Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bill Clinton Trolled in Own Official Portrait
Over the weekend, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an interview with a renowned local artist named Nelson Shanks, whose portfolio includes the official painting of Bill Clinton hanging in the National Portrait Gallery. (Sidenote: during my time as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, I learned that 43 loved to open any set of remarks where he was having his portrait unveiled with “Welcome to my hanging.” For some reason, I always found that endearing). Anyway, Shanks, who we can only presume has figured out that publicly slighting a Democratic president is basically the royal road to a Fox News contributor gig and a possible presidential candidacy (looking at you, Ben Carson), let slip that there’s an easter egg for Clinton-haters right there in the Smithsonian:
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. 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.
Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t the weirdest part of this that no one in the Oval Office antechamber thought it was strange that the artist had a mannequin with a blue dress on it? Then again, this was the Clinton White House. You probably could’ve brought in the Rubber Man suit from American Horror Story and not had anyone bat an eyelid. Apparently, the inside joke didn’t go down too well. Shanks continued:
And so the Clintons hate the portrait. They want it removed from the National Portrait Gallery. They’re putting a lot of pressure on them. [Reached by phone Thursday, a spokeswoman from the National Portrait Gallery denied that.]
OK, I don’t expect the Portrait Gallery staffer to be a model of candor: “Yeah, Bill’s here somedays before we open the doors, muttering under his breath about the thing. He usually stinks of Jim Beam and Funyuns.” And it’s possible — try not to audibly gasp — that Shanks is overstating his impact here a bit. It’s a statement so subtle that you’re probably going to miss it unless the artist lets you in on the secret.
But isn’t the notion salient at least in part because it’s kind of plausible? Because it’s no great stretch of the imagination to conceive of the Clintons, the most powerful couple in America, chafing under every slight, real or imagined? Because it’s not crazy to imagine some fourth-tier staffer in Clintonworld being tasked with fatiguing the National Portrait Gallery into submission?
A lot of the early knocks on Hillary have to do with her weakness as a candidate, the difficulty she’s going to have getting daylight between her record and that of the Obama Administration, and the slightly unsavory quality of dynastic politics. Sure, take all that as read. But aren’t we forgetting another pretty major factor: that these people star in a never-ending psychodrama that has a tendency to consume American life when they’re on center stage?
It sort of seems like eight years of that was enough.
Published in General
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.