Analyzing Bush based on his favorite painting
The Guardian has a silly article about George Bush's favorite painting, a 1916 cowboy scene by WHD Koerner. The painting hangs in his office, and he tells people that it's a "beautiful painting of a horseman determinedly charging up what appears to be a steep and rough trail. This is us."
The painting first appeared in the Saturday Evening Post in 1916 "to illustrate a story about a horse thief, and captioned as a picture of his flight from the law. Only later did it illustrate a story about Methodism."
The paper showed the painting to four people: a professor of gender studies, a psychoanalyst, a military historian, and a "psychotherapist and ex-Labour spin doctor," and asked them to analyze the President based on the painting and his story about it.
Derek Draper, psychotherapist and ex-Labour spin doctor: "Most revealing, though, is the simple fact that a healthy mind would look at this image and not be certain what it depicted. Bush, though, as he once told Senator Joe Biden, doesn't "do nuance". Instead he invariably replaces "not-knowing" with prejudiced certainty. A foolish psychological mindset when it comes to art or life; a catastrophic one in politics."It's interesting that these analysts are taking Bush to task for inventing a story about the painting, instead of having ambiguous feelings about it. As the article states, it has been used at least twice to illustrate two very different stories. What's wrong with coming up with your own interpretation of what a painting means? This is probably the first time in my life that I'm on the President's side. (Also, it's a wonderful painting.) Go, Bush! Link (Thanks, Jane!)
the latest
latest episodes
Two reasons I think this *is* at least embarrassing for the president:
1. He didn't just say the painting depicted a Methodist *to him*; he claimed this was the painting's history. He may want to research something like that before coming out with it. I'm embarrassed if I have the history of a family keepsake wrong; he's the president, and this is his favorite painting. He should at least look into it for the sake of PR, if not out of personal curiosity.
2. I find it really odd that he saw a religious message in a painting which to anyone I've asked looks to be showing some Western-action-type thing going on.
You're entitled to consider it a beautiful painting, but don't be surprised that to at least some, it looks like what it is: a dime-a-dozen illustration of a cowboy story.
Nobody but an art historian is going to look at a narrative painting like that, and when asked what it means to them, reply "Well, I can't really be sure. It's full of ambiguity." If that had been Bush's description of it, the Guradian's article would have been about how stupid he is for not being able to understand a painting of a guy riding a horse up a hill.
Besides, politicians are constantly looking for meaning where there isn't any, and there job consists primarily of selling us stories. Stories about how the big bad terrorists are out to get us, stories about how the little man can't get by any more, stories about how selling things on eBay is going to ruin the Pennsylvanian economy. Stories without evidence are exactly what politicians do best, and I guess art interpretation is no different.
I wonder what kind of responses The Guardian would have gotten if their experts hadn't known it was Bush's favorite.
There is nothing wrong with having one's own interpretation of a painting--however, when that interpretation is at odds with the known background of a work, then it becomes groundless (faith-based art appreciation?)
For a more direct example, anybody can look at The Death of A. Marat and make up their own interpretation; however, to say that the dead figure in the bathtub is a "beautiful figure who has died peacefully while in the bath" would be a gross misstatement, at odds with history.
Personally, I go for meta-analysis; I think that Bush sees himself as the 'determined horseman,' while the rest of us see him as a horse thief;>
I always thought that was the great thing about visual art-- that it could act as a catalyst for your own imagination. You see a man on a horse, riding frantically up an incline. Other horsemen are -- following? Chasing? You chose one. Then you answer the question 'why?'
That's where stories get born.
Sure it says something about your psyche. But it might just as well say something about what you had for breakfast or the show you saw last night where this guy was charging up a hill..
I always thought that was the great thing about visual art-- that it could act as a catalyst for your own imagination. You see a man on a horse, riding frantically up an incline. Other horsemen are -- following? Chasing? You chose one. Then you answer the question 'why?'
That's where stories get born.
Sure it says something about your psyche. But it might just as well say something about what you had for breakfast or the show you saw last night where this guy was charging up a hill..
what is telling is that it is yet another example of incurious george.
What job on this earth WOULD he have been suited for?
Looks like a nice painting. I've got several western paintings on my walls, I couldn't tell you the names or "real" stories to any of them. I made up stories to most of them. One's got a cowboy leading a horse through deep snowy woods in a storm looking for a lost cow. Does that mean I'd inevitably invade Iraq? :)
Ugh. I despise most art criticism. It always seems so full of crap. Where did they one guy get the allusions to the American Civil War from this painting? I didn't see any firearms in the painting, but maybe the displayed thumbnail is too small to see them.
"This is such an exhausted cliche of masculinity: the loner on his horse, the heroic, old-fashioned western archetype." The "loner" is like 20 feet from the other guys! Doth 20 feet a loner make? Gah!
To me it looks like three guys on horseback going up a steep trail, single file. They trail is curving because it's a switch back (hence why I think it's steep) and they are rounding the corner. I like it. If I saw it in the $5 bin o' art at WalMart I'd probably buy it for my walls.
As a side note, we know Bush's favorite painting, and I think earlier his iPod song list was published. Do we know the favorite paintings or songs of other world leaders? That might be an interesting list to look over. Maybe I can get some more ideas for my walls :)
A petty thief transformed into a religious icon... sounds right to me.
It's mr. bush's relentless 'rightness' that makes his take a problem. Classically the Tolsoy Syndrome person will refuse to believe reality outside what they call truth.
Others pointing out the real story of the painting isn't fazing the prez. Instead it seems to make his stance more resolute, unwavering.
He's too righteous to believe what he's told is truth, and that's what makes him a dangerous president.
Tolstoy Syndrome could be the reason we're still at 'war' with Al Queda.
what is telling is that it is yet another example of incurious george.
So true -- that was the point of the exercise. When you don't know, make it up and then back it up as the truth. That's why it's a determined horseman. Because that's what he says it is. Just like "Mission Accomplished."
And to the one poster's point, it's a pretty pedestrian Western painting.
"This is probably the first time in my life that I'm on the President's side."
A sure sign of the end times.
But seriously...what's wrong with his interpretation? Isn't one of the points of art that it is open to interpretation? You read Moby Dick. Some see it a narrative of whaling, others a re-interpretation of man's relationship with man (or whatever).
I have a painting on my wall from my grandmother. I have no clue if it is a reproduction or an original, and I don't care. It depicts a night scene in the bay of some Turkish or far eastern city. When I was growing up it was the home of the Arbian Nights, for me. Whether that is true or not, why should anybody care. It's my interpretation.
Honestly, this whole thing is as bad as CNBC's insistence on whether or not the Fed was going to cut rates because they claimed to be able to interpret Alan Greenspan's attitude from the way he carried his briefcase (from the handle or under his arm).
Wait a minute! There is more to this story, some people seem to be getting it wrong.
Read the original article, from Harper's:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002237
The painting was originally created as an illustration for a story about a horse thief running from the law.
The beauty of art is that it is all so personal. You see it, thoughts sift through your mind. You might make up a story, you might just think the colors look nice together. You might not like it at all, and move onto the next piece. What the original artist was trying to convey is irrelevent when viewed through your own eyes. I am not going to judge someone based on how they interpret art, or what art they like for that matter.
This story is quite old, better article and some history
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002237
Which appears to be the 'basis' of Jone's wanky article (ahem).
If something is as person's favourite work then I would expect them to know its real history and acknowledge the difference between that and their personal interpretation. I think it does relate to the 'reality based community' meme and the religious preference for faith over reason or facts.
While trying to find a better copy of the painting (so far the best I found is this), I ran across this:
"The original piece of art is of a horse thief is fleeing a lynch mob. The Saturday Evening Post liked W.H.D. Koerner’s illustration so much it used it a year later to illustrate an a short story, “Ways that are Dark.” The caption under the illustration read: “Bandits Move About From Town to Town, Pillaging Whatever They Can Find.”
Koerner’s illustration was picked up again in 1918 by the magazine A Country Gentleman for the story, “A Charge to Keep.”
Dunno if it's true, but if correct, calling the painting "A Charge to Keep" was not Bush's invention, it'd been called that since 1918.
Vancouver police and Vancouver firemen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pATjJVdalZc
@#9-
Horse thieves were not petty thieves. That was a hanging offense. I'm just sayin'.
now how did that get here? sorry wrong thread
It's sort of amusing that they didn't include a single "expert" with any connection to art for this little exercise in "Let's see if we can get people to provide exactly the stereotypical responses to a question that we expect from them."
And what a surprise . . .
- the psychoanalyst saw repression,
- the gender theorist saw sexual politics,
- the military historian more or less fabricated allusions to various military conflicts, and
- the politician/therapist sees a troubled, unquestioning mind while getting in a few digs at Bush's history.
I'm pretty much with Mark on this one ... it's an amusing anecdote/coincidence, but the analysis is nearly all projection by people who disagree with and/or dislike the President.
