Wow. The picture of Barack looks like him, but the background really detracts. The article indicated that the photos are representative of Chicago, Hawaii, and Kenya where Obama's father is from. I can appreciate that, but still.

The painting of Michelle looks nothing like her. While she was gracious about it, I am sure she was disappointed. Hopefully they will replace it with one that looks like her. If someone had shown me that painting and ask me to identify who it was - I would have never guessed.

I agree Rick. I actually feel sorry for her. I'm not sure which clip I watched, I think it was the CNN one, but when Michelle's portrait was revealed, the reporter or the camera man just started laughing out loud. While funny...it's sad at the same time. At lest his looks good!

Maybe they told her to do a portrait of "M.Obama" -- and she assumed they meant daughter Malia.

Quick google of the artist, it's obvious why she'd be selected for such an honor:
Amy Sherald has said that her art has changed since she moved to Baltimore. Before her oil paintings were autobiographical, but now her works have taken on a more social context, exploring identity and the roles of race and gender in life-sized portraits.

Being totally honest I looked up some of her work and I really like it, but I wonder if anyone checked whether she was just a good artist, or a good artist who paint portraits. She has a couple of self portraits that don't really look like her, if I'm being honest.

The strange thing about Michelle's portrait--beyond it looking nothing like the subject--is the artist typically injects lots of color in her art, 3-4 bold or pastel colors in each work...why is Michelle's so devoid of color? It's strange, it's like she's only partway done with the piece, nevermind it not looking at all like Michelle.

Barack's is strange, he gets lost in the color a bit. It's a striking painting but to me, why would an artist choose to drown the subject in a literal forest of color when that subject was the President of the US...wouldn't you want to convey that gravitas and import in the art? I'm no fan of his politics but Obama was a great orator who inspired people, I don't know why you'd show him hunched in a chair being overrun by the forest, it's really weird.

I like both portraits. Sure, the Michelle one doesn't look exactly like her but I think I still recognize her (and would if I had seen it prior to being told who it is - the person in the portrait carries herself in a familiar way).

Both are modern and that's my jam. To each their own. If we wanted photographically correct 19th century stuff we could have used instagram with a filter.

I like his a lot. I think it is clever and unique. I don't understand hers. Not at all. It does not look like her and it does not convey who she is to so many people.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

doesnt look like her.
it sucks.

---

ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
we're doomed

It seems the focus of Michelle's is supposed to be the dress. That's a lot of surface area for the dress. I think it somewhat looks like her. She has very long arms which the portrait accurately shows, so perhaps that makes it seem like it does look like her. I dunno. This is nowhere near the Ronaldo debacle.

Laughed so hard I cried! If that isn't funny.....nothing is funny!

Are you kidding?

I don't think it's great portrait for her but not sure what is funny about it.

I really like his though.

Barak's is like those 3D autostereogram pictures, but you don't have to cross your eyes.

---

Chris
*********************
“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
― Hunter S. Thompson,

If you show that portrait to a hundred people I don't think anyone would be able to guess that it was Michelle Obama. I agree that it's funny when people have portraits done and it turns out looking nothing like them.

That background makes me think he's saying "I not really part of this place" or "I'm different than the rest."

Here is a link to most portraits. Two portraits stand out from the rest: Obama and Kennedy.

There was a time when portrait artists gave clues about their subject through the subtle placement of small, seemingly normal, items in the composition. But I guess we are in the age when you have to shout everything.

Can't wait for Trump's portrait. It is gonna be the greatest ever. It will be bigger than all the rest. Huge. With real inlaid gold background. Real special.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Maybe because it looks nothing like her? Maybe because her left arm looks like it is six feet long? Look at the face. It doesn't begin to look like Michelle! Like someone said on the interwebs, a sixth grader could have done a better job. It is also laughable (to me) because someone is calling that "art." Looks horrible.

  His painting looks stylistically like Monty Python Artwork to me. So it evokes a satirical/comedic feel. Not Presidental. Her's is better but still odd. Like an early american primitive portriat... very flat ( one dimensional ) not completely without emotion but extremely muted. Again stylistically not something I would chose for a first lady portrait but to each thier own.

Should've hired the person who did that.

I am an idiot because I did not know that there was a President named Chester Arthur.

Seriously. I've never heard of him before.

The background of Barack Obama’s is odd, not fitting of the decorum of the position.

Michelle’s is just weird, she has the same crazy left arm that Lincoln had in his portrait.

If you’ve ever been to Rapid City, SD- they have bronze statues of the presidents. Andrew Jackson’s was really striking- cold, imperious, commanding gaze and stance. In his portrait, he appears careworn, like his presidency weighed heavily upon him.

---

******************************
If I don't, who will? -Me
It's like being bipolar in opinion is a requirement around here. -TripleThreat

Yeah seeing these all together, then seeing Obama's, it's striking how much of an outlier it is. Kennedy's is different as well, that hazy quality, head down...it's a subtle way of communicating the posthumous nature of the piece. The rest look to bring in little elements like a painting in the background, a pipe, standing by a chair, being in a particular room in the WH that add some color to the portrait. Obama's is very odd, in comparison - as you said, as though he and the artist are saying 'I'm not part of this place'.

