Is this subversive? Beguiling? Self-indulgent? Art? Is the concept too high or just high enough?
Her take: “I am interested in humanizing and demythologizing the Presidents by addressing their public legacies and private lives. The presidency itself is a seemingly immortal and impenetrable institution; by inserting myself in its timeline, I attempt to locate something intimate and mortal. I use this intimacy to subvert authority, but it demands that I make myself vulnerable along with the Presidents.”
Her paintings are jarring. I suspect this is the point. There does seem to be an element of blasphemy, of danger in it. She is right. There is something vulnerable, something flawed and thus human, about figures in history books at moments so intimate.
I admire the creativity. I admire the talent. I admire the quiet subversiveness of a young asian woman objectifying old white men of great power. As both an artist and a figure in these paintings, she is in control.
Yet at the same time, doesn’t it feel a little bit gimmicky? A little bit reliant on its concept? Do these paintings reveal more about the Presidents, the Presidency and the Institution of power? Or are they simply a well-executed clever idea?