I'm with you on this on Mark - there's not many times I'd come out on Bush's side but when you range him against psychotherapists commenting on his taste in art well, strange bedfellows is the result.
a healthy mind would look at this image and not be certain what it depicted?
hogwash.
it's a guy riding a horse up a hill, like the president said. as for the rider's character, that's another story.
looking at this image and not being certain what it depicts, when it is basically a photorealistic painting of an outdoor scene, strikes me as the response of a schizophrenic, not a healthy mind.
@1: You'd be amazed at how many of us, even the President, have better things to do than research the history of the art in our lives, even our favourite pieces.
For exactly the same reason, most of us don't waste time researching the history of the machines in our lives, either. The machines, like the art, do what they do without us needing to know much about where they came from.
So if you think the Pres ought to be embarrassed by this, you should be embarrassed that you don't know the history of the automatic transmission, power brakes, or front wheel drive. You'd appreciate your car so much more if you did (assuming you own a car--replace with obvious examples from other common machines as required.)
This is all best understood as an example of how monkeys over-interpret the behaviour of the alpha monkey.
It is pretty safe office art. Bush fancies himself a cowboy. If you've ever met a real cowboy, you'd know that pampered Georgie boy is the furthest thing from it.
The painting has a "merican" subject. It isn't an abstract. It doesn't do anything "freaky" with color or light. It has a landscape background. A landscape without the figures (action figures even) would have been more neutral, but Bush doesn't worry about neutrality. And the comic book action is just the ticket for someone with the emotional sophistication of a 12 yr old.
If the Connecticut side of his upbringing was dominant, you'd see something different. It wouldn't be a mere seascape. He'd have a huge grim oil painting of a pirate clinging to a ship's wheel in the teeth of a gale. He would think it was a missionary sailing out to convert the heathens.
Yee-haw or Heave-to, it's all the same stuff.
The problem isn't the President's interpretation, it's that he didn't know the true story or chose to believe the one that fit his ideology.
Sort of like WMD in Iraq.
I'm sorry that President Bush didn't show all his work in analyzing the painting. He came up with a story that fits the narrative, so be it.
A lot of art is ambiguous, of course, but that doesn't mean one's foolish to resolve the ambiguity whatever way seems fit. I think this damned bow and arrow on the SF water front was left by some pissed off giant who was hoping to kill his rival and the other guy didn't show up for the fight. I'm sure its "supposed" to be about something else or nothing at all. Big whoop.
Alright, that's freaky......do you live in San Francisco? If so, I was there several months ago, and when I saw that giant bow and arrow, I literally made up a very similar story in my head.
I wonder if that's normal for that sculpture, or abnormal....
Art is subjective. Also this is the story he was described when the painting was given to him.
Professional ethics come into play when psychiatrists try to make long-distance diagnoses. The American Psychiatric Assoc established the "Goldwater Rule" in response to a 1964 survey from Fate magazine in which psychiatrists called the candidate "warped" and "paranoid schizophrenic" and speculated about his toilet training. This is Doctor Phil vs. Britney territory.
Among their statements on ethics, the APA says, "On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his/her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he/she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."
I realize psychotherapists and psychoanalysts are not the same as psychiatrists. I can't imagine why the ethics of this situation would be different for them.
Here's a pretty comprehensive blog post supposedly by a practicing psychoanalyst/psychiatrist, discussing similar ethical breeches or controversies:
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/10/psychblogging_a.html
@28 - I work downtown, live in the East Bay. I've always had pretty much that story with that piece of art as long as its been there (10 years or so?). How weird.
Journalist: "Mr. President, why is this your favorite painting?"
Bush: "It's a cowboy. And he's ridin' a horsie!"
'Nuff said.
retnull @ 13 does the heavy lifting and reminds us to read a more detailed writeup. I saw that same piece and haven't read the Guardian piece. How anyone could see that as an illustration of religious devotion or the dedication of a missionary is interesting, to say the least.
If it doesn't signify anything about the incumbent's self-perception, it does offer some insight into his interest in the world around him. His entire administration is built around some notion of ideological purity, so the fact that no one had the curiosity to perform a cursory look into that painting and it's provenance is telling. Imputing religious motives to a secular image is what people do when they see the Virgin Mary in a mold stain but at least that has an uncontroversial origin.
I just find it interesting that he says "This is us" when originally, it was a PAINTING OF A HORSE THIEF
Pretty much sums it up...
ceci n'est pas un cowboy
Here’s my two cents…
We have to remember that this is not interpretative art, but a commissioned illustration to depict a very specific situation.
