Regarding the painting: why is Bush's interpretation of the paintings meaning any less valid than the artist's, or Saturday Evening Post's, or anybody in the world's?

i don't think they're saying it's invalid, they're just analyzing his views on it.

(but the picture actually was to illustrate a story about a thief, so...)

i found this via boingboing. there are a few interesting links in the comments.

you can interpret an artwork all you want, but when it has a known pedigree and was done on commission for a specific story i think it pretty much solidifies the subject matter. who buys a painting without researching it, anyway?

Dinozoa: why is Bush's interpretation of the paintings meaning any less valid than the artist's

I could be kind of a smarmy prick and say why is your interpretation of the matter any more definitive than the author's, but this smacks of infantile sophistry, so I'll just say: because it's George W Bush, is why his viewpoint is in question, and then kind of make a gentle huff sound of disbelief which manages to avoid prickful smarminess but still gets across the absolute 'what, am I a naked baby just now being born again into a strange world?' nature of my confusion at your question's apparent sincerity.

Plus, I feel like fuking wotak with this textwar, all grrr-xxxtreem. :(

Ok. Let's get this straight. The article is half a page on Bush's closed-mindedness, and half a page on his interpretation of the painting. I have no problem with the top half.

The bottom half says it is making this point essentially, 'George Bush has an interpretation of this painting's meaning that does not account for the historical context of the piece.' Evidence is cited to support this argument, namely that Bush's interpretation is all about Christian piety and whatnot and the painting's historical context is all about horse thieves and bandits. I have no problem with the accuracy of the point the article is trying to make- I don't dispute the evidence, or deny the evidence persuades me to believe the statement 'George Bush has an interpretation etc' is true.

Here's my problem. Why should Bush care what the author or the editor of the Saturday Evening Post intended the piece to illustrate? Why is this context important to him? He is not a museum curator who has woefully placed this piece in the 'Christian Allegory' exhibit instead of 'Illustrated Westerns' exhibit. He's a private collector, and in his office, in front of his guests, he is trying to demonstrate the special meaning he has projected onto the painting, perseverance, commitment, Christian spirit, etc. If it weren't for Bush's celebrity, I'd be surprised this is an issue. What if it were a Kandinsky? Would anybody be criticizing Bush for finding a weird meaning inside of it?

The author's selection of art interpretation as evidence of Bush's closed-mindedness doesn't impress me. What is wrong with closed-mindedness in art interpretation?

The author's selection of art interpretation as evidence of Bush's closed-mindedness doesn't impress me.

i don't think that the author is trying to merely imply that bush is closed minded. i think that they draw a few conclusions from the way bush projects meaning onto a painting.

Why should Bush care what the author or the editor of the Saturday Evening Post intended the piece to illustrate? Why is this context important to him?

remember the whole 'born in the USA' song fiasco? it has a context, and taking it out of context and applying your own context to it says a lot about you and a lot about what you choose to ignore.

This may be going out on a limb, but I feel as though there's a certain slice of America that puts great stock in symbols, in tangible trophies that speak for them; the genius of Bush's ascendancy was in cozying up to this very slice and making it think Bush cared. In an attempt to appeal to this lot, he's grabbed something that looks representative of values he wants to portray, something he believes has inherent meaning that is portable to other humans. The painting, though, is pretty simple -- it's some dudes and a horse. I think the backstory is pretty central to his success in having chosen a compelling trophy of his special insight into the heart of dirts. It's telling to me that he started from a believable kernel of mis-informed yet legitimate backstory (the third publishing) and extrapolated it out to conveniently be Bush in neon lights, cross on his shoulder and God in his heart.

In highschool, one of my circle was this chick, pretty, but kind of troubled; bounced from guy to guy. She eventually hooked on to a much older man, old enough that it caused some mild uproar at home and in school. One time I overheard her talking about how the Police's 'Roxanne' was a perfect summation of her troubles, a symbol of their love, and an encouragement from the cosmos to continue on her current path. She based this on the fact that the song was about a young girl who's dating an older guy and the world was against it but their love was strong and true and perfect and Sting was telling the young girl go, just go, and love your little heart out.

I lolled. The song is about a guy dating a prostitute who won't stop whoring around long enough to just eat the one guy's cock.

The song is not the painting, but perhaps you can see the asshattery sketched out here.

I mean, I can see the asshattery here and there and in Bush's office and everywhere. Seeing asshattery isn't special or hard or worth anything.

It's all about art. Art has no intrinsic value. You put value into it. And if part of the art, to you, is its historicity, as Philip K Dick put it, fine. I won't deny historicity has value, especially monetary. But to me, and perhaps to Bush, it's not worth so much.

Seeing asshattery isn't special or hard or worth anything.

You are of course right, to almost the precise extent that seeing anything at all isn't special or hard or worth anything, except of course at that remote why bother typing up a comment to anything, or for that matter, forming observations inside ones head? If you put the slider over all the way to Full Ennui, it gets much easier, and then nothing at all happens. Bravo, we've reached the absolute zero of moral ambiguity, whereat all motion is impossible.



Art has no intrinsic value. You put value into it.

Garbage and too-wide sophistry. Art has meaning, or it doesn't. If it does, and you make your own, you have at best missed the point, and are thus prone to the very criticisms offered in this thread. If it doesn't, have at it -- but in this case, it does, which is the whole point.

No.

Seeing beauty is special and hard and worth something. Making beauty is even harder.

What's the difference between Bush's painting and a Kandinsky? Different brush strokes? What is meaning? Where does it come from? If Bush has one interpretation of meaning and I have another, why do we have to have a judge to tell us who has, at best, missed the point?

Who cares if you miss the point? It's art. Might I not benefit more by missing the point?

I don't see how seeing asshattery is in any substantial way different from seeing beauty. Both are subjective, so it's no real measure of anything.

'What is meaning?' Really? I guess this is a valid tack, if you have the time, but I don't know if I have that much chin to stroke here, and I certainly don't care to banter about the meaning of meaning in a thread about Bush being an insular dummy.