Boyd Gavin’s Weimaraner


Still Life with Dog.jpg
Still Life with Dog — Boyd Gavin
Artist Boyd Gavin has figured out that I’m seriously into weimaraners. . .and luckily, he’s seriously into painting.
Got this note from him this morning. . .

Since you are very fond of weimaraners, I thought you would be interested to see my painted rendition of one. I needed something going on in the foreground, so I borrowed the dog from a neighbor. Weimaraners have such a beautiful coat.
Boyd Gavin

Great painting. Many thanks to him for letting me post it here at The Washington Note
— Steve Clemons


24 comments on “Boyd Gavin’s Weimaraner

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    David, its a shame we couldn’t have crossbred my dad’s vizsla and your friend’s weimeraner. We would have spawned the perfect gift for less than likable in-laws.


  2. David says:

    A dog story: good friend and former student had a weimeraner, a good-sized male named Brutus, a gentle soul who would quietly break wind in the house, then amble to the door to be let out before the aroma hit the good folk in the room. It was a consistent pattern – this dog knew what he was doing. Two nicknames he earned: Bloatus and Farticus. I trust Steve’s Weimaraners do not share the same gastric proclivity.


  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I had to chuckle at “Bonning’s” post. When I was a kid, my dad brought home a young Vizsla, swearing it was the new deal in hunting dogs. That dog never could hunt a lick. However, he was quite proficient at peeing on everything my sister owned, (Selectively. He didn’t pee on anything else in the house), and humping my buddy Matt. (Selectively. Matt seemed to be the only human he was inclined to single out for such recreation.)
    I can’t remember what happened to that dog, and thats probably just as well.


  4. David says:

    easy e,
    See what the painting prompted you to post? No loss here. We get the painting and an excellent commentary in the comments section.
    Guessing, of course, but it seems to me that while Steve posts what he thinks he should post, he also encourages his readers to post what they consider important.
    For me, The Washington Note is itself sometimes the source, and at other times the venue. And quite importantly for me, Steve’s commentary and other offerings fill a particular, quite comprehensive and useful slot. Other kinds of information/analysis are readily available from other sources, but no other source gives me quite the same window into Washington and beyond.


  5. BonningL says:

    Beautiful painting, (how much?). I have a Weim and a Vizsla. Best dogs ever. Thanks, Steve, and Merry Christmas.


  6. rich says:

    Love the painting and the pups.
    Like easy e, I found Ruth Marcus’s column disturbing in that it displayed an underdeveloped sense of civic responsibility. Whether the stunted moral character or the disloyalty to the American experience that enabled enough self-indulgence to turn logic entirely on its head, I really can’t say.
    But Ruth Marcus’ line of reasoning, such as it is, is unacceptable:
    “Yet I’m coming to the conclusion that what’s most crucial here is ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated. In the end, that may be more important than punishing those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right.”
    We already have laws that ensure these crimes — they are not “mistakes” — are never considered, let alone committed, by Americans. It’s called the Constitution, and there is a body of law that backs it up and confirms that foundation.
    If Ruth Marcus really believes it is “crucial . . that these mistakes here are not repeated,” she would insist on “punishing those who acted wrongly.” It cannot be any other way.
    But Ruth Marcus is not arguing for an end to torture. She’s arguing that nothing stand in the way of torture. We have a Constitution so that no man may go to war on his own say-so, nor torture, nor hold himself above the law.
    THAT is the mechanism by which we stop
    cannot distinguish ends from means here. The only way to “ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated.” If we fail to punish those actively and knowingly violating the clearest principles of American law — nothing will stand in the way of repeating those ‘mistakes’, to use Ms. Marcus’ delicate euphemism.
    But America, the Constitution, and the American People are not such delicate flowers. We are the adults in the room. And it is not possible to have a “national healing” without elected officials courageous enough to fulfill their Constitutional & legal obligations to deliver substantive accountability.
    Marcus SAYS (ital) she doesn’t want a repeat of torture or of high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Yet she advocates a path that enables–invites–any bad actor to occupy the White House (and Senate and House) and do whatever he or she wishes, with impunity. With impunity.
    Ford’s pardon of Nixon denied us that national healing, and enabled the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Bush repeat of what are, by every definition, high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Steve, I know many admirers of Richard Nixon.
    Some are ecologists with global stature who understand the import of the environmental bills he signed into law. Others are political pros and junkies or history professors who find Nixon a fascinating, brilliant, flawed, and hilarious man. And a dangerous, if not treasonous, figure. Rather than condemn the man, I prefer opening the path to redemption that runs through holding himself accountable before the law. And Gerald Ford denied Nixon that opportunity. He never underwent the process of paying his debt to the People he served under.
    I think I would be able to admire Richard Nixon, had he been willing to stand before us, and take his due.
    But there can be no rehabilitation for Mr. Nixon without a full, lawful and substantive process that holds Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush accountable before the law. Many have spoken of Nixon’s ‘rehabilitation’, but it’s just cheap talk and wishful thinking. It’s never come to pass, though more understand the historical record of that complicated man than you think.
    It is the intransigence that’s the problem. The willingness to repeat these violations with impunity is leading us down the road to hell. America was founded to precisely eliminate those original crimes — not to rationalize them. Without re-establishing that straight and narrow piece of common ground, there can be no America. You can’t destroy it to save it.
    As for Ruth Marcus: granted, the reasoning is intellectually bankrupt, and has a certain Alice-in-Wonderland quality. But it’s her immaturity that so defines her disturbing behavior. Call it paternalistic — or maternalistic — but the warmth with which she okays an end to the rule of law is a new low for permissiveness. Marcus envisions a friendly, easygoing fascism, one marked by sympathy for the transgressor. But neither mom nor big sister can legislate an end to responsibility. And can you imagine Marcus’ ends-justify-the-means defense being wielded at Nuremberg? She is too nice to condemn, and views niceness as a legal principle.
    Ruth Marcus’ Orwellian framing cannot go unremarked:
    “How much can and should government infringe on personal privacy and individual liberties in the name of guarding against risks to public safety? What should be the role of criminal law when government officials overstep permissible bounds in the name of national security?”
    Not whether to punish severely or moderately, but “How much can and should government infringe.” Not how to enforce the law, but “what should be the role of criminal law.”
    In Marcus’ dangerously inverted world, it is the law that is suspect. And the infringement of liberty and the evisceration of law that is taken for granted. Who is responsible? Ruth Marcus — and her circle of friends, each of whom are such nice people.


  7. DonS says:

    Jesus General: “How do I fuck my base? Let me count the ways”
    Parody. Of course.


  8. DonS says:

    Biden is falling over himself to say that we must look “forward”
    And Congrtesscritters, outgoing adminsistration types, and anyone remotely “in power” the last 8 years are cranking out the mutually exculpatory messages and cover stories as fast as they can.
    Generals and Sec. Gates are making Iraq policy over the head of the incoming administration (or are they??)
    Retreads and embeds everywhere
    Politico-Wasll Street ‘fuck you’ to main street
    Not to mention homophobe-in-chief and Obama doing their little dance.
    We could go on. My wife tells me not to get negative too soon. Hard, aint it.


  9. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, if these criminal pieces of shit in Washington are going to ignore the laws the citizenry must abide by, we might as well exempt them, eh? I mean hey, at least that way the peons, savages, and serfs of the middle and lower classes won’t be able to snivel about no upper echelon indictments.
    Amazing isn’t it? Caylee gets media attention, yet Gonzales and Rice’s recently verified perjury, setting the stage for the murder of over one million human beings, doesn’t even get a squeek. These bastards in Washington must love it when the savages maul one another, supplying a constant stream of tittilating diversions through which the more ignorant amongst us can sit home and intellectually jerk-off.
    And yet one more potential whistle blower becomes a secured loose end, his secrets going up in the blazing fury of burning aviation fuel.
    We’ve become a nation of braying subservient sheep, refusing to accept the truth that is right before our very eyes. Our freedoms, our tenets, the very foundation of what we claim to be, is a pathetic sham, and the thieves and murderers at the helm have run amok, unaccountable and unhindered by the checks and balances of yesteryear.


  10. easy e says:

    Weimaraners are great, but I would much prefer TWN address deterence of lawbreaking by political officials. My apologies if Steve has covered this.
    * * * * *
    Published on Saturday, December 20, 2008
    by Glenn Greenwald
    The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus today perfectly expresses the consensus view of establishment Washington regarding the exemption which political elites should and do enjoy from the rule of law, and, in doing so, she unintentionally highlights — as vividly as possible — the glaring flaw in this mentality. Marcus reviews the life of Mark Felt, the number 2 FBI official under J. Edgar Hoover who died this week. Felt is most famous for having been Bob Woodward’s “Deep Throat” source in the Watergate investigation but, as Marcus details, he was also convicted in a 1980 criminal trial for having ordered illegal, warrantless physical searches of the homes of various friends and relatives of 1960s radicals.
    Less than 24 hours after Felt was convicted, he (along with an FBI co-defendant) was pardoned by Ronald Reagan, who justified the pardon by citing Jimmy Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft evaders and then saying, in words obviously relevant now to growing demands for prosecution of Bush officials:
    We can be no less generous to two men who acted on high principle to bring an end to the terrorism that was threatening our nation. . . .
    [The men’s convictions] grew out of their good-faith belief that their actions were necessary to preserve the security interests of our country. The record demonstrates that they acted not with criminal intent, but in the belief that they had grants of authority reaching to the highest levels of government.
    Marcus quotes Felt’s Special Prosecutor, John Nields, as angrily protesting Reagan’s pardon, pointing out that central to our form of Government is the proposition that our highest political leaders are constrained by the Constitution and the rule of law — a principle Reagan subverted by protecting these criminals.
    Like the good, representative establishment Washingtonian that she is, Marcus announces that — when it comes to the growing controversy over whether Bush officials should be investigated and prosecuted for their crimes — she “find[s herself] more in the camp of Reagan than Nields.” Her reasoning is a perfect distillation of conventional Washington wisdom on this topic:
    I understand — I even share — Nields’s anger over the insult to the rule of law. Yet I’m coming to the conclusion that what’s most crucial here is ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated. In the end, that may be more important than punishing those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right.
    Leave aside Marcus’ revealing description of government crimes as “mistakes.” Even on its own terms, even if one accepts her premise that Bush officials broke the law “in pursuit of what they thought was right,” this argument makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it is as internally contradictory as an idea can be.
    Along with the desire for just retribution, one of the two principal reasons we impose penalties for violations of the criminal law is deterrence — to provide an incentive for potential lawbreakers to refrain from breaking our laws, rather than deciding that it is beneficial to do so. Though there is debate about how best to accomplish it and how effective it ultimately is, deterrence of future crimes has been, and remains, a core purpose of the criminal law. That is about as basic as it gets. From Paul Robinson, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor, and John Darley, Psychology Professor at Princeton, in “The Role of Deterrence in the Criminal Law”:
    For the past several decades, the deterrence of crime has been a centerpiece of criminal law reform. Law-givers have sought to optimize the control of crime by devising a penalty-setting system that assigns criminal punishments of a magnitude sufficient to deter a thinking individual from committing a crime.
    Punishment for lawbreaking is precisely how we try to ensure that crimes “never happen again.” If instead — as Marcus and so many other urge — we hold political leaders harmless when they break the law, if we exempt them from punishment under the criminal law, then what possible reason would they have from refraining from breaking the law in the future? A principal reason for imposing punishment on lawbreakers is exactly what Marcus says she wants to achieve: “ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated.” By telling political leaders that they will not be punished when they break the law, the exact opposite outcome is achieved: ensuring that this conduct will be repeated.
    * * * * *
    Just contemplate how stupid and irrational everyone would think a person was being if they wrote an article advancing this argument:
    Much more important than punishing murderers or getting caught up in protracted disputes about prior murders is the need to prevent murders from occurring in the future. Therefore, we ought to abandon our quest to impose punishments on people who get caught having murdered someone. To expend resources trying to punish murderers is to squander vital resources on the past, to waste energies that could instead be more productively devoted to preventing future murders.
    There are too many important challenges we face to waste time bogged down litigating past murders. Let’s allow murderers to go unpunished so that we can move beyond the past and concentrate instead on the more important priority of minimizing the number of murders in the future.
    The argument, of course, is self-refuting. If we adopt a policy of not punishing murderers, we will obviously not be preventing future murders. We will be doing the opposite: ensuring and even encouraging a massive increase in murders, since people will know that they are now free to do it with impunity. The prime barrier to most crimes — the main deterrent — is the threat of criminal punishment, of a lengthy prison term. That’s not true of all crimes (the criminal law has had a negligible effect, for instance, on drug usage, and may not deter poverty-motivated crimes), but it’s certainly true of most serious crimes, especially by those with power. If you abolish that punishment, then you inevitably ensure many more crimes in the future, no matter how many noble efforts you devote towards “making sure it never happens again” — whatever that might mean.
    The evidence demonstrating that this is an exact analogy to what Marcus is advocating, an exact analogy to what we’ve generally been doing with political leaders and are doing now, is equally self-evident. A central observation in Marcus’ column is that the controversies that have now arisen over Bush lawbreaking in the areas of interrogation and surveillance are not new. As she points out, these are the very same controversies that we’ve been confronting for decades.
    That’s exactly right. The same controversies over government lawbreaking arise over and over. And why is that? Because our political leaders keep breaking the law — chronically and deliberately. And why do they keep doing that? Because there is no deterrent against it. Every time they get caught breaking the law, the Ronald Reagans and Ruth Marcuses of the world step in to insist that they should not be punished, that the criminal law is not for elite leaders in political office, that those involved in the noble function of ruling America are too intrinsically well-intentioned to warrant punishment even when they commit crimes, that it’s more important to look forward than back.
    Every time we immunize political leaders from the consequences of their crimes, it’s manipulatively justified in the name of “ensuring that it never happens again.” And every time, we do exactly the opposite: we make sure it will happen again. And it does: Richard Nixon is pardoned. J. Edgar Hoover’s lawbreakers are protected. The Iran-contra criminals are set free and put back into government. Lewis Libby is spared having to serve even a single day in prison despite multiple felony convictions. And now it’s time to immunize even those who tortured detainees and spied on Americans in violation of numerous treaties, domestic laws, and the most basic precepts of civilized Western justice.
    * * * * *
    If someone wants to argue that America is too good and our Washington elite too important to allow our powerful political leaders to be subjected to the indignity of a criminal proceeding, let alone prison, they should argue that. As warped as that idea is, at least it’s candid and coherent. It’s the actual animating principle driving most of this.
    But this claim that we have to immunize political leaders from the consequences of their lawbreaking in order to — as Marcus wrote — “ensure that these mistakes are not repeated” is manipulative and Orwellian in the extreme. It’s contradictory on its face. It’s just a Beltway buzzphrase, a platitude, completely devoid of specific meaning and designed to do nothing but obfuscate what is really going on.
    Whenever you hear that claim being made — that what matters is not punishment, but ensuring that it never happens again — notice that none of the Serious guardians who advocate it ever, ever answer or even acknowledge this question: other than punishing people for breaking the law, how is it even theoretically possible to ensure it doesn’t happen again in the future? We already have unambiguous laws in place with substantial penalties for violations. We already impose disclosure obligations, and substantial oversight duties on the Congress and courts.
    All of these laws and safeguards were blithely disregarded and violated. Other than making sure that leaders know they will be punished — like all Americans are — when they break the law, how and why does anyone imagine that we can ensure this “never happens again,” especially as we simultaneously affirm — yet again — that political leaders will be exempted from the rule of law if they do it? What’s the answer to that?
    UPDATE: The opening address of Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg Trials is undoubtedly one of the most important speeches of the last century. It established the basic precepts of Western Justice. War crimes, Jackson observed, are such that “civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.” And, contrary to the blatantly self-contradictory claims from today’s Washington elite, he pointed out that the only way to ensure they don’t happen again is through real accountability and punishment:
    The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power . . . .
    It’s irrelevant whether crimes rise to that same level or are of the same magnitude. These were principles of justice that were supposed to endure and govern how we conducted ourselves generally, beyond that specific case. In fact, Justice Louis Brandeis, 20 years earlier, observed that it’s probably more important — not less — to enforce the rule of law when government leaders commit crimes than when ordinary Americans commit them:
    In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
    We haven’t just forgotten these principles. We’re deliberately — consciously — choosing to renounce them.
    UPDATE II: At Talk Left, Armando points out one other towering, destructive flaw in Marcus’ “logic” — logic which, I want to re-iterate, is worth examining only because it’s the predominant mentality in the Washington establishment. As Armando writes:
    [Marcus] claims her ambivalence stems from “How much can and should government infringe on personal privacy and individual liberties in the name of guarding against risks to public safety? What should be the role of criminal law when government officials overstep permissible bounds in the name of national security?”
    The answers to these questions are so obvious that it strikes me again that Ms. Marcus is providing us the question ‘is she an idiot or a malevolent dissembler?’ Those questions are answered by the laws we make. This is called democracy Ms. Marcus. The permitted level of government infringement on liberty is that which our laws and Constitution allow. No more. If we wish to give away our freedoms, we do it by lawful means. To grant the Executive Branch the power to determine which laws to follow is precisely what the Founders fought against.
    Why does that even need to be pointed out? We already weighed the competing considerations between freedom and security and then enacted laws which authorized certain behaviors and criminalized others. If that balance should be altered, the solution — in a society that lives under the rule of law — is for the laws to be changed democratically, not for political leaders to decide at will and in secret that they will break those laws and then argue after the fact that the laws they broke were bad ones. Political leaders aren’t vested with lawbreaking power. To the contrary, the Constitution explicitly requires that they “faithfully execute” those laws, not violate them at will.
    Isn’t this all so painfully basic? When the predominant Beltway argument is stripped of euphemisms, it amounts to nothing less than the claim that our political leaders should be — and are — free to break our laws. And that’s the system we’ve adopted. It’s why Dick Cheney feels free to smugly admit in public that he authorized these war crimes. He knows that the Ruth Marcuses of the world will intervene to defend him. Still, it’s one thing to argue that American political leaders should have the power to commit crimes. It’s another thing entirely to advance the insultingly deceitful and Orwellian claim that doing so is necessary so we can focus on preventing similar lawbreaking in the future.
    © 2008 Salon


  11. wtf says:

    That’s a weird painting man. It’s like some strange dog/classic nude painting. I’m not sure what the hell is going on in here.


  12. S Brennan says:

    OT, comments anyone?
    Michael Connell died Friday, December 19 when his Piper Saratoga* plane crashed near his northern Ohio home. He was flying himself home from the College Park, Maryland airport. An accomplished pilot, flying in unremarkable weather, his death cuts off a critical path to much of what may never be known about how the 2004 election was shifted from John Kerry to George W. Bush in the wee hours of November 2. His plane crashed between two houses in an upscale neighborhood, one vacant, just 2.5 miles from the Akron-Canton airport.
    A long-time, outspokenly loyal associate of the Bush family, Connell created the Bush-Cheney website for their 2000 presidential campaign. Connell may have played a role in various computer malfunctions that helped the GOP claim the presidency in 2000. As a chief IT consultant and operative for Karl Rove, Connell was a devout Catholic and the father of four children. In various interviews and a deposition Connell cited his belief that abortion is murder as a primary motivating factor in his work for the Republican Party.
    Ohio Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell hired Connell in 2004 to create a real-time computer data compilation for counting Ohio’s votes. Under Connell’s supervision, Ohio’s presidential vote count was transmitted to private, partisan computer servers owned by SmartTech housed in the basement of the Old Pioneer Bank building in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Connell’s company, New Media Communications worked closely with SmartTech in building Republican and right-wing websites that were hosted on SmartTech servers. Among Connell’s clients were the Republican National Committee, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and The SmartTech servers at one point housed Karl Rove’s emails. Some of Rove’s email files have since mysteriously disappeared despite repeated court-sanctioned attempts to review them.
    In 2001, Michael Connell’s GovTech Solutions, LLC was selected to reorganize the Capitol Hill IT network, the only private-sector company to gain permission from HIR [House Information Resources] to place its server behind the firewall, he bragged.
    “At 12:20 am on the night of the 2004 election exit polls and initial vote counts showed John Kerry the clear winner of Ohio’s presidential campaign. The Buckeye State’s 20 electoral votes would have given Kerry the presidency.
    But from then until around 2am, the flow of information mysteriously ceased. After that, the vote count shifted dramatically to George W. Bush, ultimately giving him a second term. In the end there was a 6.7 percent diversion—in Bush’s favor—between highly professional, nationally funded exit polls and the final official vote count as tabulated by Blackwell and Connell.
    Until his death Connell remained the IT supervisor for six Congressional committees. But on the day before the 2008 election, Connell was deposed by attorneys Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis about his actions during the 2004 vote count, and his continued involvement in IT operations for the GOP, including his access to Rove’s e-mail files and the circumstances behind their disappearance.”
    The Saratoga is the aircraft type in which John F. Kennedy Jr.died July 16, 1999


