I had previously heard that former President George W. Bush has been painting in his spare time which seemed like a nice hobby for an ex-president. What I did not know was that for some reason art critics seemed to love his work. Yeah it’s weird right?
Gawker.com posted of his paintings earlier this year after a hacker gained access to Dorothy Bush’s emails. Having seen some of the work myself, I’d say I’m suprised that George W. painted them because they do seem to show some talent and a lot of effort but they didn’t seem extraordinary to me but then again I’m not an art critic.
Art critic, Jerry Saltz, in an article title “Jerry Saltz: George W. Bush Is a Good Painter!” praised the artwork and even said he liked it “A lot”.
On Gawker art blogger Greg Allen, also weighed in and commented:
“The amazing thing is not just that they literally show Bush’s own perspective—but that Bush is using the process of painting to show his own perspective. It’s a level of self-reflection, even self-awareness, that seems completely at odds with his approach to governing.”
Now part of me believes the only reason art critics are paying attention to this is because George W. was a notorious former president. That in addition to Jerry Saltz recently criticizing Banksey leads me to believe sometimes critics like to go against the grain and lambast something/someone popular and praise something/someone unpopular.
Anyway, this dog painting isn’t bad.
And neither is this golf scene: