Artist Claims He Included Lewinsky’s Blue Dress In Clinton Portrait

[n2doc]

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?

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. I don't even like Clinton, and I think this is shithead behavior

They should dump his piece from the National Portrait Gallery.

[Cha]

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

would be remembered for.

[Capt. Obvious]

2. Is this like a Magic Eye image?

[nomorenomore08]

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

mannequin, albeit you can't tell what it's wearing.

[madokie]

3. F* him

Now bill but the artist
Yea bill should have been censored for the tawdy affair but we all have to realize that after years of made up investigations that was all they could get on him. I still think that she was encouraged into this moreso than her just having the hots for the big dog. Some sinister shit was going on with the Clinton's trying to tarnish and or smear the name. Reightwingers are scared shitless of hillary and that alone makes it possible for me to be able to vote for her without holding my nose. If she raises the ire of so many of what I would call my enemies then there is something I can get behind on her.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. A partisan painter helping the GOP to define an inevitable Clinton campaign??

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.”

A shadow on the office he held?? Oh for crying out loud, Mister Artist, people don't want to be reminded of a trumped-up scandal by a bunch of Republican hypocrites in Congress who launched a witch hunt of this popular Democratic president! Would you have painted shadows of little boys from the Franklin Scandal on Saint Ronnie's and Poppy Bush's official portraits? How about Iran-Contra? How about a shadow of a feeble, confused man on Saint Ronnie's portrait? Bet you wouldn't DARE.

This is just more Clinton-bashing and it's no coincidence it's being reported on the day that rumors have it that Hillary Clinton intends to announce her candidacy in April.

Ladies and gentleman...the witch hunt on yet another Clinton has officially begun...

[Marrah_G]

5. What a scumbag

[In_The_Wind]

6. IMO: They should replace the painting.

[ScreamingMeemie]

16. ^This.

[Raine1967]

21. Agreed.

[Starry Messenger]

40. Agreed.

Taking a commission shouldn't be an editorial. Do political art if that's what you want to do.

[tabasco]

79. And get their money back

The contract was for a painting, not a political statement.

[kelly1mm]

90. Simple contract law would say he fulfilled the contract and keeps the money.

Did he not paint the painting? Was said painting not accepted by the appropriate authority as defined by the contract?

What provision of the contract do you think he did not fulfill?

[tabasco]

91. Deviating from contract standards

He was contracted to create a portrait, not make a political statement. The purpose of the contract was to create a painting to honor an American president. By deviating from that standard, he has greatly devalued the painting.

Apparently, "simple" contract law is all you know.

[kelly1mm]

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

Further, you have yet to specify what clause of the contract he did not fulfill.

[tabasco]

94. There's also this thing called "tolling"

of which you seem completely unaware.

[merrily]

99. Sometimes, a little knowledge is more dangerous than none.

In this case, potentially angerous to anyone taking certain comments seriously.

I don't know if he or she has a law degree or not. If not, I don't know why she thinks she can teach contract law to DU.

[tabasco]

95. If the guy painted the portrait with Clinton's cock hanging out,

what contract clause would that violate?

[merrily]

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

The whole idea that DUers know all terms of the artist's contract is very odd to me.

[tabasco]

107. The National Gallery contracted the painting, not Clinton

Please try to keep up.

[merrily]

109. Please quote the language in Reply 100 that says otherwise.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:53 PM - Edit history (2)

Anyway, who hired the artist is totally irrelevant to the point that no one on DU knows what the terms of the artist's contract were. Regardless of who hired the artist, I very much doubt Clinton was to have no say.

Please try to keep up.

You, too.

ETA: I take it you know Wyldwolf.

[merrily]

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

all the terms as best as you understand them.

[tabasco]

108. Let's just make the bold assumption that The National Gallery

didn't want cocks or sperm-crusted blue dresses in their painting, shan't we?

Have a great day, F. Lee!

[merrily]

110. No one is stopping you from making any assumption you choose.

That post of mine was addressed to a poster who has made several posts about "simple contract law" making it obvious that the artist was due his money, as though she knew the terms of the contract. So, perhaps you should have proposed that "bold assumption" to that poster.


If your point is I had some duty to have worded my post to another poster differently, I am so very sorry that my wording displeased you. But, obviously, I am not revising and you knew that.

So, care to share with us your real objective in two sarcastic posts to me on this subject within four minutes?

[raouldukelives]

111. Yes, ASAP. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

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

You could do that crap with almost every president, including the "sainted" one.

[rurallib]

13. Imagine what you could do with a portrait of W

soldiers dead unnecessarily
economy crashing
Dick hovering over him

so much material to work with.

[Are_grits_groceries]

8. Take it out NOW!

Many presidents behaved badly in many ways without such an insult.

[procon]

9. That's pretty damn ballsy.

The National Portrait Gallery is a national treasure trove of art that is free to the public and supported by federal funding. They did not spend the tax payers money to pay for the artist to editorialize his political biases and add his personal views to a formal portrait and then brag about his childish misdeed and deceiving the Gallery to the press. The gallery should refuse the painting, demand a refund and full public apology, and then this jerk should be blackballed for any future work in the public sector.

[Jamastiene]

10. That is a cheap shot.

It says more about the artist than it does anything else.

[dilby]

11. I love Bill Clinton and love this painting even more now.

It's a testament to the butt hurt of conservatives everywhere for the Eight great years we had in the 90's.

[BB_Smoke]

12. I always felt there was an uneasy subtext to this painting

Look at Clinton's pose. Jacket pulled back, hips slightly thrust forward, fingers positioned just so. He was making a statement about the oral sex even without the "dress". These portraits are not supposed to be jejune political cartoons.

[Paladin]

14. Burn the portrait, and have a new one rendered.

Fucking asshole "artist."

[William Seger]

61. No, let's auction it off and donate the proceeds

... to the Clinton Foundation.

I'm not joking.

[kelly1mm]

81. You think it is appropriate to auction tax payer funded, US property, and have

the proceeds go to a private foundation?

You should be joking .....

[William Seger]

83. Oh, I'm sure we could raise enough money to buy it

Stay tuned...

[kelly1mm]

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

not to some private foundation. Now, after you pay for the painting and the PROCEEDS from that sale are paid to the US government, if you wish to hand the painting over to a private foundation that would be your right.

However, US government property being sold = US government getting the proceeds, not a private foundation.

[William Seger]

93. No

I'm suggesting purchasing it from the Portrait Gallery for what they paid the artist (so they can commission a new one), and then auction it off.

[kelly1mm]

96. I would think transfering government property at less than fair market value to group X

who would then auction it for it's fair market value and turn the proceeds over to a private entity (or not) would be problematic. Don't you agree?

Why not simply have the .gov auction it and keep the proceeds? Why should a private foundation benefit?

[William Seger]

97. Only one way to find out if the Portrait Gallery would sell it (n/t)

[merrily]

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

[William Seger]

104. That's the whole point (n/t)

[PCIntern]

15. I have treated two of Nelson Shanks' students...

painters of the highest quality.

They both independently think he's insane. Brilliant painter...but insane. One gentleman had to stop working for/with him because he couldn't take it any more. My acquaintance is a terrific guy whom I've known for 25 years.

[Hekate]

49. TY for the insight.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. It shows the artist has no integrity.

If he felt that way he should have declined to do the painting.

[Tanuki]

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

or doesn't he believe there was any kind of "shadow" over their leadership?
This was a truly rotten and adolescent thing to do, and it's interesting that he feels the need to come forward and embarrass the Clintons exactly now, when Hillary is gearing up for a presidential run.

[LittleBlue]

19. lol

Epic troll. You have to admit this is pretty funny. Especially with that pose of his. Now Monica's dress will be there forever.

[HappyMe]

20. I'm glad I'm not the only one

that thought this was a bit funny. It's amusing that people were Je suis Charlie-ing all over the place, but not in this case. It depends on whose ox is being gored, I guess.

[NaturalHigh]

75. Don't get me wrong...

my wife and I both had a chuckle. I just think the guy is a bit of an attention whore. Nobody got the punch line after nine years, so he had to finally tell everybody.

