The only similarity is the Continental Army uniform. In this painting, Trump’s uniform has buff colored facings and waistcoat, indicating that he’s from New York. His jacket has gold epaulets and he wears a light blue sash, indicating that he’s a Commander. Beyond the colors of their uniforms, there’s really no similarity at all between the two portraits.
Both men are traitors, but Benedict Arnold was at least a very capable officer. Trump is so incapable that his entire life is some kind of hugely unlikely accident, like humanity won the nega-lottery. But, as @jonboy_nemo points out above, Arnold sacrificed any patriotic principles he might have had when he felt like those principles ran counter to his own self interest and ambition. This willingness to abandon principles (however rudmentary and malformed) is 100% a Trump characteristic. And really belongs to the GOP as a whole at this point.
My favorite thing about that painting is that the people who love to wave the “Don’t Tread on Me” snake flag are gathered around to worship a guy who is in the act of treading on a snake.
These are some truly wretched examples of talented-amateur painting, especially the Powell portrait. I know nothing about Revolutionary War uniforms, but I commend the artist for getting one thing right: Trump is clutching his dick–rather, his gun–to assure himself it still shoots.
I was just looking at some Trump-aggrandizing propaganda-paintings yesterday and realizing I couldn’t tell if they were intended to be parody or not. All pro-Trump propaganda is so inherently absurd - taking this sad, clownish sociopath and trying to make him seem dignified and noble necessarily involves representing Trump in a way that’s the opposite of reality - that all the serious paintings instantly become self-parodying. That so much of it is completely over-the-top, wildly overcompensating to help mask the underlying absurdity, doesn’t help. So the only difference between parody and not-parody comes down to artist intent.
Seeing these, I’m realizing there’s really no equivalent heroic portraiture of Democrats. Anything even vaguely comparable is done with a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek, ironically becoming a sort of self-effacing humor more than buying into those heroic narratives. I’m realizing this is because these paintings, even the relatively subdued ones, are fundamentally fascist in their aesthetics and outlooks.
Other than the fact that they are both wearing clothing and doing things with their hands, and their jackets are blue trimmed with yellow, these pictures look about as much like each other as one of chai and one of cheese.
That was supposed to be “chalk,” but the autoincorrect made a better choice.
Planting a flower in the middle of a path? That seems like the usual, well-though-out sort of plan we’ve come to expect from the out going administration.
And planting it in parched and cracked un-irrigated dirt. They’ll then blame the flower for failing to thrive without subsequent water. “It should have pulled itself up by its bootstraps!”
