The Obamas recently acquired a variety of art works with which to decorate the White House.
Let’s see how well you know your art.
Below you will find a picture of one of the new White House works, followed by two possible titles. See if you can pick the right one.
Good luck!
Ed Ruscha (1983)
A) I Think I’ll…
B) Afghanistan Policy
*****
Richard Diebenkorn (1955)
A) Berkeley no. 52
B) Refrigerator Reject
*****
Josef Albers (1961)
A) Homage to the Square: Elected II
B) It’s Art Because It’s Off-Center
*****
Nicolas De Stael (1954)
A) Nice
B) “A White Guy, An Indian, And A Black Guy Walk Into A Bar…”
*****
Glenn Ligon (1992)
[The phrase “All traces of the Griffin I had been were wiped from existence,” repeats in all caps on the canvas, slowly overlapping until the words disappear into black.]
A) Black Like Me #2
B) “No Beer And No TV Make Homer… something something”
*****
Edgar Degas (c. 1896-1911, cast 1919-32)
A) The Bow
B) Pinched One Off
*****
Alma Thomas (1963)
A) Watusi (Hard Edge)
B) South Park: Cutting Room Floor
*****
Alma Thomas (1973)
A) Sky Light
B) Currier & Ives & Blender
*****
George Catlin (c. 1861-69)
A) A Foot War Party in Council – Mandan
B) No Squaw, No Firewater
*****
George Catlin (c. 1861-69)
A) Buffalo Chase, With Accidents
B) Shouldn’t Have Been Texting
*****
Winslow Homer (1875)
A) Sunset Beaching The Boat
B) A Boat Full Of His Promises
*****
Sam Francis (1960)
A) The White Line
B) Zamboni Accident
*****
William H. Johnson (c. 1944)
A) Children Dance
B) “Braaaaaainssss…”
*****
William H. Johnson (c. 1944)
A) Flower to Teacher
B) When Cousins Marry
*****
William H. Johnson (c. 1944)
A) Folk Family
B) Velcro Dress
*****
William H. Johnson (c. 1944-45)
A) Booker T. Washington Legend
B) “You lie!”
UPDATE 10-11-09 – In the comments, Aletha (who has an art blog and some talent) defended some of the artists I picked on, and I admit that not all of them deserved skewering, but I *really* have to disagree on Diebenkorn. Art is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist’s values. Diebenkorn worked very hard for a long time to paint… nothing.
He went out of his way for hours, days, weeks… to create something with no specific meaning.
Even Michael Moore (whose soul is an appalling dump heap, overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of rubbish imaginable, mangled up in tangled-up knots) doesn’t do that.
Anyway, here’s some good art to cleanse your palate (caution: may contain artistic nudity). I think you’ll be able to see the difference between what THEY think is important and what Diebenkorn values.
When in doubt guess “B”. Helped me earn my degree within 4 years. But why no portraits of women with oversized bows at thier midriff, this is an obviously powerful event in Michelle’s life. And everyone knows the woman selects the art, only a girly man would put his foot down in that department.
Now Michelle’s wardrobe starts to make more sense.
After I hang a picture or a piece of art, I “don’t see it anymore.” I mean, who sits around staring at walls? I’d rather stare at beautiful Celtic women. Now THEY are art.
I like your titles much better.
Modern art is mostly dreck, looks like stuff put together by Mrs. Meehan’s 7th grade art class. No wonder they need government handouts to fund the arts.
Wow, most of those looked like they were done by children. All were produced by adults who are famous in the art community.
I do like the William H. Johnson paintings. His at least look like they were done by High School students.
I believe the Edgar Degas one is actually entitled “Obama Meets Saudi King.”
How did Degas and Homer, who were legitimate artists, find their way into what is otherwise just an assortment of crap?
I highly recommend Tom Wolfe’s book The Painted Word. It’s about the “visual art” community, rather than art itself, and it’s a hoot.
I think the first piece should be titled “Broken Teleprompter”.
It’s the collection now known as Seeing The Art World Through Ebony Colored Glasses. Thanks a heap for the hoot, Harv.
After yesterday, it’s good to laugh out loud at something other than the Nobel Committee!
Racism.