[m-lekktor]

80. i think it is hysterical

and even more funny is how pissy mad everybody else on this thread is over it. Clinton earned this.

[MisterP]

22. he transcends time and space!

[surrealAmerican]

23. not a classy move ...

... and admitting this in public is just plain stupid. How many of his other commissions has he similarly added negative commentary to?

[jmowreader]

24. Are there shadows of dead nuns in Reagan's portrait?

[progressoid]

25. Bush's portrait is just assholes.

[marym625]

35. yuck.

[Sheelanagig]

26. Bill should have kept it in his pants.

[marym625]

31. and that excuses the artist?

Seriously?

[Sheelanagig]

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

What does that make Bill Clinton?

[marym625]

34. so one wrong excuses another?

The post is about the painting and the artist. Excusing it because of a wrong doesn't work. What a world we would live in if that could be used as an excuse

[Sheelanagig]

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

What Bill Clinton did was inexcusable. What the artist did was merely unprofessional.

[marym625]

37. Until marriages become

The business of everyone, what he did is no one's business but his, his wife's and Monica Lewinsky. His lying about it was stupid. His being asked about it was unforgivable.

Lying about something that causes a war, that's inexcusable.

[Sheelanagig]

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

This is not about that, and please notice that I did not ask you if you would be OK with a painting an artist did of Bush with a shadow of a tortured Iraqi in it. Because this is about Bill Clinton and his inability to keep it in his fucking pants, which put his presidency at risk. So no, I can't really get that worked up about the artist's unprofessionalism, when what Clinton did was so infinitely worse.

[marym625]

41. I disagree

He took no vow to stay sexually faithful to me. It was absolutely none of our business. Still isn't.

[Hekate]

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

... doorway of birth and death, condemns a stallion of a man for jumping the fence every chance he got? Please tell me the genesis of this irony.

Bill Clinton, aka The Big Dog, is one of the best assets of the Democratic Party. No one campaigns for us like he does. No one. He was a good president, too -- not perfect, no one is, but damn good.

He had to endure the filthiest persecution of any president in my lifetime until Barack Obama. Bogus investigations, GOP obsession with sex acts, millions of our money wasted by the GOP, led by politicians who were no better than Bill in their own sex lives, and in many cases much worse. Please spare me any lectures on Bill's perfidious peccadillos.

As for his marriage: it's none of our business. It's not the marriage I would choose to stay in, but it's not my marriage. What holds them together, what enduring bonds of love or loyalty or common goals in life: not our business.

But do note this: Bill and Hillary Clinton are still married to each other, each for the first and only time, while other politicians practice serial monogamy and often choose the next missus while still married to the old missus.

[Sheelanagig]

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

As what he nearly did to his presidency because of his libido. There is a time and a place for a president's sexual gratification - and the Oval Office, with a vulnerable young female intern, is not it. It disgusted me then, it disgusts me now, and it disgusts that anyone defends it.

[marshall]

59. Unfortunately for some, our laws make our sexual behavior potentially public information

sexual harassment laws are a double edge blade.

[merrily]

42. His perjury about his affair resulted in his impeachment. His actions with Jones resulted in his

being sued while a sitting President. That made his *whatever anyone wants to call them* everyone's business. I have always wondered how it must be to teach about his impeachment to junior high and high school boys and girls. I haven't been in that category in a while, but, even so, my classmates would not have been able to contain themselves, though we were a relatively well behaved lot normally.

And, while I love his claiming a near super human ability (my words) to compartmentalize, I still have to believe having the Jones lawsuit and the Lewinsky investigation going on simultaneously, and what that must have done with his family life, was a huge distraction from his duties as President.

That said, the artist is a sneaky, underhanded, unprofessional jerk and probably an uber partisan one at that. Democratic Presidents need to be extra careful about that kind of uber partisan bs. The owe it to themselves and to all Democrats.

[marym625]

50. honestly, I forgot about Jones

Just for the Lewinsky stuff, I meant what I said, that it was none of our business. It never should have been part of an investigation. That said, his lying was stupid at best.

