Yesterday, two portraits of the Obamas were unveiled. They are not the White House portraits, but they are the portraits that will sit in the National Portrait Gallery in DC (an outstanding museum, by the way).
Compare it to others:
Reactions?
A few thoughts: the Barack Obama painting is stunning. Jarring, really, in this context. And I think it is amazing. Aside from being a very good representation of him, the background is just chock full of meaning and importance. Wow.
The Michelle Obama: not quite as high marks, as I just don’t think it looks like her.
I’m by no means an art critic, but I thought they were both refreshing in that they aren’t your typical formal portraits. I thought his was the better of the two, I just didn’t care for her arrangement as much as I did his. Maybe the art critics will rate them differently but that’s my two cents.
Obama’s is of HIM. Really quite amazing, and the background will make it leap out that much more in the Hall of Otherwise White Guys. Love it - and the technical quality of the painting is visible even on bad webpages - it looks fit for such a man, and his face captures that humanity.
Michelle’s is of her as an Icon. The dress is featured and her head is a little monument on top of it. It is fine, but more of a cool poster than the portrait. I would’ve much preferred something that captured her power and grace in an open-faced, closer up, look-at-the-viewer sort of way. It would be so much more illustrative of her forthright character and integrity. IMHO.
I think Barack’s portrait has way too much background, and it’s too busy. It distracts away from the man himself. And really, hyacinth blossoms growing out of ivy?
Looking at the historical ones, I’ve got to say that I love the clay Gerald Ford.
I’m not a fan. The picture of the woman I like well enough. I just never would have guessed it was supposed to be a picture of Michelle Obama if you didn’t tell me.
The president’s picture is ok. He is done well and I get that the background is the artists thing. I just think it’s way too busy. At least he’s not holding a severed head.
Agreed that Michelle looks like some other attractive woman who is not Michelle Obama.
Barrack Obama’s looks good but also agree that I spend more time distracted at the background then actually seeing the portrait.
Ford as a friend clay golem cracks me up and I like stick-figure sculpture Bush and abstract Kennedy. I’m a bit of a traditionalist so, if I had my druthers, we’d have a classic oils portrait of Obama as well but it’s nothing that I’ll think about two days from now.
I guess I like the more traditional style in this context - but as for President Obama’s - I like that he stands out from all the noise. I think that the painting promotes that outside of whatever other noise was going on around him - he stood out from it and you knew it. I agree at first glance I thought it was too busy - but think of how life as a president must feel. (and he might enjoy sitting in a field of flowers/dreams now and then as well).
as for Michelle’s - I think it represents her as an icon - but this one doesn’t quite help me appreciate her strengths as much as I hoped it could.
I actually like the Michelle portrait better. To me, it looks more like a much younger Michelle, but I just like it, as a painting, even if it’s not a clear rendering of her now. Did anyone berate Picasso for his portraits? (Well, yeah, some people did, but I think you know what I’m getting at).
Barack, though, just looks bored. Not pensive, or happy or forward looking. Just bored, and fading into a background of vines.
I was going to start a thread about the Obama portraits too, Ravenman, but I found yours when I checked to see if anyone had beat me to it.
It always takes me awhile to see what I really think about something like this. But my first impressions:
I’m glad they decided to do something non-standard. IMHO, that puts them way ahead of the game right there.
I’m kinda reminded of a thing that was going around recently with the supposedly ugliest buildings in each state. More than half of them were buildings that were trying to do something more interesting than your standard concrete-steel-glass box, and IMHO almost all the buildings in question were more worth looking at than a standard office building would have been. If you don’t try something new, then everything’s the same old same old.
I like Michelle’s portrait. Really quite striking.
Barack’s portrait is…interesting. The artist’s obviously trying to do something with Barack and that wall of greenery, but I’m not making sense of it just yet.
I think the artist did a good job with his face.
The way he’s got his hands is weird, at least to me. I don’t know that I’ve ever rested my hands like that in my life. That’s probably an annoying detail that I should just get past.
The Guardian’s art critic has strong words to say - he loves the Michelle Obama painting - ‘Sherald’s painting is remarkable – a new birth for the portrait, even.’
‘The pose Michelle adopts is anything but formal or offputting. She sits introspectively, as if sharing a secret. She looks vulnerable and exposed, a human being without pompous armour. The soft, poetic tones of Sherald’s painting are disarming and completely unexpected in a formal portrait.’
Not big into art, but like most here I like his a bit better; it captures his ‘soul’ (for lack of a better term) and I focus on him and his eyes almost immediately rather than the background. Michelle’s is good art, but it doesn’t seem to capture her ‘vibrancy’ her enjoyment of life that one has seen throughout.
Still, better than another stuffy portrait in the hall.
I suppose that, unlike ye olden days where a painting was all you got, we have umpteen bajillion photos of the president and spouse and so the portraits can afford to be more artsy. Even if Michelle’s doesn’t make me say “Yup, that’s Mrs Obama”, it’s not as though her image will be lost to time in the foreseeable future.
I think they are both awful for different reasons.
His is too busy and I don’t like those flowers, either. There are other ways to pay homage to Obama’s background. The pose is undignified and the background is decidedly not masculine. Some people may not like the so-called “stuffy” portraits of past Presidents, but I think a more casual & relaxed feel can be captured with looser brushstrokes. His portrait is painted tight and the colors are just horrendous and loud.
Hers is fine as far as the pose, the artist fancies herself some kind of modern-day Klimt with that composition I guess, but her skin? There’s no overlooking that, and I don’t care what the rest if this artist’s work looks like. She looks like a corpse. A corpse that doesn’t look like Michelle Obama.
If the Obamas are pleased with them, goody goody for them, but they have shit taste in art.
Interesting! I like Michelle’s as a work of art, but frankly, someone could have done better.
I love Obama’s portrait, lovely work. But looking at it, my first impression was: Twin Peaks. Major Briggs in The White Lodge. (google it, ‘images’ - it comes right up. Major Briggs in a half hidden gothic chair in a tangle of vegetation.)
I like both of them. I am a BIG fan of Kehinde Wiley, and was really excited when he was tapped to do Barack’s painting. I was not disappointed. I really like how he seems to float in front of the greenery. I also like Michelle’s. Originally I wasn’t wowed by it, but looking at it more it just seems to exude the power of her presence. The focus on the dress almost makes it look regal on some level.