So although the idea of interpreting art for one’s self and finding meaning in it is something that I myself strive for, when I look at an illustration of, let’s say… Superman (another piece of commissioned art for a publication), there is a specific back story, history, and -more importantly- intent to the art in question. One could look at the cover of Action Comics #1 and say “look at that villain smashing that car!” but we all know the specific intent of the illustration, and if we don’t a very cursory glance at the publication or a few keyboard taps would be able to set us strait about the illustration’s ‘ambiguous’ scenario.
If Bush had a painted illustration of Ted Bundy on his wall and told everyone who walked in his office that this was ‘us’, this was ‘America… clean cut and polite’ we’d all think he was nuts (well... more so than we do now). “But,” Bush says, “the guy who sold me the painting SAID he was nice!”
Ignorance is no excuse when information is so readily available... especially when you think some researcher or editor or President would have checked prior to borrowing the ‘name’ of his favourite painting for a book title.
I wonder which list of people is longer (news article writers, book editors, white house staff); people who have told Bush that he’s wrong about this, or people who know that telling him would do no good.
Bottom line? Bush assumed quite a bit about this illustrative painting, and the public, seeing him as some one who assumes quite a lot about quite a few things, views this story as a microcosm of his presidential tenure... and we all know what happens when Bush assumes too much.
Everyone's looking for subtlety in Bush's admiration of this painting. There is none. It's plain to see why he likes it. The man in the painting looks somewhat like Bush, and he's charging up a mountain. leading all the others. Bush is projecting himself into the action. That's as deep as Bush will ever get.
It's probably obvious, but you would be hard pressed to find someone who dislikes Bush more than I do. However this armchair psychiatry is a bunch of crap. I might come up with a similar story behind the painting if I were told it was titled "A Charge to Keep". Now if it were my favorite painting, I would probably look into its background. But I think I'm safe in assuming Bush doesn't have my intellectual curiosity.
#20 - Totally agree. The analysis of Bush's words shows just as much human foible in the analyzers as Bush's original interpretation of the painting.
As much as I have issues with George W., can we overanalyze anything that anyone owns, consumes or views, PLZ?
This is petty at best.
I do not think anyone is looking for "subtlety" in Bush's admiration for the painting, nor is anyone criticizing some kind of lack of sophistication in Bush's comments about his favorite painting. They are interpreting Bush's comments about his favorite painting? So what?
Mark asked, "what's wrong with coming up with your own interpretation of what a painting means?"
Nothing. Who in the article claimed Bush's interpretation was wrong? I think the subject of what Bush might say about his favorite painting is interesting, and what's more, the interpreters in this case have produced concise, creative, and amusing interpretations.
If the story offered by the "armchair" psychiatrists is such "crap" why claim that you (spigothead) might have come up with a similar story yourself?
What first strikes me about this painting is that it's possible to interpret the horse as running backwards.
Did anyone else suddenly remember the Harper's article about two paragraphs into the State of the Union address when Bush said "It remains our charge to keep."
I guess it's still on his mind. Wonder if anybody bothered telling him the story behind the image?
Bush is an a-hole, but so are the people who buy into that goofy and pretentious pop-psych analysis. You don't need to critique his taste in art or lack of art history to see why he's bad, just look at his record and life to see what a monstrosity he is.
He doesn't know the origins of the painting. So what? So people who read this article now know a bit of trivia he doesn't. So what?
I know plenty of artists and art appreciators who know nothing about the genesis of Picasso's cubist work and the parallels in n-dimensional physics and Christian 2D "Gods Eye" artwork which date back to Egyptian art, and then the Renaissance move to 3D perspective, and the philosophical underpinnings for that. For that matter I know physicists who are also unaware of the connection but still enjoy the aesthetics of Picasso's work. They all have a generally post modern, deconstructed, world view, regardless. They're all curious people (unlike Bush) and know plenty of things I'm completely ignorant of.
The sort of pretentiousness which this article represents is amazingly counter productive. It's exactly the sort of empty snobbery which greatly encourages rural folks to be more reactionary and vote for a-holes like Bush.
PS, I'd also point out the possibility he actually knows the origins of the painting, and is laughing at the irony.
Also, the protagonist has a strong resemblance to him.
I think it's sad that the leader of the free world would hang a piece of crap like that up in his office and call it his "favorite painting" with all the insight of a high school sophomore that just won a pink ribbon at the state fair.
It is sad, but I'm not surprised. Americans hate art. That's why they say stupid things like it "means different things for different people" or "open to interpretation". They hate it because if they want to enjoy it they'd need to actually think.
