George W. Bush’s solo art show “The Art of Leadership: A President’s Personal Diplomacy” has just opened at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas, Texas. Moving on from paintings of dogs and bath time, the exhibit features 30 oil-on-board paintings of world leaders. It appears as if they are all lazy reproductions of some of the first Google image search results.
Below are the 43rd president’s paintings alongside the Google images that inspired them.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (Source: Wikipedia)
Critic, artist and appropriation expert Greg Allen pointed this out:
…Bush painted his portraits, not just from photographs–a common enough practice as well as a long-established conceptual strategy, though I think only the former pertains here–but from the top search result on Google Images. Many photos were taken from the subject’s Wikipedia entry. Bush based his paintings on the literally first-to-surface, easiest-to-find photos of his subjects.
However, some critics did not seem to get the memo, like Roberta Smith, who writes in The New York Times, “The images seem legible and familiar, as if, as some have suggested, they were the first to pop up on Google.” Not “as if.” Literally.

Israeli politician Ehud Olmert (Source: “Wanted: For War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”/ The Prime Minister’s Office)
Smith goes on to analyze the “unsettling talent” and the paintings’ aesthetic, conceptual and political implications based on imagined artistic choices George W. Bush didn’t really make. To the critic, Ehud Olmert of Israel “appears to be reading from a speech — an appealing work that can bring to mind a self-portrait by another, visionary amateur painter, the composer Arnold Schoenberg” when he really just has his mouth open in the first Google image result for “Ehud Olmert.” To the critic, Putin is “suitably stony faced and ruthless,” Angela Merkel is “looking open and optimistic (and girlishly nonthreatening)” and Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai is “uncharacteristically concerned.” Actually, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai is flipped, probably by Bush using a basic technique of transferring photo to a canvas. Because human faces aren’t really symmetrical, he looks a little bit off.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai (Source photo: Second row of Google image search results, via TopNews / EmbassyofAfghanistan.org)
Sometimes, Bush’s source images are the first Google image search results. At least one of them is copyrighted by the Associated Press.
Former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga (Source: Centrsdardedze.lv)
Former Ghanaian President John Kufuor (Source: TodayGH.com / Steve Ababio, watermarked)
Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo (Source: Bellanaija.com / © World Economic Forum by Matthew Jordaan)
Former French President Jacques Chirac (Source: BBC / The AP, cover of his autobiography)
“I would just like to point out they are basically very simple-minded as paintings,” WNYC Radio’s Deborah Solomon said to Huffington Post about Bush’s “completely legitimate method” of tracing existing images to make his art. “I think a lot of us wish he had become a painter as opposed to a president. We all could have been saved a lot of trouble.” It’s easy to snark. It’s easy to Google. It’s easy to trace too. Unlike Shepard Fairey, Bush didn’t even throw an all caps slogan over his painterly slop. So where does this stand, legally speaking?
![]()
Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel (Source: Wikipedia, captioned “Merkel with her hands in the characteristic Merkel-Raute position” Armin Linnartz, Screengrab by Greg Allen)
And two other things to consider: Google image search results vary by user and some of the source images first pop up on articles critical of the world leaders. Are there clues in the articles? Will the George W. Bush user-specific Google algorithm reveal something to us about him (or about me or critic Greg Allen, since we were the ones Googling)? Will George W. Bush get sued by the AP, like Shepard Fairey?

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Source: Rescue.org, “Nobel Laureates” / Center for Global Development)
Greg Allen tells ANIMAL:
I think Bush is fine to go it alone, permission-wise, for his paintings. Copyright infringement is the one thing he’s NOT guilty of. Comparing his case to Fairey, I think the AP was wrong and lame to go after a clear case of fair use, but ultimately it was the cover-up, not the crime, that caught up to Fairey. In Bush’s case, he’s clearly transforming his source images; every difference between a photo and its painting is Bush’s own contribution. And even if GWB used someone’s copyrighted image, I’m sure he’d skate, or if they sued, they’d eventually settle and turn him into a copyfight hero, which, no thanks.
TL;DR — George W. Bush is a lazy painter who based his work of seemingly obvious Google Image results. Don’t think too hard about it. It will hurt. And yes, he can get away with this too. As Greg Allen tells us:
Bush is free to sell the hell out of some Personal Diplomacy giclee prints, or to put his paintings on totebags, t-shirts, Christmas ornaments, mugs, or a deck of cards. I mean, if George Zimmerman can earn a living from painting, why can’t George Bush?












I don't care that they were, uh, inspired. I do care that they are terrible. Absolutely terrible.
These and his other "paintings" only demonstrate that he doesn't have an iota of talent. They are ghastly, at best.
Is he supposed to paint from memory? Or have these leaders come sit for him? Or would it be better if the images were obscure? He obviously wasn't hiding the sources. How can an amateur learn without doing? Great detective work. You cracked the case!
These paintings are far greater achievement and talent then Obama will ever have, and that's not saying much since I don't care for these paintings.
So sad, from 'the Decider' to a little old man sitting with his little paints, in his little room. It must sooth the deep feelings of guilt and regret for killing so many around the world. Well, at least his little mind is at peace with it all.
Bush found images of his subjects on the internet? Brilliant story! Pulitzer here you come!
Bush hatred? That's so 10 years ago. Please pump out some articles pertaining to those who are currently screwing up the United States, like the politicians who think it's A-OK to keep upping the debt ceiling, instead of stepping up and facing the fact that it needs to be paid down.
Hitler was a painter too. Just sayin'.
I don't mind them.
In fact, I kinda like them.
Take that, internet!
http://trueslant.com/justingardner/files/2009/10/…. Imagine that.
Next time you get the former Nigerian president to come sit for your portrait, you let us know, Marina.
Good grief, how stupid. Time to seek professional help for your delusions, you idiot whiner.
http://trueslant.com/justingardner/files/2009/10/…
bush Freaking monster as his paintings selfish bastard, what about a portrait of the dead?
What's worse? Pulling images from Google to paint from, or actually taking the time to research just to find another lame reason to hate a guy.
Newsflash: BUSH IS GONE! GET OVER IT!
Lets see, he started painting as a hobby. Where is an easy source to find images to paint from? Oh, something called the internet, ever heard of it Marina? You think he's going to have them come and sit for his painting? Or, maybe he should hire a photographer to do exclusive photos of them for his painting?
Maybe in truth, he didn't actually find these images from google images. Maybe they're the most well known images of these leaders, which is why google list them first in the search results? Do I need to explain to you how google search algorithms work as well? Simple answer: popularity.
And the publisher of Jacques Chirac's book also apparently got his cover image from Google Images as well… look at that.
Mariana, you see, painting is a creative effort that takes time. No, he may not be the BEST painter in the world… but at least he put a hell of alot more effort into his creativity than you did your "creative research" for this article.
You my dear, took your inspiration from a topic that is long dead, in your effort to gain a little bit of recognition. Sorry to tell you, that train is long gone. Hop on the next band wagon and see if you'll be more successful there… given you don't know how to be creative yourself.
I much preferred your in-depth anal-ysis of a film on double anal in your adult section. Is this a paying job?
no way!!!!!
I really hope you flew down and took the pictures of his paintings yourself. I don't find any references or credits in your article to where you got the images of his paintings.
Surely, you wouldn't have degraded yourself to find them on google images did you?
The photo posted of Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not the one Bush painted from. Here's the correct reference image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamid_Karz…
For me when it comes to art, there's the technical side of it– how skillfully done it is– and then there's the story side– the message, the meaning behind it, a glimpse into the artist's soul, etc. Since we now know that Bush just painted the first thing that came up on Google, which is perfectly fine, it's fair to say there is no deeper meaning or revelation to the portraits. They're just paintings of easily accessible and common photographs. Again, nothing wrong with that. It's just very dull.
So now the only thing I can focus on is the technical aspect of the portraits; how well they're painted. Some aren't bad, like the Barney one, and others are kind of interesting, like the bathtub and shower ones. But most of them aren't very good in my opinion. If it was me I would have just kept these in my own personal collection, only showing them to others as examples of my early, fledgling work. I certainly wouldn't showcase them at some art exhibit.
So yea, not very inspiring or moving pieces of art. Somehow I'm not surprised.
It's no secret that Bush painted the portraits using photos, so .. is it really shocking that he got the photos using Google? Clinton also used Google when he painted the nude wives of world leaders, and no one was outraged. http://dandygoat.com/bill-clinton-unveils-beautif…
The issue here is not about the quality of the paintings, it is the about the fair use doctrine and how photographers, who want to share their work throughout the world, but don't are the first to jump on the litigation band-wagon to feed off of the artists who fairly transform photos into something completely different in background, proportion, medium and meaning. Without the ability of painters and drawers to have the freedom to develop transformative art, our art world would not have seen rise to some of our world's most famous art works. Regardless of Bush's notoriety, our society and the courts need to continue to deny claims by photographers who want their cake and eat it to and insist that if there is an exact photographic representation that is copied for publication or profit, their work is fair use, period! See Cariou v. Prince.
I like these paintings. Are they really so different from Elizabeth Peyton's work, or any of the faux-naive painters really? George Bush is the real thing and that makes them that much more interesting.
Who does he think he is, Roy Lichtenstein?
What is missed in all of these arguments over talent, politics, copyright, etc. is that he has NO creativity. He did not interpret the subject matter in any way.
Did he change color palette? No. Did he use perspective? NO. Did he show the subjects in a different light? (literally or figuratively?) NO. Did he use texture? NO. Did he stylize? NO. Just an exercise, perhaps, as a student. But only in a gallery and on the Internet because we are talking GW Bush. That's all.
Dang and here I was thinking Bush had Putin fly over for a three day sitting.
BOOOOSH, BOOOOSH, the EBIL BOOOOSH
any prosecutors out there that could answer this: what would be the charges if one were to go in to his hitlerian library and light his dogshit paintings on fire ?
Unfortunately, this makes Dubya's efforts marginally more interesting. Surely he's earned the "outsider artist" label by now?
So basically, he did a paint by number job on existing photos. They look like that fresco of Jesus that was painted over a few years ago by Cecilia Gimenez.
What matter is that George did them. He is a celebrity. This will inspire quite a few people to pick up a brush and paint. And
So I have to ask….so what?
Let's look at the post-presidential legacy of the past few presidents:
Carter – focus on the global poor and the developing world
Reagan – got Alzheimer's 5 years after leaving office, was mostly incapacitated
Bush 41 – various humanitarian activities
Clinton – founded a multi-billion dollar foundation that focuses on everything from global healthcare to environmental issues
W – painting for fun
Ridiculous.
This article didn't get the memo that the New York Times review was sarcastic.
Art is not to be judged by anyone but the artist who paints it. He used his own interpretation and that's all that matters. If you don't like it, screw you.
I think the work is good, I quite like it. The former head of state was never my favorite, I never had one (unless you count Hugo Chavez for being cool). Anyways, the work is hauntingly good, beyond anything I would've expected from him.
Not a Bush fan (either of them) but this article was written by an ignorant child.
uninspired? He painted what inspired him or he wouldn't have painted it! Duh! This is merely a catty waste of internet space. Grow up. EVERY ARTIST USES PHOTO REFERENCES!!!! Don't EVEN lie and say they don't. I am one. I live in NYC and am active in the art world. I say again, EVERY ARTIST uses photo reference. Either photos they take themselves or photos they find on the web. Even abstract artists I know use the color pallets of photos they like. childish nonsense.
haters gotta hate. you all think nobody has ever painted from a photo before? get a life and love people
This is just a Karl Rove/Frank Luntz inspired media campaign to get the Decider guy back in the limelight. Since even his tiny group of suppporters have to acknowledge that Bush was a big spending liberal (how's that Two Wars and Two Tax Cuts strategy working for ya?), this "Bush as Aspiring Painter" is to showcase his alleged "soft side". You know, the guy who said he would do Torture all over again. Maybe Bush is doing Torture all over again – it pains me to just look at his paintings.
Yeah, damn Bush for picking up a hobby in his retirement. What a loser, right? You guys are a bunch of desperate idiots.
More talented than 90% of the excrement that passes for "art" in museums today.
Yeah, they're not Rembrandt's. We know that. Bush is LEARNING how to paint. No one called him a master. And like another poster said, is he supposed to do them from memory, or ask world leaders to stop by and sit for a portrait? He certainly did a better job than I could have, even from a photo. What he DIDN'T do was take the photo, run it through Photoshop, and make it look like a painting by applying effects. He took brush to paper, and sure did his best to reproduce a somewhat stylized version of those other images.
It's just like the "hate Bush" crowd to find ANYTHING he does wrong. Is he not "retiring" correctly enough for you?
I wonder if George reads any of his art reviews. Not that art reviews are ever constructive anyway.
I don't think that an artist who appropriates imagery from Google is theft. It would be theft if someone printed the photo and attempted to publish the photo as his own. George painted the studies of faces he knew. Bush painted the images to the best of his ability.
It's not so much about the skill of Bush's new found hobby. It is the direction he went from the self portraits to portrait study via Google. It's disappointing. It is no longer personal or revealing.
Omg people can be so cruel and crucial. What was that statement he made about not being a good painter or something like that? How is someone supposed to learn how to paint faces or anything if not from a source? He's just beginning to paint, he can get into imaginative and other levels of painting later after he has mastered the basic skills.
Liszt was credited for the first piece ever to use triangle in the Eb piano concerto. They converted less than 1 percent of the energy they received from the sun into electricity. Sign up for the NutriSystem D program in NutriSystem’s website. While state and national parks provide services on a level consistent with one another, city and county campgrounds can vary widely from one city to the next. Marketing is a skill that each entrepreneur needs to have. Pmps do not geneay come with exta designing ike aces, bckes and staps.
Is ont t n sccs instantan, et Convese este effet avec Vavatos d’espadies mise en page pesonnaise. Today, oil and gas continues to be a driver for the economy throughout the world. In addition, they function basic timeless seems to be without giving up functionality. Aussies refer to flip flops as “thongs”. There’s a variant of Bresenham’s algorithm to draw arcs and circles; the major difference is that the error term isn’t incremented by one, it’s added to in some more complex fashion (I don’t know it off the top of my head). 5 m size class are manufactured from aluminium.