The entire Ken Starr investigation had to have been a distraction. Even with all the shit Obama has been accused of and "investigated" for doesn't compare to the idiocy and witch hunt that the Whitewater investigation was. No other President went through anything like that while in office. It was an inexcusable embarrassment to the entire nation. Hell, Watergate wasn't as bad as whitewater in that there was proof already and it wasn't just the president and his family being investigated.

I think Clinton was stupid, short sighted and wrong when it came to Lewinsky. I think the Jones lawsuit should have been held off until after his presidency was over. But I am not excusing him in anyway when it comes to actually breaking the law. My comments were in response to the "he should have kept it in his pants." And I will always believe, when talking about Lewinsky, that was none of our business and he never should asked.

Comparing wrongs and excusing one because the other was worse is ridiculous. Let's excuse McCulloch because Wilson was worse. Ridiculous. Everything you said about the artist is right on.

I would have an issue with anything like that being done to any president, what the artist did, for an official portrait. Even if it had been done to bush. I probably wouldn't comment on it unless asked directly but I would still think it was wrong.

[merrily]

53. I am pretty sure that Republicans dug up Flowers and Jones and coached Linda Tripp through her con-

versations with Monica In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't record those conversations. Still, I do think people have a right to an opinion about whether adultery speaks to someone's character. I am far from sinless, but, then again, I'm not running to be my President and yours. If I were, I would expect my actions to be scrutinized and I assume my spouse would expect that, too.

For that matter, any of us can and does have our actions scrutinized at any time--and not necessarily as a trade off for great things. But running for President is an implicit invitation to have one's actions scrutinized.

As for the artist, he should have to pay for a new portrait and be sued.

[marym625]

54. I don't disagree

Again, my point was only that excusing the artist because of what someone thinks is a wrong someone else did is ridiculous.

The OP is about the artist and what he did
The reply I responded to is about the President.

[merrily]

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

he was underhanded about it to boot.

[marym625]

56. exactly.

[kelly1mm]

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

a portrait of the President? Did whomever had to sign off on the portrait not sign off on it?

[merrily]

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

I, for one, have zero doubt that the artist and Clinton had a discussion about the portrait beyond "Paint me however you like for a huge bundle of coin." "Sure." I am sure they discussed how Clinton wanted to be portrayed, how and where he would be posed, etc. and none of that discussion included sneakily referencing Cinton's coming on his intern's dress. To the contrary, I rather suspect the discussion would have been inconsistent with anything like that.

Second, simple contract law includes custom and usage in the particular field involved. I doubt any portrait artist in history has been engaged to paint an official portrait of a United States President that sneakily smears that President, or that this artist thought that he was hired to do that.

[dhol82]

64. Wasn't Linda Tripp coached throughout this

episode by Lucianne Goldberg?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/story012498.htm

[merrily]

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

[Tommy_Carcetti]

88. Get thee to thy fainting couch!

[Sheelanagig]

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

the sake of his sexual gratification.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

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

....now I have the hindsight to know how stupid it was for the nation to get upset over such a silly story and literally turn it into an impeachable offense.

And that I have at least twenty more pounds and a lot more wrinkles on my face.

[tenderfoot]

39. What ever you say Ms. Tripp

eom

[Phentex]

58. LOL!

[NBachers]

62. Think of what that snide little shit could do with this portrait.

I was referring to the "artist", not the poster. The poster is on a fast-track to "ignore."

[hollysmom]

27. note to people thinking of hiring this artist - DON'T

what will he do to you for his own amusement. Hopefully this man has ruined his career and will forever be doing protraits of Bobby Jindal, painting him white.

[woodsprite]

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

I had to do a double take when I first saw it. I thought it was a caricature of Teddy Kennedy.

Unfortunately, the guy is from Wilmington, DE. It seems a lot of artists can be total asses.

[Johonny]

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

It goes to show Clinton derangement syndrome of the 90s had no bounds. Luckily it appears to have only inflicted idiots that have proven not to be right about any issue since he left office. I think the painting should stay to remind America of the artificial bullshit it puts itself through voluntarily because some people can't get over the fact Democratic presidents simply don't suck as predicted time and time again, and generally out perform by a wide margin Republican ones while suffering completely classless, baseless, and deranged attacks. To me it perfectly represents what the Clintons endured for those 8 years. It is amazing that instead of learning from the experience the same asshats have been 10 times worse to Obama and yet he has exceeded expectations against their greatest fears. Something they will never get over or admit.