However, I do quite like William H. Johnson’s painting of Booker T. Washington. A lot of people don’t know this, but Washington had a lobster claw for a right hand, and judging by his eyes, the lobster claw also controlled his mind. I’m guessing that the next frame shows the lobster claw attacking everyone in the front row.
Ummm…. turn the 2nd one upside down. It is a woman with her legs spread open.
It’s pron.
C) Prius between a Mac truck and a Hummer
The Degas should be ‘Potrait of last throw in a perfect game of bowling but I have to pee’
That blue one in the middle is a stereograph. If you stare at it cross-eyed for a long time you’ll see a 3D image of Bill Ayers wiping with an American flag.
It’s been said that George Washington Carver’s intense jealousy over Booker T. Washington’s lobster claw is what drove him to invent the peanut.
Actually, speaking as a real artish (ah hem), I think the mixture of items here is arguably better than merely seeing them on a screen might indicate. Granted Jacob Lawrence is somewhat an affirmative action choice, nonetheless his pictures have real “umph” when experienced on their own terms. Some of these choices are “junkque” but Diebenkorn is a magnificient artist and seeing the actual painting one would have a much better sense of the visual beauty and nuance and visual excitement it possesses — all the more so because it is abstract and has no ostensible subject matter to rely on. (I actually envy Obama in this regard, though I doubt he’ll get much benefit from having the loan of this picture.)
Most of these choices are good decorator items (great above the right couch) though they look pretty awful put together! Not surprisingly, they have nothing in common with each other. Degas and Homer are superfabulous artists. Both of these are comparatively minor works from each, but I’d display them in my living room happily any day. The Diebenkorn I’d put in the bedroom because I would love to wake up seeing this amazing canvas. The rest I’d — um — um — well, that’s why closets were invented, no?
Those pictures are art???? I’ve seen better art made by 3 year olds using Elmers glue, glitter stuff, finger paint, and noodels.
This is so chock full o’ win its AWESOME.
Out of the park!
I literally had to stop and catch my breath after “Currier & Ives & Blender”.
Kudos, Harvey!
When “Velcro Dress” made me laugh out loud, I knew this had to be a Harvey post!
The last one is titled “am I gonna hafta slap a ho”
and the William H. Johnson piece is titled “The reach around”
Sorry its the Johnson piece with the flower.
Also the third one is a favorite and is slated to hang in the hallway outside the oval office it is actually titled “View from a bucket”
Yeah, these are great – they had a whole rack of ’em at Wal-Mart…3 for $15.00, with a plastic frame.
Edgar Degas bronze – correct title: “Throws like a sissy girl”.
Shouldn’t the first George Catlin be called “No Squaw, No Firewater make Chief … something something” ?
You people do realize we are paying for this trash, don’t you? You would think there is enough art work in storage in the WH to satisfy these grifters without spending any more money. Or I have heard the Smithsonian has oodles of stuff in their basement. Oops, my bad. Spending money is what they do excessively well.
“The Bow” undoubtedly replaced Churchill’s bust .
Per DamnCat, the Alma Thomas “Sky Light” may also be called “Blue Man Group Company Picnic”.
That Glen Ligon piece … isn’t it actually titled “Memogate?”
the alma thomas ‘watusi’ has been shown to be a copy of …oops, i mean inspired by… ‘the snail’ by matisse.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/08/do-the-watusi-art-imitation-and-the-obamas/
That was great! My mother-in-law collects Currier & Ives.
Loved the “Zamboni Accident” too. Looks just like my daughter’s melted crayon in wax paper refrigerator art from 1st grade.
Harvey,
Let’s agree to disagree.
Diebenkorn’s amazing. That’s my story and I’m sticking with it. I even spent some serious time studying his paintings for a while. His painting takes its root from the pictures of French artists Henri Matisse and Pierre Bonnard who he studied very carefully when he was stationed out at Quantico during the end of WWII, seeing them at the Phillips Collection here in Washington. To see Diebenkorn in the context of these French masters lends insight into his goals. But, then, not everybody likes Matisse or Bonnard either. Different strokes for different folks.
Art will always have its “eye of the beholder” component. One size doesn’t fit all. People like what they like, and that’s as it should be. That said, I’m the first to acknowledge that contemporary art includes tons of junkola.
As to your other uses of these assembled pictures, your “interpretations,” my favorite is: No Squaw, No Firewater. And Degas’s dancer does look like she should be standing on the mound … I never noticed that before! Play ball!
AK
I have to agree with Aletha here. What constitutes “good art” (or any kind of art really), unlike what constitutes “good politics”, is purely subjective. I actually like the Diebenkorn and Francis works a lot better than the Johnson ones.
But your alternative titles for all of them are totally better than the original ones and they should all be renamed to those immediately.
Swamper – first, thanks for complementing my titles.
Second, gotta disagree about art being subjective. I’ll make my case briefly.
This is good art (safe for work):
http://www.cordair.com/larsen/heroes.php
The image clearly conveys the emotion of “admiration”.
Your reaction to that emotion depends on whether you think admiring heroes is a good thing or a bad thing. (Personally, I think it’s a good thing; other folks only enjoy heroes when they fall.)
Either way, you felt what the artist intended. That’s what good art does.
Diebenkorn and Francis are not clearly conveying anything. You can imagine that you see some sort of pattern in there, then react to that, but that makes it a Rorschach test, not art.
If I ever get elected to be POTUS (not gonna happen – I’d have to run) I’ll be hanging Vargas girls and Conan all over the place.
Here’s a good test for some of these modern “art” prints:
1) Cover up the name and date of the artist;
2) Imagine that a 5th grader brings that painting home from school;
3) Ask yourself if you’d be thinking
A – “that’s great!,”
B – “that’s good for a 5th grader,” or
C – “I hope you’re good at math.”
My answer to that would be: C, C, C, C, C, A/B, C, C, A, A, A, C, B, B, B, B
Impressive post; definately shareable. (Take it from someone who used to do this regularly with movie stills and wasn’t very good at it.)
Modern Art: So easy, a cave man can do it.
I seriously almost spit out my drink when I read the zamboni one.
My wife and I have framed and hung some of the best elementary school art produced by our two children. We have: two lovely turtles, one done in Australian aboriginal style, one showing light penetrating deep water; a very cheery 20x sized goldfish; our crazed dog done as a cubist portraint; a small child dressed in antique Mideastern style, very formal looking; a portrait of one of our cats done in a primitive but effective fingerpaint; and of course a statuette of a blue flying monkey from the Wizard of Oz, fez included. These cost us the price of framing (except of course for the monkey) and are now priceless, as well as fairly worthless.
Art that introduces a novel idea into the viewing and representation of reality is of course important, as is the patent for intermittent windshield wipers. However, neither is necessarily pleasant to gaze upon. And what I put on the walls of my home is meant to please me.
I knew a famous pediatrician whose home was covered with paintings of female nudes. He was a proponent of breast feeding. I think it was a coincidence, and that he liked both paintings of nudes and breast feeding. Go figure.
Portraint: more correctly, Portrain’t.
What a cubist does when painting a picture of a person.
Will Rogers while attending a graduation ceremony at the Heron Art Institute was quoted saying after a long afternoon of boring speeches, “Speaking o-art, I once new a man who could spit over a boxcar.”
I agree with Aletha, Diebenkorn is pretty amazing. You have to see one in person.
As a right leaning person I cringe when conservatives make fun of modern art. You’re allowed to not like it all but you can’t write it all of. It’s like hearing liberals try to have an intelligent conversation about guns. I’d rather hear someone bluntly say “Glocks do the job but are just a cold piece of Tupperware to me. Give me an ancient old Hi Power any day” than not have an informed opinion at all.
I hope you were kidding on your link to good art. That’s like saying your favorite piece is a Jennings or a High Point. But if it makes you happy go ahead.
That said, the captions were funny as hell.
Diebercorn has details & subtleties that amaze the eye.
None of which were put there deliberately.
It’s like ooh-ing and ah-ing over the patterns made by the white space between the words in a page of typing.
Compare, please, to the deliberate detailing in “Giovanni Arnolfini and the Bride.”:
http://crazy-flying.blogspot.com/2008/02/differences-in-renaissance-art.html
Norman Rockwell – nuff said!