Talk Elections

()

()

I like them.

I thought this (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R-cTBpkJHyg/T6DKADaza2I/AAAAAAAACkU/aWhwFYxwL8s/s1600/George_W__Bush_split_finger.jpg) was his portrait.

I'd have much preferred a joint portrait of George riding a giant globe and waving a cowboy hat in the air, while Laura stands to one side with her arms folded and an "Oh, George!" expression on her face.  Just standing there and holding on to some chairs isn't exactly stimulating to the senses.

Bad art.

Pulling up chairs is a bit of a lame prop.

I agree. They both are well done.

How many freaking portrait is he getting?

Bollocks. There's more life in the chairs than the faces (amongst other things). Technically accomplished, I'm sure, but that's really not a big deal.

Me too and the Obama's were very gracious to the Bush family as they should have been.

Bush has aged 20-25 years since 2000:

()

What do you think Obama will look like?

On topic: I like Bush's chair.

The Bushes look like they're ready for Madame Tussaud's, but that's pretty standard for presidential portraiture.

George's is better than Laura's. Laura looks a bit lifeless. Both are workmanlike of course. Neither inspired.

vacant stares, lifeless bodies.

Is there some heaped allegory about chairs I'm missing?

But they're pretty uninteresting and pretty meh...

More a running joke that "pushing a chair forward" is the default presidential portrait pose, and has been for decades.

Who painted them?  I want to know who not to commission a portrait from if I ever want one.

If I were President, I would have my portrait done in the style of Ingres's Napoleon.

Too bad it's taboo to have them outside of the White House.  IMO Bush somehow looked his most Presidential when out of the suit and on the ranch.

Laura's should have been against a bookshelf.

Indeed, Bush was a much better president when he wasn't doing presidential things.

Those are pretty uninspired and workmanlike, yeah, but so are almost all Presidential portraits. Kennedy's is okay...

()

But, really, the only halfway interesting portrait of an American politican that springs to mind is Jerry Brown's gubernatorial portrait -

()

Pawlenty's gubernatorial portrait is even more dull than the man, which is quite an accomplishment

http://politicsinminnesota.com/files/2011/10/Pawlentywithframe.jpg

Some official portraits can be really good, though. For instance, Gov. Lawton Chiles (D-FL), has a pretty nice portrait (you can see the 'Old Florida' hunting lodge in the back, a raccoon (for his 'he-coon' image), lots of other cool stuff in it).
()

Surprised no one's commented on the Bush quote in the OP.  Guess it's low-hanging fruit.

()()


I think the Kennedy portraits are the best...

yeah that'd be a great picture if it wasn't for the portrait part.

Nowadays, formal portraiture has no point; a waste of taxpayer dollars. Take a picture on instagram and be done with it.

... but they're pretty...

Ottawa used to do portraits of our mayors. Now they use their official photographs, and make them look like paintings to save money.

This dude was Governor for three days and gets a portrait:

()

Btw, I think most of the Florida gubernatorial portraits are pretty decent.

...and if you do the exact opposite, you will probably have taken the right decision.

Buddy MacKay was governor for 23 days but he gets a portrait too. ()

It's just a tradition.

Caught the essence of those two, then.

The portraits are ok but the ceremony was very nice.

Laura's is nice, I suppose. I like her dress. Telling how we're more preoccupied with the chairs than them, though.

Well, full 20 days more than Mixson.

Funny thing, it was actually RFK who posed for that.