[marym625]

30. Well that sucks!

[betsuni]

32. Put it in the attic.

[Hekate]

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

If he wanted to do an opinion piece he should have turned down the commission. It's an official portrait, not an editorial cartoon.

[betsuni]

46. If nobody else is going to post this, I will.

[Hekate]

48. This is perfection -- Love The Onion, and love their take on Dubya's painting career

"The Iraqi child who follows him everywhere..."

[DawgHouse]

52. Thanks for posting! I had not seen this one! nt

[Sarcastica]

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

What a low class jerk.

[Phentex]

57. Agreed. Just saw him on the news...

he sounds like an ass.

[riversedge]

60. This artist represents all the conservative Hate. Simple as that. and it

was wrong for him to do this.

[dembotoz]

63. get the commission back and then burn it

[Orsino]

65. Or is this just wingnut revisionism?

A wingnut wet dream, certainly to have counted coup and to be beyond consequences...but is it clear that the artist did what he now claims to have done?

[edhopper]

66. They should have gone with

Everett Kinstler, he is conservative politically, but he treats all his subjects with respect.

http://www.everettraymondkinstler.com/pages/portraits_presidential.html

This is completely unprofessional, they should remove it from wherever it is hung, or have the stupid shadow painted over.
I would normally be against someone touching another artist's work, but in this case, he doesn't deserve that respect.
And you know what, I would feel the same if it was a portrait of GWB. If you can't do the job professionally, don't take it.

[chalmers]

67. so artistic license and free speech are dead

Guess everybody here would have been on the side of the Pope when Michelangelo subversively painted him with devil horns and such in the Sistine Chapel.

[n2doc]

69. Nice straw man

He's perfectly free to paint anything he wants on his own. This was an official portrait for the National Gallery. If he wanted to do this he should have been upfront about it and let people know before he was selected to do it.

[chalmers]

70. You think the Pope paid to be portrayed with devil horns?

In our society there are so few outlets to criticize our so called leaders. I think what the artist did is just fine. It's the artist who maintains their integrity and their artistic free thought through what they paint. Most artists put hidden messages and meanings in their work. I'm amazed that so called progressives on this board are taking the side of a political leader over free speech and art. Boggles the mind.

[n2doc]

71. What country do you live in

"So few Outlets"

Go on over to breitbart, drudge, fox, cnbc, or any of a bazillion web sites to check out 'criticism of our elected leaders'

Or just quit trolling.

I doubt that Michelangelo came up to the pope afterwards and said "heh, heh, see those devil horns on you?"

[zappaman]

84. Welcome to DU!

Enjoy the stay!

[Liberal In Texas]

68. He should be told to fix it.

If he won't do it, I'll bet they can find another artist who could.

[NaturalHigh]

74. Nelson Shanks kind of seems like an attention whore.

He brings this up nine years after he painted it? Seems like a "look at me" sort of thing.

[samsingh]

76. the artist is an idiot - has he put blood on the bush or reagan portraits?

[greatauntoftriplets]

77. I thought it represented a shadow on the artist's future career.

[KamaAina]

78. I see green and gold.

[kiranon]

82. Picture should be put into storge, artist

asked to return money he received for work since work did not meet criteria for the job and a new painting made by a different artist should replace it. Picture should not be returned to artist as he could sell it for a lot more than he made painting it which may have been his intent all along. The word "fraud" comes to mind. This was a business transaction and nothing more. The painting is forever tainted whether it is "fixed" or not. In my opinion, the painting should be destroyed.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

87. Oh, how cute he thinks he is.

I bet he's hoping that 100 years down the road when people are touring the National Portrait Gallery, someone will mention that little bit of trivia like it was some sort of witty artistic flourish on his part.

My guess is people won't care about the blue dress 100 years later. Hell, they barely remember it now.

[Dawson Leery]

103. Are there any shadows of the 200,000 slaughtered by Bush in his portrait? Unlikely.

The Clinton painting should be destroyed and a new one created.