Posted on 01/06/2020 4:18:41 AM PST by Kaslin
I was talking, strictly about the Smithsonian and what they put on display not the government in general. That would be an entirely different conversation.
Given that space is finite art displayers will always, regardless of their relationship to the government, have to be allowed to say no.
Indeed, ironic!
However, I agree with most the criticisms of the work in question, regardless of politics — (“too big”, “too political”, “too pro-Trump” and finally "no good.")
1. “too big” — If you've been to the NPG, few of its paintings are that large, except possibly those of some of the former presidents, and I would include the Obama portrait as being that large -- however, he actually is a former president, for better or worse.Had the Gallery director's comments been more tactful, they might have avoided this lawsuit. The artist may have accurately sensed that the comments were cutting precisely because of a political disagreement; but that doesn't make them wrong about the art — just rudely expressed.2. “too political” — this is very badly worded, if the rejection was indeed in "good faith" on artistic rather than political grounds, since the painting was submitted for consideration for "an exhibit on American political art." The NPG may have lost their case based on this wording. Best case, the Portrait Gallery was trying to say it looked like rapidly-painted illustration for throw-away campaign brochures and not a fine art portrait.
3. “too pro-Trump” — This statement must be taken in context, since it was said in 2015, when many Americans were unconvinced that Donald Trump would be able to go the distance as a candidate or a president. Hanging a painting that large would indeed have looked like a campaign endorsement that would have dwarfed most of the other works in the exhibit, when in fact Trump wasn't elected yet, or possibly not even nominated yet.
4. "no good" — this is a harshly-worded assessment of the quality of the artistry. I must agree that the draftsmanship is inconsistent within the painting, with fine detail on the eagle, flag and world eclipse, but Trump's face flat and out of focus, contrasted with overly rigid edges on the hair, cheek and nose, and the lack of subtlety in the facial modeling. It looks more like "velvet Elvis" or airbrush auto detailing than fine art, or even great graphic art.
As much as I support President Trump (very, very much), I hate to see this lawsuit succeed. You can't sue your way to undeniable excellence. Rejection is part of the art world, and often there are completely subjective tastes or preferences involved — that's just the way it is. When I was entering work in competitions, more than once I had a piece rejected from one competition, yet win an award in a different competition. Tastes vary widely.
Well said, and I agree on all points. My first reaction on seeing the painting in question is that it would have fit right in with the oversize Elvis on black velvet paintings one sees from time to time.
Yeesh. Keep that crap out of the Smithsonian, please.
That said, I’d wear it on a t-shirt in a heartbeat!
Unless that’s part of the message that dude is trying to convey. “This is our culture, and multiculturalism dictates that it is equal to all others. So take your “good taste” and shove it up your institution.” ???? You know, good ol’ hipster irony?
That’s one thing I got out of art school...all you need for success is the ability to convince the taste makers that “I meant to do that.”
“too big”
In a previous life, I had occasion to walk through the Smithsonian Museum of art or whatever it is called. They were having an exhibition of paintings by Frederic Edwin Church. All of the ones I saw were “too big”.
The size of pieces in a given exhibition is decided by the exhibit’s curator in relation to the other pieces to be exhibited and the space available. If you were looking at an exhibit by one artist, there were probably fewer pieces included than in the exhibit cited in the above lawsuit. Fewer pieces = more room to display larger works.
I see what you are saying & have to agree, but the reason I brought up the Church exhibition was that his paintings were the Jumbotrons of the 1800s and somehow they found room for a dozen to 20 of them. I thought they did a good job.
And because they were all large, none seemed disproportionately large against the others, or so I take it.
Whereas the dominance of a yuge Trump painting among the many smaller works in the other exhibit cited was one of the reasons for the rejection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.