My eyes my eyes.
There’s a painting. In the Trump White House. The artist is one Andy Thomas, who usually paints cowboys.
Photograph: Andy Thomas
Hard to say if it’s more ugly or absurd.
A few questions occur to me. Where is Taft? Where is Harding? Where is Coolidge? Where is Hoover?
Why is Lincoln the one selected to have his back to us?
What is Lincoln drinking?
Why is Nixon drinking wine? He was big on the hard stuff, from what I remember.
What the hell are they all laughing at?
Why is Eisenhower the only one in a casual shirt?
What is Nixon looking so cheerful about?
Is it a solecism to include Ford when he was never actually elected?
Is it a solecism to include Nixon when he resigned in disgrace?
Who’s the creepy dude behind Roosevelt’s shoulder?
Who’s the ghostly woman approaching?
What is this painting doing in the White House?
H/t Acolyte of Sagan and latsot
Updating to add:
His Station and Four Aces by C. M. Coolidge, 1903
Updating to add 2 via Screechy Monkey:
I fixed it. pic.twitter.com/N0u0h4yYPz
— Nooruddean (@BeardedGenius) October 15, 2018
Comments
35 responses to “Dayum that’s ugly”
It does demonstrate the pattern of Republican presidents – most of the ones in my lifetime have had few credentials for such an important job, and those that did have the credentials were either ineffectual for the most part (Ford, Bush 41) or evil (Nixon). I started to put Trump in that “evil” category, but then I remembered that, along with Reagan and Bush 43, he belongs in the poorly qualified category. In fact, he tops all his predecessors in that category, bar none. Reagan and Dubya had at least been governors of large states, and Reagan had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, so at least they had some level of leadership experience other than just saying “you’re fired” and grabbing ’em by the pussy.
The two faces behind Teddy’s head look like Coolidge and Harding to me. And maybe the portly, mustachioed fellow next to Ford’s shoulder is Taft? I can convince myself Garfield, Arthur, and Hayes are floating about in the background as well… But I fully concur with your aesthetic assessment, and I may not know art, but I know what I don’t like.
Yes, the Guardian piece identified Coolidge and Harding (and I didn’t read that part until after I posted).
And what’s up with the oversized heads? Not to mention the awkward poses? It’s sort of an oil paint Photoshop Disaster.
Thomas is a repeat offender. He’s done the same for (to?) Democratic presidents:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=andy+thomas+democratic+presidents&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikh6DZpIneAhUxtlkKHdnuAhkQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=889#imgrc=nEfF5hBFglDKtM:
I wonder if he’s done any velvet Elviss (Elvii??)
I noticed how the 1903 “dogs playing poker” painting even has a porter played by a black dog! I bet the artist thought he was being clever.
I believe that is Grant in the background, on the far left, and it seems the “painter” used this photo as a reference.
https://cdn2.americancivilwar.com/americancivilwar-cdn/north/grant_standing_promo.jpg
Same female figure in the Dem painting, but closer to the action.
Did some more looking. Eisenhower is dressed like a golfer because the painter used photos as references. Just google “Eisenhower golfing.” This is a very Rockwell way of painting.
YNnB, what are the odds that Trump is the first to actually own one of those monstrosities, let alone hang it in the White House?
You have to admit, he does a good line in flattery for all his subjects. Generally making them look much more affable and trimmer than many were in reality. Trump looks trim and fit, as opposed to a bag stuffed full of shit. Nixon looks positively avuncular.
I like patriotic kitsch, so, setting aside politics, I like both the Democratic and Republican paintings for what they are (which is not high art).
The only major complaint I have is both paintings have a discontinuity with their backgrounds. The people in the foreground look like they’re standing in front of a painting.
Not really worthy of being in the White House though. More something I’d expect to see in a campaign headquarters or maybe a barbershop.
Ha, why not both?
“Trump looks trim and fit, as opposed to a bag stuffed full of shit” – or as Hannah Jane Parkinson put it in the Guardian piece, like a badly-packed sleeping bag. A very useful simile.
It’s a very useful simile. I still prefer mine ;-)
I love this painting. Jesus Trump. Absolutely Jesus Trump.
I’ve never understood why Republicans like Lincoln. Isn’t he kind of anti-slavery? GOP secretly want and pray for all non-white people in chains.
