Bush paints, but is he any good? Critics tacke W's talent - CNN

[Warpy]

2. It's as empty as the man himself is.

While he has enough talent to make his subjects recognizable, that's where it stops.

I'm mentally comparing two bathtub pictures of the feet, the water, the drain. One is Stupid's. The other is Frida Kahlo's.

Stupid painted himself, the water, the drain and they are all recognizable. And that's it.

Kahlo painted those and then filled the canvas with her daydreams--NY buildings, a love affair, her parents, and more. I'm not the only person who has thought like this.





http://animalnewyork.com/2013/look-at-george-w-bushs-paintings/

His painting technique is crude beyond belief and his subject matter such that we don't learn a thing about the artist or the world he lives in except that it is empty and utterly banal.

Kahlo, on the other hand, was a very sophisticated technician as well as someone who allowed us a glimpse of her inner life with every painting.

The contrast is remarkable.

Oh, Stupid will sell better than Kahlo did during her lifetime, all to Republican idolators and oil buddies. However, everything will die with him, while Kahlo's art is considered more important with every subsequent year after hers.