W.’s Art

4 thoughts on “W.’s Art”

1. That painting of Putin actually looks pretty good to me, though I’m looking at it not as an art critic but as someone who has occasionally tried and failed miserably at drawing people. It actually looks like Putin and the shading is kind of interesting.

   LikeLike

2. Petri isn’t an art critic either, right? ’cause what she wrote isn’t art criticism.

   The Ohmert painting is good. The Putin painting shows understanding of the techniques but is slightly off, say, the angle of the neck, the relationship between the two ears, and the two eyes and doesn’t take the features quite far enough to make them seem deliberate.

   The rest (including Putin) are comparable to what I paint, and those portraits end up in my basement utility room. So, good enough that I don’t throw them away, but not good enough that I’d want to show them to anyone. And, they are surprisingly similar in style to the portraits I’ve done. Strong shading, geometric shapes. They are what one produces in a certain kind of art class in beginning portrait painting (in oils, or sometimes, acrylics). Also his work shows the flaw of painting from photographs. He should take live drawing classes. I think his self portraits were better, probably ’cause he was drawing them live.

   I like that he’s taken up a real hobby, hobby and don’t mind that he gets the perk of displaying his work in a presidential library. Seems like it’s a good way to stay out of trouble. And I admire that he can go from being president of the free world to being a retired oldie whose daughter chuckles over his hobby. It shows an inner strength of character of someone who isn’t overly dependent on the world’s approval.

   LikeLike

   1. “isn’t overly dependent on the world’s approval”

      Saddam’s dead, so W finally got Poppy’s approval.

      LikeLike

3. Putin’s painting is pretty clearly the best. Maybe he really did look into his soul?

   LikeLike

Comments are closed.