#14, Lincoln the slaveholder was anti-slavery? The same Lincoln who’s first draft of his proclamation to free slaves came two years into the war and was only intended to free slaves in the rebel secessionist states, allowing the other slave states to carry on? And even that was made because the South was looking likely to actually win the war (until Jackson died, which revealed the utter incompetence of Grant and Lee; the Union didn’t win that war, the Confederate president and his no.1 general lost it) and Lincoln knew that the proclamation would ensure the support of Britain and Europe.
Rob @ 13, both are good, both shall have prizes.
Lincoln the slaveholder? Lol, we must be talking about different Lincolns.
Did I get that bit wrong? I know the rest is historical fact and doesn’t exactly scream ‘anti-slavery’, but who was the last president to have slaves?
Grant, who was two presidents after Lincoln, had owned previously owned slaves.
Of course Grant didn’t own slaves when he was president, because it was illegal after the passage of the 13th amendment, which Lincoln helped push through the House and the Senate. It was sent to him for his signature, even though that wasn’t required, and he approved and signed it (the only amendment signed by a president). It was well on its way to being ratified by the states when he was assasinated.
Steven Spielberg even made a movie about this and everything.
I’m not sure about the rest being historical fact either. The South’s advance in the North had been halted a year before Stonewall Jackson died, and they were on defense after that. It’s an interesting question how much better the South would have done if he had lived, but unfortunately his fellow Southerners shot him three times and he died shortly afterwards.
Oh, I missed the main question: Lincoln never owned slaves. I can’t find the slightest hint that anyone ever thought he did aside from an apocryphal story claiming he briefly took ownership of an abandoned slave in order to free them. It’s a cute story, but nobody takes it seriously.
AoS and Skeletor, apparently it’s a common alt-right talking point that Lincoln owned Slaves. Wrong as it happens.
There is a list of slave owning Presidents on Wikipedia and this link about Lincoln and his attitudes to slavery are interesting.
https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
Re-reading my comments, they sound harsher than I intended. Apologies, AoS.
The pendulum on Lincoln seems to swing back and forth. First he unambiguously freed the slaves. Then he just signed the meaningless emancipation proclamation, effectively doing nothing for the slaves.
They say the truth is somewhere in the middle, but in this case it’s much closer to the original “Lincoln freed the slaves” narrative. He never owned slaves, he was long opposed to slavery, and he was in the process of abolishing slavery with his strong advocacy of the 13th amendment before he was killed.
Were his views on race perfect? No. But he was ahead of society as a whole, his views improved over time, and he arguably did more to move the needle toward justice than anybody else in that time period.
“Is it a solecism to include Ford when he was never actually elected?”
I can think of one good reason for Ford’s inclusion.
He was a previous Vice President who became President, and then pardoned a former President who was facing possible incarceration.
ftfy
Wellll, the “unfortunately” was clearly ironic.
Hard to say. I don’t know if Trump would want to share the space with those other, lesser presidents. Though it would suit his constant need for validation to be included with them.
I think Trump is much more likely to collect Jon McNaughton.
(link below takes you to Google Image search results which my surpass most people’s gastric limits…)
https://www.google.ca/search?q=jon+mcnaughton+trump&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuoKOumoveAhXBoIMKHQPuDmkQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=938
Ophelia,
Yeah, the past couple of years haven’t been good for my irony meter.
Re the Thomas paintings,
I’ve seen prints of them hanging in the windows of tacky tourist shops in the underground passage near the Crystal City metro station for several years now; presumably they wouldn’t be there if they didn’t sell.
Ooh that Crystal City metro station underpass – I once went to the WRONG huge hotel via that thing. It’s rather large, at least to a hick from Seattle.
Good for walking in crappy weather. But yeah, there are two Marriotts there.
Ha, I thought it was two of the same brand but wasn’t sure and too lazy to look it up. So yeah: imagine my surprise after following the signs for Marriott (for a long distance) to find it was a DIFFERENT Marriott. Sheesh, people.
A lot of parody versions around. I think I like this one the best, showing Trump with his fellow sexual harassers/assaulters.
Ooh, I’ll add that.
Hey, why is Lincoln still in the sexual predator one?
Everyone’s being unfair to Lincoln lately…
A commenter on Lawyers, Guns and Money replaced Lincoln with Kananope. Completed the whole thing.