Rice University’s Student Newspaper — Since 1916

Friday, May 27, 2022 — Houston, TX

Why we should care about George Bush’s sh**ty paintings

c96eba36f95bd9d5534a1f07f48444d0
Photo by Courtesy Reuters | The Rice Thresher

Above is one of George W. Bush’s most noteworthy paintings, a portrait of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Bush’s choice to portray Putin grimacing, as opposed to the happier expressions of leaders in other paintings, indicates his relative disdain for the Russian president.

By Kaylen Strench     4/9/14 10:14am

This past Saturday, April 5, former president George W. Bush launched a public exhibition of his paintings at his presidential library in Dallas. Bush’s paintings include everything from cats to world leaders produced in large, clunky brushstrokes on a variety of solid-colored backgrounds. 

This past Saturday, April 5, former president George W. Bush launched a public exhibition of his paintings at his presidential library in Dallas. Bush’s paintings include everything from cats to world leaders produced in large, clunky brushstrokes on a variety of solid-colored backgrounds. Bush’s paintings have not escaped their fair share of critical analysis, most of which has included the words “creepy” and “bizarre.” The Daily Telegraph art critic Alastair Sooke recently described his style as “idiosyncratically naive and skew-whiff,” whatever that means.

The thorough coverage of Bush’s universally-condemned art brings to mind the question, “Why the hell does anyone care about George Bush’s bad paintings?” When you get past the alarming weirdness of the mental image of Bush proudly finishing up a disfigured portrait of a cat, is there any artistic significance to his work?



One answer could be that the paintings allow access to Bush’s psyche: They tell us deeper things about his approach to life and world leadership. Besides his choices to portray world leaders with either smiles or frowns, however, I can’t seem to find any other symbolic significance to the works. We can’t blame Bush for this though; he’s a literal man who’s straight to the point.

Instead, I claim that we don’t care about Bush’s art because of his crappy paintings or his non-artistic soul. His paintings are important because of his choice to paint them and display them to the world. Human beings of all cultures, ages and backgrounds write in diaries or sketch from photographs. Many the 50-plus housewife, including many of my mom’s friends, have taken up painting as a casual hobby. However, few make the important choice to expose these naive attempts to the world for analysis and sometimes rather harsh critique. Art does not require symbolic depth or skill; what it does require is an audience. Bush’s paintings suck, but they deserve the honor of being labeled “art” because he put them on display anyway. His fame and shaky public perception only underscore the bravery of this act. 

In fact, the choice to create and display is one of the most powerful and artistically meaningful acts a human can ever make; it involves isolating a delicate part of one’s soul and exposing it in a way that renders it completely vulnerable. The larger the audience and the lower the quality of the work, the more impressive the decision. I would even argue that Rice students should be moved by Bush’s decision to display their own work in a public setting. While offering it up to the proverbial shark tank is an intimidating thought, to do so is to show confidence that you can stand the criticism. If Bush can shamelessly present his globby portraits of world leaders, you can definitely publish your Franzian short story on environmental Marxism.

In conclusion, I beseech you George Bush: Ignore the criticism of your shitty paintings. You are an artist, and while your paintings may not deserve respect from the art world, your choice to display them certainly does.



More from The Rice Thresher

SPORTS 5/22/22 10:09pm
Men's team takes third, women's takes fifth at C-USA T&F championships

The Conference USA outdoor track and field championships saw Rice’s men’s team place third with 121 points — their best conference championship performance since 2005 — and the women’s team place fifth with 88 points. According to men’s head coach Jon Warren, he was proud to see the work his team put in all season be on full display at the meet.

OPINION 5/12/22 4:05pm
The Wellbeing Center should be transparent about its true confidentiality policies

Before you attend a counseling session at the Rice counseling center, you will be told that “the RCC maintains strict standards regarding privacy.” You will find statements from the university that your mental health record will not be shared with anyone outside of extreme situations of imminent harm, and only then that your information will be shared with only the necessary officials. This sounds great, except that these assurances bear no teeth whatsoever — no enforcement agency ensures that Rice follows its public confidentiality promises, and there are no penalties for Rice if they break them. The Wellbeing and Counseling Centers should more directly communicate the limits of their confidentiality policies when compared to unaffiliated counseling centers, and students in sensitive situations should take the necessary precautions to protect their information.


Comments

Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.