Obama Official Portrait Controversy

I think they are great art. Cannot at all see where any controversy would be. Too many people see the world through some ********** up colored glasses.
I'm not sure I'd quite call it great, but I don't think it's all that bad and I would not want to judge it too much further without seeing the paintings in their proper size, where they belong. It's often surprising to me how much different a painting can look in real life from even a fairly accurate illustration of it. At this remove the portraits look a little wooden and amateurish, but I'm not sure that's the case when you see them properly. In any case, a portrait is about a lot more than just the picture of a face. In these days of photography there's plenty of that already. The Obama portraits are different from most that went before.
 
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.

I just think it's a bad painting. Not what I would want representing me in a museum. Not only does it not look like her at all, it's very flat. I don't care how well respected the artist is, this particular painting is not impressive to me at all, at least not the Michelle part.

The Barry one looks like him at least, but it's worse than the other one.

First of all, his hands are freaking HUGE! And manspreading yikes!

The portrait reminds me of Monty Python animations. He looks like a paper cut-out added to a picture. Stupid looking.

Just a totally lame motif all around for Barry's portrait. Whoever did that needs to come back down to Earth so they can get slapped.

Both portraits are abominations.

ETA: Put it this way - if you look at a First Lady portrait and can't tell who the person is, it's not good. I mean Michelle is the only black First Lady and I'm still not quite sure who this is.....

ETA2: There is no way either of them like these paintings. :)
 
Last edited:
ETA2: There is no way either of them like these paintings. :)


U sure?

0zZYm0x.jpg
 
Good grief, it's art, not a photograph.

Have you seen Bill's portrait?

Or Kennedy's?

I actually quite like those two, not so keen on the ones of the Obamas although I think his is better than hers, at least I could tell who it was.

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed material pertaining to derail into politics. Stick with the paintings!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm no art critic but I can say with some confidence that of all president's portraits, this one is certainly the most recent.
 
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.

The linked article with the Hannity quote now says that Hannity took it down, saying it was material posted by his staff but not approved by him (Hannity). I don't know, Sean, maybe if you didn't hire racist wackos, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
 
I think there is something off about Michelle's face and body proportions. I dunno it just looks bad. The arms and head, it just looks wrong.

Looking at the other two portraits of Clinton and Kennedy though, if these are in the same museum then I guess these pieces of junk fit right in. Like a Mad Magazine of presidential portraits? Not even worth commenting on now.
 

Back
Top Bottom