I found this very interesting, because what I’ve noticed is that most people have the exact opposite impression. They thought Barack’s was good while Michelle’s struck a wrong note.
I like hers better as a painting. I like his better as a representative of who he is. Or at least one aspect of who he is.
I saw those yesterday. Didn’t exactly endear me to this particular artist, but hey, freedom of speech and all like that there, so folks are welcome to make those kinds of statements about women that look like me.
Whoever combined the portrait of Obama with Homer Simpson disappearing into the bushes is a national treasure.
I’m a big fan of both paintings. They’re really well done.
I agree however that Michelle’s face isn’t a great likeness, even if it’s a good piece of art. Also, her skin looks gray rather than skin colored, but that might be on purpose. Barack’s is more detailed and realistic while Michelle’s is more geometric, and the flat blue background and dull gray skin might be intended to highlight that. Hers is almost like a Rothko painting come to life. Flat colors and shapes. His has more of a post-impressionist feel, like one of Gaugin’s Tahitian women.
Barack’s is stunning. I would consider hanging a print of it on my wall. The greenery, the flowers, the rich wooden chair, the blue suit, it all fits together well. One of the best Presidential portraits I’ve seen.
It looks like he’s afraid someone will try to grab his genitals.
The more I look at these, the less I like Barack’s portrait and the more I love Michelle’s. Her’s is stunning and interesting and even evocative of other famous art works (The Pieta, for one), and he looks lost in the weeds.
While I think Michelle’s likeness is questionable, I think the other aspects of the painting are really striking. The composition is great, and the dress is a bold statement. I think it also does a great job of capturing her character.
If I was Michelle, I’d be thrilled. If I was Barack, I’d be… well, I’d probably be off playing golf somewhere and wouldn’t really give a shit, but I would’t be thrilled. 
Both portraits are about the artist and not the subject. Obama is hovering on a weirdly shaped chair that he is barely sitting on. His hands look like Uncle Jack’s fake hands and his expression is of annoyance.
Michelle’s is worse, it is a portrait of the dress and she fades into the background. Her arms look absurdly long as does the dress.
You know who else distorted the portions of a woman’s body in a work of art?
This. I think you hit on exactly what I was feeling but having a hard time expressing.
The subject should be the first thing drawing in the viewer. The design should secondary. The “style” of the artist is eating both people alive.
It is like when a person’s clothes wear them versus them wearing their clothes.
I like the Barack one as a portrait. I like the Michelle one as art.
I knew that Kehinde Wiley did Obama’s the instant I saw it. He has such a distinctive style.
Barack’s portrait makes him look older and tireder than me. Since he is neither, I find it a little off-putting. A portrait of him with that big grin/laugh would seem more fitting.
I would never in a hundred years guess that is supposed to be Michelle Obama if I didn’t know beforehand.
His, I think is a little loud, but I like it fine.
My first reaction to each was “blech,” but Barack’s is growing on me (heh) while Michelle’s still just looks stilted and washed-out. Hope their official White House portraits will be more in the traditional style.
Also true.
I seem to be in the minority in that I liked her portrait better than his. But both of them are visually striking, even more so when they are included in with other presidential portraits. They’ll just stand out as BAM! game changers from all the paintings of old white dudes in suits.
So does someone know what difference is between the “Official” portraits and other official portraits? I was thinking maybe the ones selected for the Portrait Gallery are less formal? I was Googling around trying to find a distinction because I am noticing more than 1 portrait in lots of cases, with one being more formal, and the other being more trendy.
As in this formal one of President Kennedy:
And this informal one:
Or this informal Norman Rockwell of Nixon:
Informal pixelated Bill Clinton:
http://www.drawingandpaintinglessons.com/images/OverviewArt04.jpg
Are these just part of other collections?
I have also seen more than one First Lady portrait:
Which is Official, official? One, neither, or both?
If these of the Obamas are the trendy ones, then I am not quite so put off.
I’ve seen both pictures. If I were Obama and I had paid for those, I’d want my money back.
Hers I would hang on my wall as art.
His I would hang on my wall if I wanted a portrait of Barack Obama on my wall.
So for me, which I like better depends on “as what?”