If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Verge)   Of course, Bush Jr. plagiarized his art work   (theverge.com) divider line 46
    More: Dumbass, George W. Bush, art, Google, Jenna Bush, paintings, strokes  
•       •       •

2467 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2014 at 9:41 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-09 08:44:20 AM
Maybe he should have googled those WMD.
 
2014-04-09 09:17:23 AM
I'll bet the real truth is that he took printouts and then traced them in oil.
 
2014-04-09 09:46:35 AM

Two Dogs Farking: I'll bet the real truth is that he took printouts and then traced them in oil.


And still managed to screw the process up.

Yep, sounds like Shrubya.
 
2014-04-09 09:47:40 AM
Meh. He still painted them.

I like to draw, I always try my hand at things I find online. It's good training and I'm still proud of my work if I pull it off.
 
2014-04-09 09:49:42 AM
Wow. So are we to conclude that Bush is lazy? Because that would require a major reassessment of his character.
 
2014-04-09 09:50:35 AM
1. Project photo on canvas.
2. Use paint to try to mimic what I see on the canvas
3. profit?
 
2014-04-09 09:51:00 AM

Wooly Bully: Wow. So are we to conclude that Bush is lazy?


Sure he is, without the cocaine.
 
2014-04-09 10:00:47 AM
Leave it to the libs to blame Bush for plagiarizing his painting of the female Hitler and some wolfhound when they didn't say anything when Kerry copied whole speeches or the horrible plagiarizing cover-up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In the highbrow artworld plagiarizm is completely acceptable, just see examples like Salvador Dali or Adolf Hitler.
 
2014-04-09 10:06:29 AM
As someone who really, really hates Bush and thinks he is a war criminal and, perhaps, the worst president in American history, all I have to say is, who gives a shiat?

I've seen this story pop up various places, and I'm still trying to figure out what the point of it is. The man has a hobby. Why should anyone care about the details of it?
 
2014-04-09 10:08:43 AM

eiger: As someone who really, really hates Bush and thinks he is a war criminal and, perhaps, the worst president in American history, all I have to say is, who gives a shiat?

I've seen this story pop up various places, and I'm still trying to figure out what the point of it is. The man has a hobby. Why should anyone care about the details of it?


/thread
 
2014-04-09 10:14:20 AM

eiger: As someone who really, really hates Bush and thinks he is a war criminal and, perhaps, the worst president in American history, all I have to say is, who gives a shiat?

I've seen this story pop up various places, and I'm still trying to figure out what the point of it is. The man has a hobby. Why should anyone care about the details of it?


Basically this.
 
2014-04-09 10:45:08 AM

eiger: As someone who really, really hates Bush and thinks he is a war criminal and, perhaps, the worst president in American history, all I have to say is, who gives a shiat?

I've seen this story pop up various places, and I'm still trying to figure out what the point of it is. The man has a hobby. Why should anyone care about the details of it?


Not sure that it's really plagiarism. Certainly Merkel isn't going to spend a few hours or days sitting in a chair so Bush can paint a picture. Any head shot is like any other head shot. Was Warhol's painting of soup cans plagiarism?

He gets a pass on what trollmitter claims but we can certainly mock his artistic ability along with being a war criminal and the worst president ever. The painting of Merkel looks suspiciously like that Spanish "Ecce Homo" painting that was fixed.
 
2014-04-09 10:47:06 AM

eiger: As someone who really, really hates Bush and thinks he is a war criminal and, perhaps, the worst president in American history, all I have to say is, who gives a shiat?

I've seen this story pop up various places, and I'm still trying to figure out what the point of it is. The man has a hobby. Why should anyone care about the details of it?


Seriously this. I can't believe anyone is surprised he didn't invite these political figures to his studio so he could spend hours painting them in person.

Painting from a picture is one of the reasons the paintings are flat, though.
 
2014-04-09 10:53:23 AM
Not everybody can be as talented an artist as George Zimmerman.
 
2014-04-09 10:55:19 AM

eiger: As someone who really, really hates Bush and thinks he is a war criminal and, perhaps, the worst president in American history, all I have to say is, who gives a shiat?

I've seen this story pop up various places, and I'm still trying to figure out what the point of it is. The man has a hobby. Why should anyone care about the details of it?


pretty much what I was going to say.
 
2014-04-09 10:56:50 AM
My daughter was an art major in college. She did a series of self portraits in different lights. I was very impressed with her talent, until she told me that she took a photo of herself and then used it to do an overlay trace so she could explore lighting effects on the more or less same  image of herself. Dah!.

Bush should have stuck with running a failing GasStation CONvenience Store. He would have a lot more respect today.
 
2014-04-09 11:14:08 AM
 
2014-04-09 11:17:37 AM
images.sodahead.com
 
2014-04-09 11:18:03 AM

Cataholic: Been done before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2517051/Johannes-Verm ee r-DID-use-mirrors-camera-obscura-paintings.html


I was just about to post one of his paintings.
 
2014-04-09 11:19:47 AM

LadySusan: Not sure that it's really plagiarism.


Actually, it is. Artists regularly pay lots of money to use photographer's work in their paintings. As long as he doesn't sell it, it's not really a legal issue, and lots of artists do it with stuff they're not going to sell for practice, but in the art world, it's really bad form to have a gallery opening with work you painted from someone else's photographs.
 
2014-04-09 11:42:02 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: LadySusan: Not sure that it's really plagiarism.

Actually, it is. Artists regularly pay lots of money to use photographer's work in their paintings. As long as he doesn't sell it, it's not really a legal issue, and lots of artists do it with stuff they're not going to sell for practice, but in the art world, it's really bad form to have a gallery opening with work you painted from someone else's photographs.


This is true. However, Section IV Paragraph 23 of the Art World Codex states that "any sitting or past United States or Canadian head of state, whose artworks have been selected for gallery presentation, shall be exempt from normal prohibitions on, and scorn for, the use of photographs or other intermediary visual stimuli in the creation of their artworks."

Bush and his art team clearly did their homework beforehand.
 
2014-04-09 11:45:31 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: LadySusan: Not sure that it's really plagiarism.

Actually, it is. Artists regularly pay lots of money to use photographer's work in their paintings. As long as he doesn't sell it, it's not really a legal issue, and lots of artists do it with stuff they're not going to sell for practice, but in the art world, it's really bad form to have a gallery opening with work you painted from someone else's photographs.


Wrong...just plain wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rosenquist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vernon+Fisher&safe=off&client=firefo x- a&hs=CxG&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&sour ce=univ&sa=X&ei=l2lFU6u5HKbt2QXU2YDoBA&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1226&bih=638

It's called appropriation and it has been a valid form of image acquisition for artists basically since photography was invented.  This is not the same as in the literary world, where plagiarism is still taboo.
 
2014-04-09 11:49:21 AM
He was just painting what Dick Cheney told him to paint.
 
2014-04-09 11:52:22 AM

Cataholic: Been done before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2517051/Johannes-Verm ee r-DID-use-mirrors-camera-obscura-paintings.html


Vermeer also used his camera obscura to capture ghosts.
 
2014-04-09 11:53:04 AM
A painting based on a photo is a derivative work, and at worst it's copyright infringement, not plagiarism.
 
2014-04-09 11:55:36 AM
"In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes."  - RAND PAUL
 
m00
2014-04-09 11:56:27 AM
It's copyright infringement. Bush should be fined $1000 for every brush stroke. Because those are the sort of draconian copyright laws that were put in place under his administration.

Oh wait, laws don't apply to the political class.
 
2014-04-09 12:00:27 PM

farker99: 1. Project photo on canvas.
2. Use paint to try to mimic what I see on the canvas
3. profit?


That's actually a pretty standard MO for many artists.

That said, artists have been copying other artists for centuries.  It's called "training".

upload.wikimedia.org
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-09 12:11:08 PM

DarwiOdrade: A painting based on a photo is a derivative work, and at worst it's copyright infringement, not plagiarism.


Only a major corporate asshole could consider it copyright infringement.

Which makes the idea that GWB thinks it's okay all the more strange...
 
2014-04-09 12:26:03 PM
I hate to say crapmitter, but you're wrong. This isn't plagiarism. He made the paintings himself whether he had the people sitting in the room or not.
 
2014-04-09 12:28:13 PM

Two Dogs Farking: I'll bet the real truth is that he took printouts and then traced them in oil.


That's the conclusion I was hoping they'd come to, especially considering they took the time to superimpose his Putin painting over the Putin search. I think it'd be interesting to see what it would look like were somebody to do the same to the rest of the paintings.
 
2014-04-09 12:28:48 PM
Bush Jr. plagiarized his art work

- Rand Paul
 
2014-04-09 12:47:10 PM
 a more famouse palagerized piece :

i1034.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-09 12:57:51 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Meh. He still painted them.

I like to draw, I always try my hand at things I find online. It's good training and I'm still proud of my work if I pull it off.


My wife paints portraits of Hollywood celebrities and she uses photo-static images that she finds on Google (She's currently working on Bette Davis). She'll make small subtle changes in the painting so that it doesn't have that "I'm a copy" look. I don't think she'd appreciate it very much if you called her a plagiarist.
 
2014-04-09 01:17:22 PM
He's just a tracer.
 
2014-04-09 01:19:30 PM

meehaw: It's called appropriation and it has been a valid form of image acquisition for artists basically since photography was invented.  This is not the same as in the literary world, where plagiarism is still taboo.


In music and art I think the legal term is "derivative work" as in, it's fine if I use your photograph if I manipulate it so it's different appreciably.  Like I can make a collage out of magazine cut-outs and it's not plagarism, it's art medium.

Or like, I can write a song that goes C-C-C-G-C-C-F-G with the words, "baby I love you" and it's not plagarism, it's just unoriginal.

... or something like that
 
2014-04-09 01:28:59 PM
Art is anything anyone who considers himself to be an artist considers to be art. Is Bush an artist? Yes. Is he a good artist? Aw hells no.
 
2014-04-09 01:49:17 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: meehaw: It's called appropriation and it has been a valid form of image acquisition for artists basically since photography was invented.  This is not the same as in the literary world, where plagiarism is still taboo.

In music and art I think the legal term is "derivative work" as in, it's fine if I use your photograph if I manipulate it so it's different appreciably.  Like I can make a collage out of magazine cut-outs and it's not plagarism, it's art medium.

Or like, I can write a song that goes C-C-C-G-C-C-F-G with the words, "baby I love you" and it's not plagarism, it's just unoriginal.

... or something like that


In art, though, the absolute strict copy is also a valid strategy. In the eighties Richard Prince made a name for himself by appropriating images from Marlboro Ads with no change whatsoever other than context...they were now in a gallery rather than in a magazine.  They were not even paintings, but photographs of the ads.  That context change IS the art, and is a conceptual idea worth stating.

The layman confuses skill with art, and therefore doesn't see skill in what Richard Prince does, and calls it bad or invalid.  Pure observational drawing and painting skills can be taught to anyone (I am a professor of art).  For example Photorealism can be a simple parlor trick, and skill to recreate an image in paint is something that can absolutely be taught to anyone willing to put in just a few weeks of effort to learn.  Therefore, skill is not nearly as prized by the art world as people assume.  The thing we teach in art school is not "How" to do things, but "Why" to do things.  Skill means very little...idea is everything.  That's why very important works of art (Duchamp's "Fountain" or Donald Judd's or Dan Flavin's sculptures) can involve little or no physical input from the artist.

So, artists, steal like you mean it.

"Lesser artists borrow; great artists steal." Igor Stravinsky(Fittingly, this quote is attributed to Picasso, Faulkner, Twain, T.S. Elliot and many others, as well.)
 
2014-04-09 02:15:57 PM

hinten: Leave it to the libs to blame Bush for plagiarizing his painting of the female Hitler and some wolfhound when they didn't say anything when Kerry copied whole speeches or the horrible plagiarizing cover-up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In the highbrow artworld plagiarizm is completely acceptable, just see examples like Salvador Dali or Adolf Hitler.


Your evidence of Kerry's plagarism is a comment on the Motley Fool site? Couldn't you at least have link to a commenter on Fark? As for Clinton, she took the theme that her HUSBAND had been using for years. Taking a theme is not plagarism, especially if you are married to the person from which you took the theme. Nice reach though.
 
2014-04-09 02:21:03 PM

LadySusan: Certainly Merkel isn't going to spend a few hours or days sitting in a chair so Bush can paint a picture.


"Paint me like one of your Asian leaders"

/queue the Celine Dion
 
2014-04-09 04:10:19 PM
As long as he isn't decidering anymore, I don't give a crap what he does.
 
2014-04-09 04:49:41 PM

farker99: 1. Project photo on canvas.
2. Use paint to try to mimic what I see on the canvas
3. profit?


In other words, every photoshop artist on the planet?

/Seeing as it started as a hobby, do not give a crap. Even then, he's still -doing- something with it.
//Actually it is quite reassuring that there's at least one politician who knew how to use Google.

Submitted for your approval (which I also accquired from Google)

netdna.webdesignerdepot.com
 
2014-04-09 05:53:54 PM

hinten: Leave it to the libs to blame Bush for plagiarizing his painting of the female Hitler and some wolfhound when they didn't say anything when Kerry copied whole speeches or the horrible plagiarizing cover-up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In the highbrow artworld plagiarizm is completely acceptable, just see examples like Salvador Dali or Adolf Hitler.


They're also strangely silent about MLK plagiarizing parts of his doctoral dissertation. Odd. It's human nature though. We tend to be more forgiving of people with whom we share ideals and overly critical of people we deem as social or political opposites.
 
2014-04-09 09:10:13 PM
hinten: "Leave it to the libs to blame Bush for plagiarizing his painting of the female Hitler and some wolfhound when they didn't say anything when Kerry copied whole speeches or the horrible plagiarizing cover-up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In the highbrow artworld plagiarizm is completely acceptable, just see examples like Salvador Dali or Adolf Hitler."

-Rand Paul
 
2014-04-10 02:35:56 AM
he's got the intelligence and talent of an average 7 year old

let him have his fun
 
2014-04-10 05:15:33 PM

eiger: As someone who really, really hates Bush and thinks he is a war criminal and, perhaps, the worst president in American history, all I have to say is, who gives a shiat?

I've seen this story pop up various places, and I'm still trying to figure out what the point of it is. The man has a hobby. Why should anyone care about the details of it?


The point is the media have missed the point: After a look at some of his portraits, I conclude he's successfully trolled us with a collection of world leaders with Steve Buscemi eyes. I think he deserves more credit than the press are giving him!
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report