President Bill Clinton’s portrait for the National Portrait Gallery was painted by Nelson Shanks. The artist has just revealed that he included a symbolic shadow to reference Monica Lewinsky and her infamous blue dress. Photo Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery.
In recent weeks, there were a couple of news stories about an ex-Professor who’d been robbing banks in the name of art, claiming that, although he needed money, the real motivation behind his two felonies was to make some sort of statement.
On Sunday I read about another type of robbery for art’s sake; the front page of the New York Daily News revealed a couple of familiar faces: Nelson Shanks, a renowned portrait artist, and President Bill Clinton, my former boss of more than 10 years.
I worked at the White House during President Clinton’s second term as a Special Assistant on the Oval Office staff. My main responsibility was writing, but, as I also have a background in art, the Director of the Oval Office tasked me with rounding up potential artists to paint the President’s portrait. I sorted through several huge boxes and hundreds of images and eventually put together a “short list” of candidates for the President to consider. Nelson Shanks was one of the artists on that list. He had a lot of fans in the White House, people more senior than I was, who’d seen his paintings, met him, and knew that his reputation essentially spoke for itself. He’d painted Princess Diana, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and countless other dignitaries. Before the project came into my hands, Shanks was already one of the frontrunners.
The President had to decide on two commissions: the Official White House Portrait, and the painting that would hang in the National Portrait Gallery. He (very wisely) chose to ask Shanks and another artist – my first choice – to do studies (like sketches in paint) for his review. The two artists had about a month to complete the works. President Clinton, whose one-word response when he saw the other artist’s study was simply, “wow,” gave my pick the more prestigious commission; essentially, Nelson Shanks got second prize. The official White House portrait, completed by Simmie Knox, is an excellent likeness and a technically well-made painting, if I’m only being objective.
The author (2nd from right), seated next to President Clinton, discusses the potential artists for the National Portrait Gallery and White House commissions. Official White House Photo Courtesy of Eugénie Bisulco.
And I am being objective when I say that Nelson Shanks’ portrait of the 42nd president of the United States looks like a painting of a disheveled Ted Koppel. Never, in all the years that I’ve known President Clinton (and this goes back to when he was Governor of Arkansas), have I ever seen him in wrinkled clothing, and it’s almost never been ill-fitting, except for perhaps a brief period of time when he lost weight after his heart surgery. Even his jeans are wrinkle-free. He doesn’t stand the way Shanks has portrayed him, and – and this isn’t just because Shanks used foreshortening — he’s a good six inches taller in relation to the Oval Office mantel. Also, for the record, President Clinton always wore his wedding ring.
Late in the process, I went back to DC, where Shanks was at the National Portrait Gallery making finishing touches on the painting, mainly to check on his progress. I took pictures and reported back that, like the study, it was my opinion that it didn’t really capture the President’s likeness. Many others have agreed with me since.
If the Clintons “hate” the painting, as Shanks claims, I can tell you that it is not because of his antiquated use of symbols to provide some sort of spiritual guidance or moral compass for the general public or to elevate Shanks himself to the level of judge or deity. It is because the painting looks nothing like the man Shanks was paid to depict.
Do I think that Shanks was disgruntled about losing out on the White House commission? Yes. Is Shanks a conservative? Yes. If a chef burns the chicken he’s roasting, does it taste any better if we share his political views? No — he’s got to make another chicken.
Nelson Shanks was hired for his technical expertise, to paint a portrait for posterity of a specific man in a specific context. He’s the contractor putting in the sink – except that when you turn the faucet, no water comes out. In other words, Shanks didn’t do his job properly. And, to go back to the bank robber analogy, his attempt at making a profound statement via his painting is irrelevant – and a failure, to boot. If you care about any of the messages he left in the painting, you’re giving him that little bit of extra fame he’s so desperately seeking by telling us about them now.
By Eugénie Bisulco
