Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Over the weekend, the Philadelphia Inquirer published
At least he didn’t paint him showing his zipper down.
I think the painter cheapens his own joke by revealing it outright. Such insider jokes are much more intriguing if there is at least some degree of mystery that requires each viewer to decide for themselves. Shanks could have just as easily told a few well-placed people at cocktail parties about the gag and let it become an eternal urban legend.
And does anyone else think the portrait itself is fairly poor? Clinton’s posture seems absolutely silly, and the face is missing a key part of Clinton’s classical demeanor. Not that I’m complaining about Clinton not being flattered.
Are you sure? The angle is off just enough to obscure.
Kind of looks like Ted Koppel.
Like!
Perhaps the Clintons should have looked at some of Mr. Shanks’ other works:
And if you look closely at the Clinton painting in a certain light, well, there’s more there…
His upper arm looks disproportionate.
It really isn’t a very good painting, shadow or not. It is an awkward posture, his clothing is not in proportion to his body, and yes, that upper arm is really weird. I’d demand a do-over, if I were Billy Bubba.
(EJ Hill—nice….)
C’mon, nobody believes that story. The dress casting the shadow isn’t blue, it’s obviously white and gold.
What’s in his right hand? Looks like Rose Law Firm billing records he’s about to throw in the fireplace . . . he’ll do (almost) anything for Hillary!
I find it morally wrong for the artist to have done what he claims — both including the shadow in the official portrait, and telling people what he did and what it meant. I assume that he was hired to paint President Clinton’s official portrait. In that context, it’s not his place to make a political statement. It seems like a breach of trust to me.
This whole story has the feel of a hoax to me.
Is the title image, here, in fact an image of the actual “official portrait” in the National Gallery, as alleged in the published interview?
Somebody could go look, perhaps. Don’t we know people in D.C.?
Several clunky things ring alarm bells. Besides the shadow business, we see completely hooded eyes. The exaggerated upper left arm, as another example, is connected to a left hand flashing the “peace sign.” The entire right arm is invisible. So does this mean that the artist intends to convey a man contorted by aggrandized leftism? So he was, but: Clunky!
Let’s verify this before our heads explode, what with everything else that is going on.
Yeah, the portrait itself looks kind of like a joke. I thought it was a joke, actually.
I work two blocks from the NPG (actually used to work there too) and often go there for lunch. Shall report back.
Also, there is a difference between the “official” White House portrait of a president and the portraits on display in the National Portrait Gallery’s Portraits of the Presidents exhibit.
The official White House portraits are commissioned oil paintings of each president that stay in the White House’s collection (usually on display somewhere in the residence). Here is the official WH portrait of Clinton.
The NPG collects different portraits of all US presidents in all media (paintings, sculptures, photos, engravings, etc.). Not all of these works are on display at any given time; the Portraits of the Presidents exhibit is permanent but images are switched out, rotated, and/or loaned from time to time to keep things fresh or to show off new acquisitions. I am guessing the Clinton dress shadow painting is in this category.
So as I said, I shall stop by the museum to see if the Shanks picture is currently on display.
Hard to believe that’s an official portrait. The perspective is all wrong.
Arizona: welllllll, you’re right, of course. That kind of thing is only for for the kind of hippy, stick-it-to-the-man types played by Dennis Hopper. I had a bit of schadenfreude for a minute there, but I am chastened. I shall do better in the future.
I agree with much already said critiquing the portrait. However, I do not agree with the breach of trust comment. Yes, it is a breach of trust, but if you look at the history of art, particularly Western paintings, painters often put in coded, sub rosa messages into a portrait, and often they were unflattering to the subject. The difference here is that the artist was so chuffed with himself that he had spill the beans instead of letting others follow the breadcrumbs.
What struck me was Clinton’s pose, it looks like he is thrusting his crotch forward. Of course that fits too….
I’m collecting ideas for Easter Eggs in the eventual Obama portraits, in case you’d like to contribute ideas here.
Thanks for doing that!
And, for a “Best Not-Official” Portrait, “clunky” does not come into it. As such, it’s got a lot going for it, and things like that do not detract.
If anyone is still interested, I wrote up my visit to the museum here.