James Gardner, formerly the architecture critic of the New York Sun, now writes on culture for several publications.
It must be nice to be the president. In addition to having helicopters, jumbo jets, and motorcades, you get to rifle through the cellars of the National Gallery and the Hirschhorn for artistic masterpieces to adorn your home for the next four to eight years.
As with all of our recent presidents, the artistic choices made by Barack Obama and his wife (since first ladies traditionally play a big role in decorating the White House) say a lot about the first couple and what they want to say about themselves. It is evident, for example, that the Obamas (with their selection of Degas sculptures and Morandi still-lifes) are far more Europhile than either the Clintons or the Bushes (father or son), and one is struck by their willingness to live with art that is not only avant-garde, but also on occasion downright radical.
Selecting these works is somewhat more complicated than you might suppose. The first couple can borrow almost anything for their private quarters, but as regards their selections for the public parts of the White House, a complex vetting process takes place. Among other considerations, because a presidential acquisition invariably sends prices soaring, an artist must be dead at least 25 years before being admitted into the permanent collection of the White House.
So what do the Obamas' choices say about them? They may well be the first couple in the White House to prefer abstraction to representational art. And while it is always possible that they simply liked the works in question, one is well-advised to interpret each selection as a message sent. Click through the slideshow to find out what those are.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (6)
Is Obama really immune to the tendency of most celebrities to choose art they want others to think they like----rather than choose stuff they actually do.
I doubt it.
On the other hand, he may not be one of those who insist they know what art is.
Especially "good art".
Like, perhaps, some of you?
george
Is Obama really immune to the tendency of most celebrities to choose art they want others to think they like----rather than choose stuff they actually do.
I doubt it.
On the other hand, he may not be one of those who insist they know what art is.
Especially "good art".
Like, perhaps, some of you?
george
dumb ass george is again trying to prove that exists.
his post are a cry for attention.
'i post ergo i exist' says the loony walton.
dumb ass george is again trying to prove that exists.
his post are a cry for attention.
'i post ergo i exist' says the loony walton.
The White House is a symbol of American tradition and American patriotism. Modern painting rejects tradition and patriotism. It is anarchic and nihilistic,. It doesn't belong in the White House.
The White House is a symbol of American tradition and American patriotism. Modern painting rejects tradition and patriotism. It is anarchic and nihilistic,. It doesn't belong in the White House.
ebanfield, while I also tend to prefer representational or figurative art and works that have stood some long test of time and acceptance in such a setting, your sweeping statement about modern art is just as valid as would be the statement that traditional American art is based on a thoroughly anti-American acceptance of European values and white supremacy; it is alien and tyrannical, and therefore does not belong in the White House.
Both statements are defensible, and contain kernels of truth, but both are so overly broad as to be discreditably ridiculous. Both are statements of philistinism.
Furthermore, the American conception of freedom is itself inherently anarchic. As are jazz and rock ... view full comment
ebanfield, while I also tend to prefer representational or figurative art and works that have stood some long test of time and acceptance in such a setting, your sweeping statement about modern art is just as valid as would be the statement that traditional American art is based on a thoroughly anti-American acceptance of European values and white supremacy; it is alien and tyrannical, and therefore does not belong in the White House.
Both statements are defensible, and contain kernels of truth, but both are so overly broad as to be discreditably ridiculous. Both are statements of philistinism.
Furthermore, the American conception of freedom is itself inherently anarchic. As are jazz and rock and roll and the internet and the automobile and basketball and to a lesser degree baseball. The shaking off of accepted limits and established order in favor of expression of the authentic self is one of the most important aspects of the American character, and has been since at least the 1720s. To a large degree, a whiff of the anarchic is what makes any American art "American," and it's just as much present in the poems of Whitman or the paintings of Cole as in a canvass by Johns.
Plus, if you actually view the slideshow, you'd see that the Obamas lean heavily toward more formalist modern painters whose work is more about precision and structure, whose work is actually quite classical in its expression despite its abstraction. There's no modernist nihilism to be found in the bunch, only one real dud, and both a Homer and a Catlin. Throw out the Ruscha and add an Eakins or a Cole and the collection would be close to perfect. (I'd look to toss a couple of the others for a Jasper Johns and either a Hopper or a Wood, but that's just me.)
I'm also a bit puzzled as to how one would define a work of art as being patriotic or unpatriotic. Patriotism is normally a human expression, combining feeling and principle in varying degrees, and a work of art doesn't have that capability.
You may mean that individual works somehow reflect a lack of patriotism, ebanfield, but it's difficult to see why any of those in the exhibition here would earn that criticism.
You might mean, however, that individual (American?) artists are or were "unpatriotic," but that would require a name or two, and I'm pretty sure you'd find a range of attitudes toward the United States among artists, including some patriotic ones.
I'm also a bit puzzled as to how one would define a work of art as being patriotic or unpatriotic. Patriotism is normally a human expression, combining feeling and principle in varying degrees, and a work of art doesn't have that capability.
You may mean that individual works somehow reflect a lack of patriotism, ebanfield, but it's difficult to see why any of those in the exhibition here would earn that criticism.
You might mean, however, that individual (American?) artists are or were "unpatriotic," but that would require a name or two, and I'm pretty sure you'd find a range of attitudes toward the United States among artists, including some patriotic ones.
Jesus, Rubes, I just assumed eban was being ironic. You know, reacting to Obama's art selections as someone like, say, Glenn Beck might.
On the other hand, TNR is the home of The Spine. So I guess it is possible eban was reacting literally.
Eban, what say you?
gw
Jesus, Rubes, I just assumed eban was being ironic. You know, reacting to Obama's art selections as someone like, say, Glenn Beck might.
On the other hand, TNR is the home of The Spine. So I guess it is possible eban was reacting literally.
Eban, what say you?
gw