General Discussion

n2doc

(47,953 posts) Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:46 AM Mar 2015

Artist Claims He Included Lewinsky’s Blue Dress In Clinton Portrait [View all]

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — The artist who painted Bill Clinton’s portrait for the National Portrait Gallery claims that he slipped in a Monica Lewinsky reference into the painting.

Nelson Shanks told the Philadelphia Daily News that he “subtly” incorporated Lewinsky’s infamous blue dress into the 2006 portrait.

“The reality is he’s probably the most famous liar of all time. He and his administration did some very good things, of course, but I could never get this Monica thing completely out of my mind and it is subtly incorporated in the painting,” Shanks said.

He explained that he put a shadow of the blue dress into the painting.

“If you look at the left-hand side of it there’s a mantle in the Oval Office and I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things,” Shanks told the Daily News. “It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.”

more

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/02/artist-claims-he-included-lewinskys-blue-dress-in-clinton-portrait/

Wonder if there are any shadows of dead soldiers on W's portrait?

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Artist Claims He Included Lewinsky’s Blue Dress In Clinton Portrait [View all] n2doc Mar 2015 OP

I don't even like Clinton, and I think this is shithead behavior alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #1

It is shitty of the artist.. isn't he "clever". Yeah, rw assholes would like that's what Clinton Cha Mar 2015 #44

Is this like a Magic Eye image? Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #2

No, just hard to see. Look at the fireplace to Clinton's left, and you can see the shadow of a nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #47

F* him madokie Mar 2015 #3

A partisan painter helping the GOP to define an inevitable Clinton campaign?? BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #4

What a scumbag Marrah_G Mar 2015 #5

IMO: They should replace the painting. In_The_Wind Mar 2015 #6

^This. ScreamingMeemie Mar 2015 #16

Agreed. Raine1967 Mar 2015 #21

Agreed. Starry Messenger Mar 2015 #40

And get their money back tabasco Mar 2015 #79

Simple contract law would say he fulfilled the contract and keeps the money. kelly1mm Mar 2015 #90

Deviating from contract standards tabasco Mar 2015 #91

There is also something called the statute of limitations. You may wish to look that up. kelly1mm Mar 2015 #92

There's also this thing called "tolling" tabasco Mar 2015 #94

Sometimes, a little knowledge is more dangerous than none. merrily Mar 2015 #99

If the guy painted the portrait with Clinton's cock hanging out, tabasco Mar 2015 #95

For all we know, Clinton specifically told the guy not to paint his cock (or the shadow of a dress). merrily Mar 2015 #100

The National Gallery contracted the painting, not Clinton tabasco Mar 2015 #107

Please quote the language in Reply 100 that says otherwise. merrily Mar 2015 #109

Kindly post your copy of the written contract terms. If an oral contract, kindly post merrily Mar 2015 #101

Let's just make the bold assumption that The National Gallery tabasco Mar 2015 #108

No one is stopping you from making any assumption you choose. merrily Mar 2015 #110

Yes, ASAP. nt raouldukelives Mar 2015 #111

I wonder if an artist put a "Trail Of Tears" reference in Andrew Jackson's portrait. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #7

Imagine what you could do with a portrait of W rurallib Mar 2015 #13

Take it out NOW! Are_grits_groceries Mar 2015 #8

That's pretty damn ballsy. procon Mar 2015 #9

That is a cheap shot. Jamastiene Mar 2015 #10

I love Bill Clinton and love this painting even more now. dilby Mar 2015 #11

I always felt there was an uneasy subtext to this painting BB_Smoke Mar 2015 #12

Burn the portrait, and have a new one rendered. Paladin Mar 2015 #14

No, let's auction it off and donate the proceeds William Seger Mar 2015 #61

You think it is appropriate to auction tax payer funded, US property, and have kelly1mm Mar 2015 #81

Oh, I'm sure we could raise enough money to buy it William Seger Mar 2015 #83

If you raise enough money to buy it the PROCEEDS would still go to the .gov (as it should be) kelly1mm Mar 2015 #85

No William Seger Mar 2015 #93

I would think transfering government property at less than fair market value to group X kelly1mm Mar 2015 #96

Only one way to find out if the Portrait Gallery would sell it (n/t) William Seger Mar 2015 #97

The notoriety and unique betrayal may have added to its value on the open market. merrily Mar 2015 #102

That's the whole point (n/t) William Seger Mar 2015 #104

I have treated two of Nelson Shanks' students... PCIntern Mar 2015 #15

TY for the insight. Hekate Mar 2015 #49

It shows the artist has no integrity. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #17