It also highlights jsut how bad Michelle's portrait is, every president that I know I immediately recognized, it's clear as day. Hers looks nothing like her.

The artist should be embarrassed, that is not Michelle Obama.

As for the former President, the first thing that came to mind when I saw it was Kramer


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcjJ3HrxQKg

making it's way around the internet...

---

Chris
*********************
“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
― Hunter S. Thompson,

I find it fascinating how the same picture can say different things to different people. In Obama's picture you say a claim of distinction and separation, I see a focus on context - Obama's immersion in and inability to break out of, society and historical forces. I love absolutely everything about Michelle's portrait (and overall prefer it to Obama's) except for her face where I have to agree with the consensus here. It's clearly her and very recognizable but it's far from a perfect likeness.

I live about a mile from the Brooklyn Museum which has exhibited a lot of Wiley's work and I've always liked it. Just to watch people's heads explode I really wish he'd reprised this pose for Obama:

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Artistically, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some will like the style, some won't.

But both are horrible for the intended purpose. They look totally out of place, and somewhat un-presidential.

Of course, they wanted to be different, but if it was a more traditional portrait, with maybe a vase with the 3 flowers in it on the desk or table, it would have 'looked right' while retaining the symbolism.

I guess I am just not woke enough, or my (half) white privilege is blinding me to the meaning behind Michelle's, and how it's 'better' than a more traditional portrait.

For a couple that was described by their followers, as so 'classy' and 'presidential', these look like a big FU joke.

F who? If the intended purpose is to look like the median portrait of the previous 43 portraits I agree it sucks. And if that's the definition of a presidential portrait then I have to agree it's unpresidential.

It's not clear to me why those should be the purpose and criteria though or who is being harmed or offended by the Obamas' choice to deviate a little.

They're paintings, and good to great non-conceptual ones at that. We're talking very minor variations in degree here. They didn't commission a rap album and tell the Simthsonian to stick it.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Come again?

http://www.newsweek.com/...rtrait-artist-805650

For a couple that was described by their followers, as so 'classy' and 'presidential', these look like a big FU joke.

I'm shocked that you would hate a picture of Obama.

Uh, no. Their portraits don't deviate a little with very minor variations.

It's not like all the previous portraits had the president seated in the oval office in a dark suit with a particular tie.

As mentioned, many of the previous portraits have excellent personal details.

They could have easily expressed themselves, their uniqueness, in more traditional portraits.

But they decided to give tradition the middle finger.

#classy

BTW, I don't hate their portraits, I just don't think they are appropriate.

Hahahaha. Well done.

Yeah, but 42 other people who made it to the highest office in the land were able to set aside their egos and establish that tradition.

The differences between these portraits and other presidential portraits are material but I maintain that these portraits and all the prior presidential portraits sit very close to each other on the spectrum of everything that constitutes portraiture, or even whatever it is that you feel is "traditional" portraiture.

Unrelated, looking through the gallery that someone posted above it is striking how flat out bad many of the previous portraits are. Jackson, Harrison, Roosevelt, Harding, Johnson, Reagan especially, and GWB all have real issues in my opinion.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

41 at best, JFK's is notably different. And I hardly think setting aside of egos has much to do with it. Maybe 41 old, white statesmen all happened to have a relatively similar conception of what a flattering, imposing image of themselves would look like and all asked for the same thing?

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Seriously? Put all of them 100-200 ft away, far enough to not identify the faces, and you can't tell one from another, except maybe Clinton, GW Bush, and Reagan, since they have brighter backgrounds.

The Obamas' are going to stick out like sore thumbs.

Yeah, that was going to happen anyway.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Only if you are obsessed with skin color. ;-)

I'm curious if BO knew what the background would look like or if he was surprised by it.

Jeez you are obsessed with race.

Clinton could have decided to be different have have his portrait done with him playing the sax, but even his had more class.

Maybe the Bushes could have been portrayed riding horses.

Heck, Reagan should have been wrestling the Russian bear to the ground.

I assume you would have been equally happy if the Obamas had decided to go the Glamour Shot route, or maybe Presidential Portrait: Swimsuit Edition.

What happens in 3 more years?

Nice. :-)

There is a lot more variation in the First Lady portraits, though they are definitely more 'standardized' in recent times.

What do you think of Hillary's? It almost looks like a cartoon/caricature/Mad magazine cover.

Barbara Bush had her dog in her portrait too. Since people sometimes make a big deal of the First Dog - I can see why some people would choose to include it in their portraits.