Americans love illustration. Americans hate art.
> What's wrong with coming up with your own interpretation of what a painting means?
There's nothing wrong with that. But that's not what Bush did. He heard a story about the picture, assumed it to be fact, and never questioned it. Sounds familiar.
It's a bad painting of a horse about to have at least one broken leg. Jesus H. Christ, horses can't gallop on rubble!
WTF. There's only one right way to look at a painting? Speaking of "not doing nuanced" ...
Looking at it again, the subject matter is kind of fun. It's just Bush and all his baggage that wrecks it for me.
I'm from Connecticut, born in New Haven. So not really a yankee, though I knew some, growing up. There aren't so many actual yankees in CT nowadays. And I can't quite define my cultural heritage except when I go someplace else, and I can tell I'm not from "there".
I lived in Flagstaff for several years. I hung out in Phoenix. I met some cowboys of the old school. I have to say I was impressed. Baby boomer I might be, but I was never much interested in the cowboy mythos or the west. Connecticut is like that. And I couldn't see much point in a place without an ocean. Silly me.
But I met real cowboys of the generation before mine. And I heard, little by little, of what it was like to be a cowboy, to live in the west at the edge of what was wild, fifty years ago. It was something a New Haven gal could barely begin to imagine. And it makes me ache now, the longing for it. There is nothing further from Connecticut than the rawness of the desert, unless it is the very middle of the ocean gyres.
So I don't want to dismiss the painting because it is a cowboy thing. Let me instead dismiss Bush because he is NOT a cowboy thing. He's as plastic as a Fairfield county suburban development, as inauthentic as strip mall on the outskirts of Bridgeport. The cowboy thing is cool. It is a strange little slice of culture and history and there is a big gap between the reality and the stereotypes. But the reason you have all the silly stereotypes is that the reality is gripping and hits a nerve.
And the stereotypes are not without charm. Personally, I find 1950's lunchbox cowboy art more appealing than Remmington bronzes. I recently turned up a children's book about cowboys at a tag sale. The artwork delighted me. And I didn't realize why until I got it home. The book was authored by Holling Clancy Holling and illustrated by Holling and his wife, Lucille. She did illustrations in all of his books, but after a while he stopped giving her credit. Kind of like Darwin with Wallace.
If you don't know Holling's work, you need to get your sorry asses to the library. He wrote "Minn of the Mississippi" and "A Tree in the Trail" and "Paddle to the Sea" and my personal favorite, "Pagoo". Just plain kickass stuff. These were books I took out of the library (yeah, I'm that old.) over and over again.
There isn't much of a story to this cowboy book. But the illustrations are to die for. It makes me so happy to look at it. I don't know if Bush would like it or not. It is a lot longer than the goat book he found so enthralling. But there are lots of good pictures of cowboys.
Am I the only one that thinks that the horse thief looks a lot like (a youg) Bush himself?
The Guardian piece was bullshit-the 'analysts' tagged on simply so it wouldn't look like what it was--a crib of the Harper's piece. The Harper's piece was, however, bang on. Bush seeing a hero in a painting of a horse thief is a PERFECT summation of the man and the administration. Surely you're n board with that, Mark?
You folks are bashing a guy because of his taste in art ... do you ever wonder if you suffer from mental illness? Really, I wonder.
The painting was once used to illustrate a story "A Charge to Keep". He likes it. So what?
I think some of you are truly nuts.
From the get-go, the point of contention has not been whether "a guy because of his taste in art" should be "bashed" or not.
The issues here are (1) whether or not Bush's relationship to his favorite painting can/should be a topic of analysis and debate; (2) if it can be analyzed or debated, what should the quality or character of that analysis and debate be?
Mark asked: What's wrong with coming up with your own interpretation of what a painting means?
Having read most of the comments here, I can thankfully say that the answer has not been that "there is always something wrong with coming up with your own interpretation of what a painting means."
Unfortunately however, I must say that many of the arguments posted here seem to suggest "there is never something wrong with coming up with your own interpretation of what a painting means."
Which is not true, and much worse - it is highly individualistic and reactionary position.
I get the impression that there are people here who think there's something 'sacred' or 'pure' about their relationship to art that precludes the possibility of it being called into question by others.
It amazes me in the first place that anyone would feel the need to defend G.W.B. from criticism for his interpretation of his favorite painting. But I cannot make sense of the fact that that the folks who are defending G.W.B's entitlement to his own interpretation of his fav painting, do not see the hypocrisy of arguing against the entitlement of others to an opinion about Bush's interpretation of that painting.