Loading...
Title : Political art
link : Political art
Political art
Jon McNaughton, the thuddingly propagandistic right-wing crackpot artist, offers his latest work -- an exultation of Trump. You can buy a reproduction for the low, low price of $75. "When I decided to paint this picture, I wondered if this was taking it too far. But, sometimes you have to speak forcefully, like the brushstrokes of my painting."
The whole point of a McNaughton work is to take it too far. As for his brushstrokes: Is he kidding? Compared to the brush handling we see (say) a Van Gogh, McNaughton's brushwork is tame.
In previous lectures to readers, I've always maintained that art is not what but how, and that the least important aspect of any painting is the subject matter. Not long ago, I referenced David's portrait of Napoleon in his study, which you can see "in the paint" at the National Gallery in DC.
If you are not an artist, your first thought will probably be: "Ah. Napoleon!"I've tried to be fair in applying the principle of "Art is not what but how." Back in 2012, I looked at a portrayal of Obama-as-Jesus by Michael D'Antuono, the former A.D. for an ad agency. My focus was not on the inanity of his message but on the artist's skill. He displayed very little. (Although the lettering is crisply executed, and those stars must have been a bitch.)
My first thought (back in 1986, during my first trip to DC) was quite different: "Ah. David!"
I see the artist. You see the emperor. I wish to hell I could make you see through my eyes, but you never will. Frankly, I've given up on trying to improve the vision of "word people" like you.
In that light, what can we say of McNaughton? Let's be honest: The right-wing crank is much, much better than D'Antuono. I appreciate McNaughton's more muted colors and his much more realistic rendering of clothing. His handling of faces is very good; I'm particularly impressed by the biker and the woman next to him. The dog is well-handled, although I'm puzzled by the forelegs, which seem to be spaced too distantly. Or is the right foreleg actually part of a second dog, whose head is off-canvas? Unnecessarily confusing.
Trump's position is stiff and unnatural, but he's kind of that way in real life. Hate to say it, but his hands are too big. They're not just too big for Trump: They're too big for anyone. The thumb on Trump's left hand doesn't make anatomical sense.
Contrast draws the eye. I don't like the fact that the darkest darks are to be found in the Marine standing at the center and in the head of the man in the wheelchair. Shouldn't the focus be on Trump and the family in front? Shouldn't they have the sharpest darks and highlights? (Perhaps this problem lies with the reproduction.)
Also, the white of the White House is far too bright, destroying the illusion of depth. It looks as though the Marine is wearing a very strange hat. In fact, the building seems to be the nearest thing in the picture!
I disagree with the decision to put all the color on the left side of the painting; everything on the right is grey and semi-black.
The foliage is not particularly well-handled. It's not really bad, but it's the kind of work one might expect from a student. If McNaughton wants to imbue his landscapes with more character, I would advise him to study the work of Innes, or maybe the painters of the Hudson Valley school.
I think it fair to point out that this is not the way things look when you're on the south side of the White House. Actually, if you stand that distance away from the building, you are no longer on the White House grounds: You are out on the Mall, and the building is behind a large and imposing iron fence, which is constantly patrolled by Secret Service agents.
It's clear that the artist worked from photo ref. Not a problem: We all do it. McNaughton has done a reat job of dealing with one of the big technical hurdles of using photo ref -- keeping the lighting consistent. That said, I'm a little bothered by the way some faces reflect backlighting on the shaded sides of their faces, as if they were photographed in the studio. The diffused shadows of the kneeling man in the foreground center, and his little girl, do not match the shadows elsewhere.
Any artist using photo ref from many disparate sources faces another great hurdle: Keeping the perspective consistent. Here, McNaughton has failed. Look at the perspective indicated by the park bench and the wheelchair. Now look at where the horizon line is located. Doesn't match up, does it? One gets the impression that the White House is located atop a high hill -- which it isn't.
The wheels of the wheelchair do not match in terms of the vertical axis. The artist neglected to include some of Sheriff Clarke's medals.
All told, I would say that this is far from McNaughton's best work. Nevertheless, he is a gifted painter -- not a great one, but good. He's certainly better than someone like D'Antuono. Are there any decent realist painters on the left?
Thus Article Political art
That's an article Political art This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Political art with the link address https://wordcomes.blogspot.com/2017/08/political-art.html
0 Response to "Political art"
Post a Comment