I think the issue has more to do with the fact that basically all previous living Presidents had formal portraits painted, whereas Pres Obama’s looks more like pop art. It’s not that the painting isn’t good, or doesn’t send an artistic message; it’s that it isn’t really a formal portrait (and I don’t mean formal as in, wearing a suit). The same is true of Mrs Obama’s portrait, with the added problem that it doesn’t really look much like her. If someone displayed that portrait without the context of Mrs Obama standing there, and didn’t tell you who it was, I doubt most people would think it was Mrs Obama.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I’ll quote your post: “Blah, blah, blah, another Democratic thing for me to complain about since I lack the cognitive pliability to do anything but criticize everything Democrat.”

Seriously, have you any other note to play than that? You’re beyond predictable and tired.

Do you have any opinions on the President or First Lady's portraits? Or just my opinion of them?

I am not even questioning the quality of the portraits, like many people are.

Sure. I like President Obama’s. The vision for it is cool and it is well executed. It’s a good portrait for the time in which it was made and a growing culture, both with his election and a move toward more voices being a part of the political landscape and process. That’s not a race statement, but one of involvement in media, activism, opportunities for interaction in the process, etc.

The vision for Mrs. Obama’s seems commendable, but the execution is terrible. Her style is recognizable in the portrait; she is not.

Well what do you mean by "formal portrait"?

It's not a term that has a broadly accepted meaning so you'll have to elaborate what it means to you and then we can discuss whether the rules you've identified should be guidelines that bind presidents and the artists they select.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Let me say this up front: I am not an art aficionado. I believe that paintings and that sort of similar art reached its peak with the Renaissance masters. Everything after that is just weak sauce, and I include Van Gogh and his contemporaries in that estimation. So take my opinion about the former First Couple's portraits with a healthy and hefty dose of salt.

To borrow from Winston Churchill who, upon seeing for the first time the portrait that Graham Sutherland did for him on the occasion of his 80th birthday: Her portrait as well as Barack Obama's are both remarkable examples of modern art.

I believe that Clementine Churchill later burned the Winston Churchill Sutherland portrait in the backyard, in a gasoline fueled bonfire. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Since you are showing the artist's previous works. Here is one from Pres. Obama's chosen artist.

What statement is he making with this one?

By formal portrait, I mean that most (basically all) of the previous portraits of living Presidents or First Ladies attempted to portray realistic looking images of the subjects, typically in the context of the office/position they held. Neither of the Obamas’ paintings would fit that model.

Leave off the snark. You sound like an ass.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Kill whitey?

More like "Kill all white women." But the painter who did those as well as the Obama portraits is an artiste, you pleb! She should be celebrated for the obvious brilliance! ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

She's a he and yes, he's explictly said that that painting is "about the kill whitey thing" (not exactly the most eloquent manifesto but it sure is a striking picture)

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Yes, he's a he. And sometimes "art" is just stupid and stupidly done. Both factors appertain in the case of his Obama portraits as well as the decapitated white women thing.

Modern Art. Well, at least it's modern, that much we're sure of.

Eh, I've seen velvet Elvises at various flea markets that were done with better skill and emotional content. Maybe he should study the masterpieces produced by the poker playing dogs painter? LOL!

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

What snark? Serious question serious answer. If my emphasis irked you there's not much I can do about that - my point is that people's objections to this portrait (quality aside) seem to shift:
- it's not an appropriate presidential portrait!
What's an appropriate presidential portrait?
- well, it should be a formal portrait of course!
What's a formal portrait?
- a portrait that looks like what I think a presidential portrait should look like!

With your last post you effectively back filled some criteria but I'm not sure they hold up. Very few of the "traditional" portraits give any indication of the subject's office (GWB and Clinton are obvious exceptions and there are probably 5 others with hints but that's it). Several of the backgrounds are made-up / composite views of Washington (Truman, Harding especially) so the idea of using fantastic elements to speak to the subject's life is hardly new - to presidential portraits let alone portraits more generally. Arthur's has an entirely made-up vaguely Hellenic background and (and this doesn't appear in the online versions) had a fallen rosebud at his feet which was a joke on the part of the artist about the president's apparent devotion to high society.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

You friggin' luddite!

I believe that this one says, "Justin Bieber sucks" and conveys a message of what we'd all like to see happen to his "music" catalog. The executioner in this painting is a feminine hero and should be elevated to sainthood.

The snark you've been throwing at anyone who displayed any criticism of these portraits the entire thread. Don't play dumb.

You'd have to be trying really damn hard not to see the obvious disparity between the Obamas' portraits and basically all of the ones that preceded them. The artists were specifically chosen because of their political and artistic styles.

In my opinion, the idea of these portraits is to create historical memorials to the subjects of the paintings to preserve their likenesses and legacies for future memory. The purpose is not to give artists an opportunity to make artistic or ideological statements. There's nothing at all wrong with artists doing that, but I would say that Presidential portraiture isn't the place for it.

Of course, this is personal opinion, as is most discussion about artistic endeavor.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Why is this just now occurring to me. Surely someone has noticed this already. B.Obama appears to be surrounded by -- or stuck in, what? A bush, or bushes. Is the message, "I could had done so much more if not for the plate handed to me by Bush."

Or more succinctly, the portrait is saying, "BUT BUSH."

Always blaming someone else.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev