of the past few years...
...and I'll take a photograph of Ronald Reagan chopping firewood with his own hands over a Michelangelo portrait of Clinton, at that.
Goya and the Spanish royal family.
Lucien Freud's portrait of Queen Elizabeth.
"Many generations from now, people will seek out the Clinton portrait to spy the secret shadow"
The indelible shadow will provide some justice after all.
"I liked it when ex-Presidents kept their mouths shut and just faded away after the end of their terms in office."
Some still do. Guess the party.
Which produces a dilemma: one side's class hands the other side more power. Same with Roberts' "non-partisan" Court: one side's professionalism just tilts the playing field to those who want to fight for their position.
"It's unethical, and the passive-aggressive act of a craven coward. Either put the dress on its mannequin in the room while the President is posing, so he can either punch you in the nose/have you fired, or do the job you were paid for. Don't be a little pussy and sneak it in after the President leaves."
I agree. I have no need to add to that.
I am Laslo.
My .03:
Peter Hurd painted a commissioned portrait of President Lyndon B. Johnson; LBJ told Hurd it was "the ugliest thing I ever saw."
http://www.scoopnest.com/user/BeschlossDC/562772383472578562
I don't know of any sabotaged portraits of Margaret Thatcher, but Canada issued bank notes in 1954 in which the face of the Devil supposedly can be seen in Queen Elizabeth's hair:
http://www.cdncoin.com/Articles.asp?ID=279
These kinds of surreptitious criticisms are supposed to be indicative of repressive regimes. Where people are not free to openly criticize their leaders, they resort to subterfuge. Some nursery rhymes are supposed to be about English royalty, Peter Piper, Jack Sprat, Jack and Jill. Shostakovich and Samizdat SF allegories are supposed to be about about Soviet leaders.
There was no need to be surreptitious about criticising George Bush. So, why the need to be surreptitious in criticizing democrats?
Does it have something to do with repression?
I'm not seeing Monica in that shadow. I do, however, see Jessica Valenti.
At a meeting of portrait artist, Nelson Shank was asked how he would like to be remembered. He said,a dirty old man.
Meade: zactly
I see it, it's about waist-high to the President's front right.
Verisimilitude rules!
Can anyone cite historical examples of this sort of thing?
Does Haydn's Surprise Symphony, designed to rudely wake up his sleeping patron and fellow nobility, count?
Although, you know, it doesn't require that Haydn spill the beans verbally to some historian - the music speaks for itself. A higher form of humor than Clinton's silly artist.
As Ive said before. History will remember Bill Clinton as the president who couldn't keep his dick in his pants during working hours.
Meade for the win!
Sometimes a cigar is just a ... log?
Check out the fireplace log, C.G.
And the positioning of the dress directly above the vertical fireplace log-holder.
And why exactly are we slapping this artist around for pointing out the offenses the "great" committed?
Whatever happened to"speaking truth to power".
The most famous would be Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, from Michelangelo, Life, Letters, and Poetry:
However, it was another person who went by the name of Biagio de Cesena whom history now remembers as a lesson to not cross a talented artist. The book, The Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti, by John Addington Symonds claims that de Cesena also complained to the Pope about the excessive nudity. And like Aretino, de Cesena said “that it was more fit for a place of debauchery than for a Pope’s Chapel.” (3) When Michelangelo hears this, he renders de Cesena in the bottom right as a man with snakes strangling him.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন