Posted on 08/24/2017 8:10:29 AM PDT by rktman
Famed American artist Jon McNaughton has released a stirring new painting of President Donald Trump, standing in front of the White House, along with the “forgotten men and women,” he says, who elected the nation's 45th president.
McNaughton, renowned for his patriotic and faith-based paintings, said in a video accompanying the painting's release he initially wondered if he was going too far:
“When I decided to paint this picture, I wondered if this was taking it too far. But sometimes you have to speak forcefully like the brush strokes of my painting.
Of the snake at Trump's feet, McNaughton explains:
I want a President that will crush the enemies of liberty, justice, and American prosperity. They may have the power to bruise his heel, but he will have the power to crush their head.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ijr.com ...
Maybe he should have finger-painted it in feces. Would that have been “sophisticated” enough for you?
I suspect we unwashed Philistines appreciate the piece for its content, not necessarily its avant-garde technical mastery.
Okay. You know the composer’s recipe for fried chicken? First, steal a chicken. I’m sure the same thing goes on in visual arts as well.
Sometimes, it’s not mere snobbery behind less than positive critiques by people knowledgable in art. The guy’s brush technique needs work, his color palette is muddled and he has little grasp of scale and perspective. This damages any message he wants to convey with the overall image. He can improve, if he’s willing to accept constructive criticism. If he’s unwilling, as you appear to be, then he’ll meander along and never really get anywhere because he’s falling down on technical aspects that can be learned, but he clearly hasn’t bothered to do so. Which, by the way, is too bad because what he’s trying to convey has power and a ready market. His vision is way ahead of his abilities at present.
If this makes me a snob in your mind, well, so be it but you’d be mistaken.
“I didn’t find anything like that but it is very well known here in Utah art circles that the imagery and drawing lacks professional training. “
—
Considering what art circles consider “art” these days,I don’t care what they think.
Norman Rockwell was probably scorned by art circles too.
.
Norman Rockwell was scorned in certain art circles because for one he was not purely an artist, he was a commercial illustrator. He did not do art for art’s sake and that is a major demerit in the eyes of some. But, the real source of the scorn was and is political. He portrayed the simple things of American life in a positive, and positively glowing light. And, they hated him for that.
I suspect our Philistines are squeaky clean if we got ‘em.
I was in elementary school during WWII-—— Rockwell’s “The Four Freedoms” hung in every classroom———they absolutely fascinated me.
(This was Boston,they would NEVER hang them today.)
.
Elitists in art circles have always talked down the illustrators. Rockwell was no exception except to say that he was the premier artist/illustrator of his time. We cannot compare Rockwell to the untrained who use subjects for their statement and fail to make correct art. And yes the image in question is very poorly executed. That is the point of this discussion, not the subject he attempted to illustrate.
Think art, not subjects.
The leftist art establishment viewed Rockwell paintings as very successful propaganda posters for the system that they were and still are trying to destroy. He was highly technically proficient, as any professional commercial illustrator has got to be in order to make a living and remain employed. His color palette was filled with light and positively glowed. His composition was excellent. His communication of emotion and attention to detail was above reproach. So, they had to look elsewhere to hate him, but at base it was political. A fair amount of their esteem for any given artist is due to his or her backstory, and from that they determine intent. Rockwell was being paid to churn out beautiful, inspiring depictions of everyday American life and did so flawlessly, much to their ongoing dismay.
Nicely stated!
I suspect most of us were more focused on the subject, and were willing to overlook any technical “shortcomings.” Or maybe that’s just me.
I like the painting, too.
Might have to hunt up a replica somewhere.
It’s perfectly fine to perceive a painting in whatever manner you perceive it, but just understand that as “art” there is skill and proficiency just as in any other pursuit. He needs some work there, particularly with the ambitious subject matter. He has vision and he has unpolished, largely undeveloped talent. It’s up to him where he goes with that.
“Something is a little off with the perspective. If the guy kneeling in front were to stand up, he would be a giant”
Are referring to linear perspective?
Hey. The artist is “making it his own.” LOL!
No, it’s a rose.
Yes, artistic skills of Norman Rockwell.
Yes. The kneeling boy is very slightly closer to us than is the president. But, it just looks like to me he is too big relative to the people around him. Just my perception.
It’s the tree of Liberty. So I would guess growing that would be no problem. No?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.