Nestled in ProPublica’s investigation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ undisclosed all-expenses paid vacations, there is a custom portrait featuring Thomas alongside Republican billionaire Harlan Crow and other conservative operatives. The entire scene is truly something else. We were so fascinated with it, we asked an art historian to help us unpack it.
In said portrait, commissioned by Crow and painted by Sharif Tarabay, Thomas is lounging outside, sitting back on a wooden rocker, cigar in hand, surrounded by Crow and others. A statue of a Native American man with its arms outstretched sits behind the five men. The portrait captures a scene from about five years ago during a trip at Camp Topridge, a 105-acre remote enclave of the Adirondacks in upstate New York, owned by Crow.
I spoke with Heather Diack, associate professor of contemporary art and history of photography at the University of Miami, about what she sees in this painting. She’s also written multiple books analyzing the relationship of art and photography.
Here’s our conversation, lightly edited and condensed for clarity:
Shirin Ali: What was your immediate reaction when you saw Tarabay’s painting of Thomas and Crow?
Heather Diack: The casualness of the pose, the way the group is sitting around, the way Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow are holding their cigars, it’s like Thomas is holding court in this setting. Another aspect that’s really glaring to me, is the statue of the bare-chested Native American man with his arms outstretched, above and behind the group with the backdrop of the forest. It looks as though this figure is consecrating their conversation in some way, which to me is incredibly disturbing. I think that Indigenous groups in this country would be very offended by that, and that the sculpture is being used as a sort of token artifact here. Its stoniness, its silence in the background there, makes it seem like the power and money these people have is like a natural sequence of events, rather than the self-interested, capitalist exploitation that it is.
What do you think Tarabay was trying to communicate with this portrait?
I’m not sure if it was based initially on an actual photograph, and then other details were added. However, I think there is some imagination at play, but also that this artist made really deliberate decisions to try to convey a particular political ideology and say things about the wealth and affiliation and power of the people that they’re painting.
Is there something to be said about the fact that this Republican megadonor commissioned artwork that features a Supreme Court Justice who is also widely known to be a staunch conservative?
Oh, 100 percent. It is a distinctly political statement, however kitschy the painting appears, however casual their poses appear. This is definitely not simply about art. The actual scene in the painting is really telling in that it tries to establish the people pictured, their relationship to one another and this kind of gathering of power between money and the court. And this connection to the historic past by reference to the Native American sculpture, as though this is natural, this is a manifest destiny of conservative politics here.
Some of us here were discussing the painting, and it reminded us of Jon McNaughton’s works. He’s painted countless portraits of Trump, including a version of Mount Rushmore that includes Trump’s face. What do you make of his paintings?
It’s hard not to see it as a caricature, even though I realize that this artist is actually quite sincere about his message. It reminded me a lot of socialist realist propaganda paintings under Joseph Stalin. It’s painted in a way that is hyperrealist, but also idealist, insofar as the realism they’re trying to portray is really about their ideology. So McNaughton’s ideology, I think, is very clear, him being quite a right-wing conservative. It’s really glaring. If you look back at paintings that were done under Stalin’s regime, they really imitate that style.
Are there any obvious influences traceable in both Tarabay’s and McNaughton’s artwork?
I gather from Tarabay’s website and information about him on the web that he’s influenced by Norman Rockwell. And the thing that struck me was Rockwell’s politics were very different. For example, Rockwell’s Four Freedoms paintings from 1943 were inspired by President Franklin Roosevelt’s address to Congress—which actually have become a new subject in contemporary art, with the group Four Freedoms Coalition. I find the connection to Rockwell really disturbing, actually.
I think there’s a conservative penchant towards realist painting. There’s been an aversion to abstract art, and they want to make artwork that they believe is more easily readable. Yet, even though it’s painted in a realist style, that’s not to say the scene pictures or the values conveyed by it are real or the truth. Even though I think that is partly what the artists want to be there.
What do you think is behind that penchant for realist painting?
I think there’s a perception that that kind of realist work, however caricature-ish it is, has more of a popular appeal, that it is more easily read quickly. It’s a much more immediate image that you don’t necessarily need to have any kind of art historical background. And again, I think that that actually is a bit of a misconception, too. Because the reference I mentioned to socialist realist paintings in the former Soviet Union is actually very glaring, if you do know something about art history.
