Bush Porn Portrait

What better way to portray our nation's president?  This is a spectacular portrait done by collaging pieces of photos from porn magazines.

Pornographic Bush

from the British publication Metro:

When a British artist was denied US backing to paint a portrait of President George Bush he decided to make an ‘alternative’ version - from images of porn.

Now Jonathan Yeo, 36, has caused a stir in the US, where Republicans have attacked the work for being in poor taste.

A Republican spokesman said: “This picture is very distasteful. Why would anyone want to make a picture of our President from pornographic material?”

… Jonathan, son of former Tory backbencher Tim Yeo, told Metro: “To get the right skin tones for a man in his 50s the healthy, tanned and airbrushed bodies of the majority of top-shelf magazines were no good. …

… And for the hair I eventually tracked down some German magazines that don’t necessarily follow the Hollywood wax route.”

•  Art

  is meant to make the viewer think. That is what good art does.

  As to what is pornography, war and the bombing and napalming of innocent children is much more obscene than anything Larry Flynt or anyone else can dream up.

  by ohcanada on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:38:43 AM PDT

•  I barey notice the porn

  it mostly looks like a decent painting

  ya have to squint to see Gannon & Rove by the left earlobe

  by RumsfeldResign on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:40:01 AM PDT

  •  I can't see a thing

    Is it the fine Malbec we had with dinner?

    Dammit, I clicked on this diary because it said "porn" in the title.

    I want PORN.

    Kidding.  I mean, not if Bush is involved.

    by Plutonium Page on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:04:40 AM PDT

    •  Talk about poking out your mind's eye!

      That's an image I don't want to even think about.  

      by Jensequitur on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:24:59 AM PDT

•  Regardless of its subject or materials used

  this is a really fine work of art, I must say.

  by Randian on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:43:45 AM PDT

  •  Agree, it's excellent

    but Bush is not as noble as the picture projects, not at all.

    by ohcanada on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:14:09 AM PDT

•  I see a peener!

  I think it would've been funnier to not reveal the source of the collage.  Have a bunch of wingnuts hang prints of it on their wall.

  by Junior Bug on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:44:53 AM PDT

  •  good point

    maybe we can get someone to make a new version

    by RumsfeldResign on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:51:00 AM PDT

•  Oh...

  I though this diary was about that White House portrait painting of Bush done by that gay male porn star.

  This one is good too.

  by reef the dog on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:17:45 AM PDT

•  I was gonna post this in the OT last night

  but it was kinda full.  Here's a link to a Yeo's site and another article:

  Image of George W. Bush by Jonathan Yeo.

  Mr. Yeo has the right idea.

  Spy-Telegraph

  The celebrated painter - whose father is the Tory MP Tim Yeo - had originally been commissioned to do an official portrait of the commander-in-chief himself, but it never came to fruition.

  So Yeo, opting to continue with the work nevertheless, has exacted sweet revenge for his snub across the pond, by completing what can only be described as a highly unofficial depiction of the President.

  Notice also his right ear lobe.  LOL

  by Terre on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:25:50 AM PDT

•  Gives special meaning to the word 'peckerhead'

  by Ammo Hauler on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:27:30 AM PDT

•  That don't look like Junior.

  That looks like Kucinich.  WTF?

  Now this looks like Junior!  (Richard Notkin, All Nations. . .)

  by Crashing Vor on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:38:38 AM PDT

  •  Okay, museum changed their site.

    Here is another view of Notkin's All Nations Have Their Moments of Foolishness, a mosaic portrait of Junior made of individual tiles depicting scenes of warfare, including some based on Picasso's Guernica.

    by Crashing Vor on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:08:27 PM PDT

•  As satire, not very good.

  I prefer this comnment about the piece in the guardian:

  As art, I think it's undermined by the schoolboy undertone - it is just like shouting "fuck" in assembly. It has no meaning, besides the meaning other people's outrage brings to it. So it can be very funny, but it's still puerile. As satire, it's undermined by the fact that a) it's not very tailored, is it? History won't remember Bush as the president who hated porn, or loved porn, or crusaded against porn only to appreciate it all the more feverishly in private; it would be more meaningful to have made a collage out of severed body parts. And b) what, exactly, is he objecting to about Bush? Not the man himself, whom he accepted a commission to paint. No, the fact that they pulled his commission! It's about as satirical as a plumber stuffing a rat down your drain after you didn't pay him (this has never happened. I always pay plumbers).

  by foreign noise on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:52:51 AM PDT

•  the Republican spokesdroid is right

  Excrement is a far more appropriate medium than pr0n for images of our Fearless Leader.

  by alizard on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:45:16 PM PDT