Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bob434; dfwgator
Picasso was actually a classically trained artist, and a pretty good one too, before he got into his bizarre paintings

Picasso painting when he was 14.

My theory is that Picasso was a political operative more than an artist. Destroying the beauty of art was one of the communist goals. Picasso's paintings became valuable, not because there was great demand for them, but because rich people paid far more than market value for them.

Looking at Bush's paintings, sorry, but they suck.

Not even sure if he really paints them, cause I don't believe anything the press says, but the brush work is clumsy, facial anatomy is just bad. It's not cubist or impressionist, it's the inability to have the eyes recess properly and follow the curvature of the skull. Color is always iffy on a computer, but the skin tones look horribad.

Back to Picasso as a political agent:

What Picasso was doing in Europe was a precursor to what the Nazis/Marxists in the US did here after WWII. The OSS imported 10,000 Nazis and gaver them new identities. Supposedly, these were scientists for the space program, but shortly afterwards, the OSS changed it's name to the CIA. Harry Truman said to only import people who weren't involved in war crimes, but the OSS ignored him and scrubbed records to get people in. A lot of them probably ended up in the OSS/CIA.

Nelson Rockefeller and the CIA used the Museum of Modern Art to push Abstract Expressionism as the new "American" Art. Their loss leader was Jackson Pollack, an alcoholic from Wyoming, but most of the Abstract Expressionists were Russian Jews.

The public never accepted Abstract Expressionism, but the NY Times pushed it hard, and the Museum of Modern Art paid millions for the paintings, even though they weren't bidding against anyone. Why? A painting may suck, but if someone is paying a million dollars for it, you've gotta look.

Before the CIA/Rockefeller/NYTimes/MOMA push, painters like Edward Hopper were the big names.

I think Hopper is the guy Bush is trying to copy. Notice the broad brush strokes and limited palette. However, Hopper knows what he's doing. The limited palette is used to enhance the mood. Bush doesn't know what he's doing with the palette. Hopper didn't have a lot of detail in his work, but the strokes that are there are correct. The perspective works. The body language tells a story.

This is a rehabilitation attempt for Bush. Like Jimmy Carter and Dan Rather, they're doing everything they can to make them less detestable to the average person.

98 posted on 08/08/2020 11:07:17 AM PDT by Richard Kimball (WWG1WGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]


To: Richard Kimball

the picasso painting you posted is pretty good- I’m not a fan of the colors used, but still, it’s done in a classical almost Rembrant style-

The composition seems a little off to me (Going by 1/3 rules- even golden spiral rule), but i like the atmosphere, the moodiness of it- and it’s pretty spot on anatomically- Amazing that he painted that well at 14

I do like some of his cubist and abstract work- but only just some of it- Even his abstract stuff followed rules of art- despite some claiming they broke free from rules- they did not- you can find the ‘rules’ of composition and color theory still applied to them- I can appreciate branching out from traditional, but only to a certain extent-

(Big fan of hopper- loved some of the fauvist works, and impressionists, and painters like Van Gogh too)

Yes, Bush’s paintings are very amateurish- If I were him I’d be embarrassed to even show them- sure, they show likenesses, but that’s about it- everything is done in just an amateurish manner- Same with Jim Carey too- fairly amateurish (More advanced than Bush though)- although he does experiment sorta ok with color- better than Bush- but his subject matter is very amateurish and uninspiring- more reminiscent of hobby drawings done in school notebooks while bored in class than actual art-


99 posted on 08/08/2020 11:47:22 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

To: Richard Kimball

And yes, I can see some areas of hopper influence in bush’s work- also another painter’s style a little bit- but can’t recall right now- Maybe pop artist Alex Katz? (Sp?)

I never really cared for pop art like that- or what some call ‘outsider art’ (IE eschewing traditional learning of the art- although george apparent was tutored-)- outsider art seems too like bad ‘folk art’ for my taste- (Though some folk art i really like and appreciate)

George’s paintings, while amateurish, do have a quality that kinda grows on a person though- but his inexperience is very evident


100 posted on 08/08/2020 12:02:45 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson