George W. Bush is not a particularly awful painter
He's a war criminal, and a class-war criminal.
He murdered countless thousands of people to win an election in order to keep taxes low for the super-rich.
He really did that stuff.
But he is not a terrible artist, by the standards of retired people taking up painting as a pass-time. Not an impressive artist, merely not worse than run-of-the-mill.
He lacks skill, which is to be expected, but his sense of painting is surprisingly sophisticated for a true dumb-ass. I went to art school with people who wished they had Bush's spontaneous acceptance of the flatness of the picture plane. There is something admirably un-conflicted about his rejection of a drawing being "right."
He reminds me of Bonnard or Valleton in that way. He is comfortable with a moving, subjective perspective. (Not a sophisticated subjective perspective like Cezanne, of course. There is nothing intellectual about Bush.)
Not on their level, of course, but if he were a child I would identify him as one who "got" something about painting, and thus would be able to progress. (Rather than merely becoming more practiced... more adept.)
Adjusted for their era (even amateur painters were quite technically accomplished, from our perspective, back in the day so Churchill's work looks more legit), Bush may be on par with Churchill. As an artist.
As a leader of a nation under attack... not so much. Churchill was a great leader, while Bush was a pants-wetting mental weakling who most folks wouldn't follow out of a burning building in real life.
Hitler was a much, much better draftsman than Bush, but Bush's work is more likable.
All in all, I would have to say that George W. Bush's paintings are the least offensive thing about the man.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Of course, very few are as bad as Thomas Kincade.
...the sarcasm thingy?
TYY
