• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama Official Portrait Controversy

Brainster

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
21,936
Kind of surprised there's no thread on this yet. I put it in social issues & current events because I hope we can confine the discussion to the portraits themselves.

You can get a decent look at both pictures here.

As portraits go, these are certainly non-traditional. Barack is sitting in a chair, which is apparently in the middle of a hedge, because he is surrounded by green leaves. A few of the leaves are colored differently; these refer to Kenya (his father's birthplace), Hawaii (where he largely grew up) and Chicago (where he lived as an adult before becoming president).

But the one that is attracting the most attention is Michelle's portrait. She's seated as well, in a "Thinker" pose. She's wearing an enormous dress. But the oddest thing about the portrait to my eye is how washed out all the colors look; it's almost all pastel shades, except for some bright red stripes at the bottom of the dress. Which to my eye makes it look like an advertisement for the dress.

A bunch of people have commented that it doesn't look much like Michelle, and taken quite a bit of grief for it. Chris Cillizza, a liberal reporter for the Washington Post was called a racist (some NSFW tweets on that post) for making that (pretty obvious) point:

This is a beautiful portrait. It looks very little like Michelle Obama

Now in fairness, a lot of crazy racist knuckle-draggers argued that Michelle didn't look mannish enough (refers to a bizarre conspiracy theory that Barack is secretly gay and Michelle is secretly a man).

Sean Hannity, however has pinned the crazy meter with his take on Barack's portrait. There are no words:

Sean Hannity’s blog took on the big questions in the minds of all God-fearing Americans today — does the recently unveiled presidential portrait of Barack Obama feature “secret sperm” and was it painted by an artist who harbors hatred in his heart against white people?

The "secret sperm" of course is that little vein that runs by Barack's left temple and up to his hairline; if you look for pictures of him online you will often see it, particularly when he is presenting a left profile.

My take? You know how it is; if the Obamas are happy then I don't really care much. Neither of the portraits really appeals to me, but I can kind of see where they're going with it.
 
Last edited:
I'm with dudalb. The Michelle portrait looks naive, like it was painted by a student.
 
The White Sox fans are pissed that Obama posed in the ivy at Wrigley.

He's not even a Cubs fan!
 
The "secret sperm" of course is that little vein that runs by Barack's left temple and up to his hairline; if you look for pictures of him online you will often see it, particularly when he is presenting a left profile.


And where's the "harbors hatred in his heart against white people" bit coming from?
 
I think it is good they used artists they admired. The results are mixed, but I hope they are happy with them.

Missed an opportunity to get Bush to do them. Would the right even be able to process that?
 
I like the Obama portrait, not so crazy about the Michelle portrait.

I don't care for either, but at least the Obama one looks like him. I think the firestorm over that tweet must have been caused by people interpreting it as "This is a very beautiful portrait because it looks very little like Michelle Obama", because it clearly doesn't look like her at all, so no one could be disagreeing with that part of the statement.
 
Controversy?

Meh. I'm not an art critic and I don't know how to talk intelligently about art, so I won't try. They are both different in style than any previous official portraits as far as I know. But I think that's by design. They are more memorable too. And Michelle's portrait looks like her to me anyway.
 
Did Barack and Michelle see the portraits before they were unveiled in public?
If yes, then why didn't they tell the "artists" they want a do over?
If no, why the hell not?
I'm no art expert, but those portraits are are borderline disrespectful to the former President and First Lady.
 
I don't see anything controversial in either painting. Michelle's portrait is just bad. How can you set out to paint a portrait where the subject is unrecognizable, and their outfit is the focus of the work? If you didn't know it was supposed to be the first lady, you'd think a clothing designer had been sketching a dress idea and put in a generic model to wear it.
 
He's done some other portraits that have been interpreted as racist by some observers. Snopes did a thing on it.
https://www.snopes.com/kehinde-wiley-painted-black-woman-severed-head/


Thanks.

snopes.com said:
[...] It is not the case, however, that Wiley was “famous for depicting white people killing black people” [SIC] before politically motivated commentators chose to make it so. Far from it. Of the scores of paintings the artist has produced, only the two based on the biblical beheading story depict such a scene. They generated very little controversy before Wiley’s portrait of Obama was publicly unveiled. [...]
 
Last edited:
I like Michelle's quite a lot. Barack's doesn't do much for me, but that's just a matter of taste.

Any "controversy" is stupid.
 
Kind of surprised there's no thread on this yet. I put it in social issues & current events because I hope we can confine the discussion to the portraits themselves.

You can get a decent look at both pictures here.

As portraits go, these are certainly non-traditional. Barack is sitting in a chair, which is apparently in the middle of a hedge, because he is surrounded by green leaves. A few of the leaves are colored differently; these refer to Kenya (his father's birthplace), Hawaii (where he largely grew up) and Chicago (where he lived as an adult before becoming president).

But the one that is attracting the most attention is Michelle's portrait. She's seated as well, in a "Thinker" pose. She's wearing an enormous dress. But the oddest thing about the portrait to my eye is how washed out all the colors look; it's almost all pastel shades, except for some bright red stripes at the bottom of the dress. Which to my eye makes it look like an advertisement for the dress.

A bunch of people have commented that it doesn't look much like Michelle, and taken quite a bit of grief for it. Chris Cillizza, a liberal reporter for the Washington Post was called a racist (some NSFW tweets on that post) for making that (pretty obvious) point:



Now in fairness, a lot of crazy racist knuckle-draggers argued that Michelle didn't look mannish enough (refers to a bizarre conspiracy theory that Barack is secretly gay and Michelle is secretly a man).

Sean Hannity, however has pinned the crazy meter with his take on Barack's portrait. There are no words:



The "secret sperm" of course is that little vein that runs by Barack's left temple and up to his hairline; if you look for pictures of him online you will often see it, particularly when he is presenting a left profile.

My take? You know how it is; if the Obamas are happy then I don't really care much. Neither of the portraits really appeals to me, but I can kind of see where they're going with it.

I think the disconnect on this one is that these are not the official White House portraits.

These are the 'artsy' portraits for the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery.

Here's Bill Clinton's: [Bill Clinton (Chuck Close, 2011)]

ETA: the stick figure in the bottom right is George Bush's portrait.
 
Last edited:
Controversy, schmontroversy.

I agree that the Michelle Obama portrait looks nothing like her, but I don't think the Obama one looks like him either. It sort of reminds me of a statue that was put up in my hometown of Milwaukee of the Happy Days character "the Fonz". It looks so little like the Fonz that I find it rather amusing.

https://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-m...8137424-bronze-fonz-27676606.jpg?resize=700:*
 
Last edited:
Controversy, schmontroversy.

I agree that the Michelle Obama portrait looks nothing like her, but I don't think the Obama one looks like him either. It sort of reminds me of a statue that was put up in my hometown of Milwaukee of the Happy Days character "the Fonz". It looks so little like the Fonz that I find it rather amusing.

In their defense, not even Henry Winkler looks like the Fonz.
 
I think they're rather boring; but if that's what the artist was shooting for, then okay. :)

Ranb
 

Back
Top Bottom