• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Obama Official Portrait Controversy

Brainster

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
21,496
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
 
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.
 

picture.php


There that’s so much better.
 
I think the controversy is they don't look like photographs and they were painted by brown people.
 
As a sometime portrait artist I feel I can weigh in here...

There are a few angles of criticism and I'll address them as I think of them.

Initial impression:
Uh, yeah...
President Obama -- garish
Michelle Obama -- ghastly

Artistic value:
It''s difficult to be anything but subjective about their artistic merit. Given both artists' bodies of work, the paintings seem to be well within their styles, and the results should not have come to a surprise to the Obamas when they were revealed. I was not aware of their styles (and the intent) and I (like many others) assumed these would be hanging in the West Wing with the rest of the Presidential portraits.

Sometimes I'm a little put off when art's "value" is more dependent on the artist's name and reputation rather than actual skill. But there's a trade-off. Are you there to experience the subject, or the creator?

Neither is exactly a photographic likeness. But if they wanted a photo they would have gotten a photographer. I do think Obama's skin tones are quite garish, and Michelle's way too subdued. I'm not impressed with her depiction of her anatomy or facial structure, and something really bugs me about the hair. (I remember a "Man on the Street" segment from somewhere where the reporter tried to get people to identify her without her hair in the photo. People had about a difficult a time as they did when viewing of photo of this.) I for one would like to have seen more delicate use of skin tone and rich browns, since these are, you know, the first brown people in the line of Presidencies.

They would probably not be appropriate for hanging in the White House, but at the Smithsonian with the other artistic renditions of presidents, why not?
 
Last edited:
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.

Ah, that makes much more sense. In that light these portraits do seem to fit right in. I kinda like that Clinton one, even if it does make him look a little like a drunk.
 
What controversy?

Oh, right. Everything's a controversy now. Stupid internet.

Semantically, any disagreement, however small, can be called a "controversy."

That doesn't warrant the attention the media affords 90% of them.
 
Ah, that makes much more sense. In that light these portraits do seem to fit right in. I kinda like that Clinton one, even if it does make him look a little like a drunk.

Clinton looked bad when he left office. He actually looked healthier ten years later when he lost weight.

Most presidents look haggard after leaving. Dubya actually still looked good, but all the others in my lifetime looked like they aged 20 years in between.
 
Given the Clinton and Bush context provided, any controversy is just people looking for things to argue about.

Does anybody else see that the Michelle portrait is a black and white photo style painting where the photographer picks a couple areas to allow the color to be revealed? That’s where I see the skin tone coming from. If I were being artsy, which I’m not, I would say the attempt to color blind the painting was an interesting choice. This wasn’t the “black” or “brown” First Lady. This was the First Lady. If that’s the message, I like it.

Isn’t art fun?

If it’s a dress ad, then I’m not a fan.
 
When in doubt, accuse everyone else of racism.

I did see a few FB replies about this that showed pics of Curious George or other monkeys (on the Smithsonian's own post about the portraits, actually!) with quite a few 'likes'. That makes a far greater point about that poster and the folks who liked the reply than anything else, of course. Showing such people for what they are is valuable, of course, but why do there have to be so many ignorant, racist dicks on the internet now?
 
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.


The strangest element of the Michelle portrait is that she is painted in shades of gray, like a black and white photograph, but other elements are in color. Odd choice for a portrait of an African American woman. But this critic seems to like it.
The racializing schema of Sherald’s work is to “exclude the idea of color as race,” she has said, in her artist’s statement. To Sherald, the photorealistic depiction of race—a quality determined by others’ eyes, externally—is a dead end. Applied to Michelle Obama, the lack of brown in the skin feels first like a loss, and then like a real gain.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/a...ry-of-amy-sheralds-portrait-of-michelle-obama
 

Back
Top Bottom