I wonder what kind of poison pill he included in his portraits of Pope John Paul or Maggie Thatcher, Tanuki Mar 2015 #18

lol LittleBlue Mar 2015 #19

I'm glad I'm not the only one HappyMe Mar 2015 #20

Don't get me wrong... NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #75

i think it is hysterical m-lekktor Mar 2015 #80

he transcends time and space! MisterP Mar 2015 #22

not a classy move ... surrealAmerican Mar 2015 #23

Are there shadows of dead nuns in Reagan's portrait? jmowreader Mar 2015 #24

Bush's portrait is just assholes. progressoid Mar 2015 #25

yuck. marym625 Mar 2015 #35

Bill should have kept it in his pants. Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #26

and that excuses the artist? marym625 Mar 2015 #31

I really don't care about the artist. Yes, he was unprofessional - but if he was unprofessional, Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #33

so one wrong excuses another? marym625 Mar 2015 #34

IMO, there is no comparison between what the artist did and what Bill Clinton did. Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #36

Until marriages become marym625 Mar 2015 #37

Where did I say lying about a war wasn't inexcusable? Nowhere. Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #38

I disagree marym625 Mar 2015 #41

I have to laugh. You took the name Sheelanagig exactly why? The goddess of the wide-open genitals... Hekate Mar 2015 #45

I'm a feminist. I see what Bill Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky and it turns my stomach. Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #72

Unfortunately for some, our laws make our sexual behavior potentially public information marshall Mar 2015 #59

His perjury about his affair resulted in his impeachment. His actions with Jones resulted in his merrily Mar 2015 #42

honestly, I forgot about Jones marym625 Mar 2015 #50

I am pretty sure that Republicans dug up Flowers and Jones and coached Linda Tripp through her con- merrily Mar 2015 #53

I don't disagree marym625 Mar 2015 #54

Excusing the artist for any reason is ridiculous. He didn't do what he was hired to do and merrily Mar 2015 #55

exactly. marym625 Mar 2015 #56

As a simple matter of contract law, he probably did do what he was paid to do. Did he not paint kelly1mm Mar 2015 #86

No. First, we have no clue what the contract between the parties actually consisted of. merrily Mar 2015 #98

Wasn't Linda Tripp coached throughout this dhol82 Mar 2015 #64

I didn't know any of that, but I guessed someone was coaching Tripp and taping the conversations. merrily Mar 2015 #73

Get thee to thy fainting couch! Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2015 #88

Except I don't need a fainting couch. I need a president who doesn't put his presidency at risk for Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #89

Reading this, I feel like it's 1998 all over again, except that.... Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2015 #105

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #106

What ever you say Ms. Tripp tenderfoot Mar 2015 #39

LOL! Phentex Mar 2015 #58

Think of what that snide little shit could do with this portrait. NBachers Mar 2015 #62

note to people thinking of hiring this artist - DON'T hollysmom Mar 2015 #27

Not a good painting, shithead artist, and not worthy artwork to hang in the National Gallery. woodsprite Mar 2015 #28

To me it perfectly represents the crap that the Clintons endured for those 8 years. Johonny Mar 2015 #29

Well that sucks! marym625 Mar 2015 #30

Put it in the attic. betsuni Mar 2015 #32

Well that was nasty. Is he going to do one of Dubya standing knee deep in blood and oil? Hekate Mar 2015 #43

If nobody else is going to post this, I will. betsuni Mar 2015 #46

This is perfection -- Love The Onion, and love their take on Dubya's painting career Hekate Mar 2015 #48

Thanks for posting! I had not seen this one! nt DawgHouse Mar 2015 #52

The title of the piece should be, "The Last Presidential Protrait I'll Ever Be Asked to Paint." Sarcastica Mar 2015 #51

Agreed. Just saw him on the news... Phentex Mar 2015 #57

This artist represents all the conservative Hate. Simple as that. and it riversedge Mar 2015 #60

get the commission back and then burn it dembotoz Mar 2015 #63

Or is this just wingnut revisionism? Orsino Mar 2015 #65

They should have gone with edhopper Mar 2015 #66

so artistic license and free speech are dead chalmers Mar 2015 #67

Nice straw man n2doc Mar 2015 #69

You think the Pope paid to be portrayed with devil horns? chalmers Mar 2015 #70

What country do you live in n2doc Mar 2015 #71

Welcome to DU! zappaman Mar 2015 #84

He should be told to fix it. Liberal In Texas Mar 2015 #68

Nelson Shanks kind of seems like an attention whore. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #74

the artist is an idiot - has he put blood on the bush or reagan portraits? samsingh Mar 2015 #76

I thought it represented a shadow on the artist's future career. greatauntoftriplets Mar 2015 #77

I see green and gold. KamaAina Mar 2015 #78

Picture should be put into storge, artist kiranon Mar 2015 #82

Oh, how cute he thinks he is. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2015 #87

Are there any shadows of the 200,000 slaughtered by Bush in his portrait? Unlikely. Dawson Leery Mar 2015 #103