  13. David says:

    Political analysis and activism are not ends in themselves. The dogs, the cats, children, friends, and humanity in general are the reasons, at least for many of us. And art, which is one of the most effective vehicles for political activism, is also one of the most effective restorers of the human mind and spirit.
    I still have a printout of the chili peppers painting Steve posted. It is right there on the wall with my favorite political cartoons and quips, along with some quite serious quotes.
    I love this big tent blog.


  14. JP Carter says:

    Yes Moby P, Steve is doing what he damn well pleases to do with his website. Guessing you are not a pet owner, or a bitter, mean, & angry person. Or maybe you are too serious for your own good. Chill out friend. There will plenty of time for serious political discourse and opinion. Enjoy it for what it is: a person showing their underbelly – try not to attack if possible.
    Either way…Happy Holidays to all on The Washington Note – Steve & all the thoughtful, curious, and caring people that help make this a point of interest on the web. Peace.


  15. Spunkmeyer says:

    I’ve got no problems with Steve posting whatever he damn well
    feels like… it’s his site. And frankly, it’s good to see a lighter, non-
    wonk side to the DC insider.


  16. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Otherwise you’re diluting your brand and integrity in a really banal way”
    Gads, what a way to post a comment about an exceptional painting. I wonder, does the “P” initial stand for a word that rhymes with dick?
    And speaking about Dick, I certainly prefer this fine painting over that of a photo of the satanic monster Cheney’s leering skullhead.
    Personally, I’m enriched and delighted by the diverse and human aspects of this blog.
    Perhaps Moby could take some advise from one of the lowly peons here that isn’t a Washington elitist, and refrain from reading the posts that are prefaced with a picture of “cute dogs”. Odds are, Moby, those particular threads will undoubtedly be about “cute dogs”, and the photo should serve as a warning to you. Trust me, after seeing such a photo, you need not investigate further. That way, you will be able to use your time more constructively, and devote it to the cutting edge political comment that you’ve faithfully failed to provide us with thus far. I look forward to a glimpse into your tunnel. Should I bring my own flashlight, or do you provide them at the gate?


  17. Liz says:

    Hi Steve,
    I love your occasional updates on the pups. It personalizes your
    web site and it always makes me smile. If you placed images of
    your pups in your serious essays, that might be another matter,
    however you don’t, so I it as a lovely way to let people who read
    your site get to know you a little better.
    Cheers and Happy Holidays to you and yours!
    From Liz, Daisy, Jack and Mango (two of my pups and one grumpy
    old cat)


  18. Steve Clemons says:

    Moby — different folks come here for different reasons. I haven’t
    posted much on the pups for a while — but am doing so a bit
    because I am working on some bigger essays, soon to be posted.
    Hope you are well, steve clemons


  19. MobyP says:

    Are you actually turning one of the most serious, well-regarded US policy blogs into something about cute dogs? C’mon, don’t be a cliché. Start a dog blog. Otherwise you’re diluting your brand and integrity in a really banal way.


  20. David says:

    What everyone else said, plus add another thank you for posting this. It’s a damned adept work of art, and very engaging.


  21. IndigoE says:

    As a painter who reads this blog every day, I was pleasantly surprised to see this excellent painting.
    Very well rendered I like the juxtaposition of the still life element with the portrait of the pup in the foreground. Cheers.Christine


  22. Steve Clemons says:

    Of course we did Ben. We saw William Wegman’s exhibition last
    year at the National Portrait Gallery. Thanks for the tip though.


  23. Ben Rosengart says:

    Have you investigated the work of William Wegman yet? If not, do
    look him up without delay. I promise you won’t regret it.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *