It probably does, I don’t disagree with that. That could be said of everyone whether your expectations were high because you adore them or you are looking to snark because you loathe them.
My point was, everyone who is giving a thumbs down is not doing it because they necessarily dislike the Obamas or is the dreaded R-word.
One problem with reproductions is you can’t get a sense of scale. Wiley’s works are generally large, as is this, as seen here:
I’ve been tricked enough times by seeing online reproductions not to make any interpretations of a painting until I’ve seen it in person.
I don’t have time to looke it up but I believe Sharald’s paintings are much smaller. I’m wondering whether her portrait of Michelle Obama will be as well.
Dispelling the Sean Hannity nonsense with one picture
In case you don’t visit the pit and are seeing that stuff on your FB feeds.
Hers is shorter and wider I would say.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/13/michelle-obama-portrait-message-dress-216971
Michelle’s is fine. Barrack’s looks bad. It looks like a bad green screen. The art for Barrack himself looks fine. The background by itself looks nice. But they look wrong together. There is no ground, yet you can see the chair legs. And there are no shadows or depth of any kind between them. Sure, overlaying some parts does help, but it still looks bad.
It’s like an uncanny valley affect, really. Since the background looks so close actually “being there,” the parts that aren’t there stand out. This is unlike a lot of the artists other works, which either make the background look more like a flat wall behind the person, don’t show the feet so that the shadow/floor issue is better, or both. Heck, some even include a floor, which helps so much.
Look at this quick crop. Does it not make the painting look a lot better?
Yes, that is an improvement! Much less distraction, so you are drawn to his face more.
And on closer inspection, are these paintings or photographic collages? I don’t care for that pasted on look. It looks cheap.
I think Michelle’s portrait is lovely. I think it captures her long-limbed grace. It recalls her poise and charm. For me, it successfully recalls aspects her persona and is therefore a success as a portrait.
Barack’s portrait makes me feel I need a class in understanding his portrait. The flowers make sense, now that I’ve read up a bit. The chair disappearing into the shrubbery, not so much. To me a portrait should show some truth about the subject, and I’m not seeing that here. If anything, I find that opposite. The picture is a barrier to understanding, rather than a conduit to one.
I’m disappointed that it doesn’t look like her (her face, I mean).
Michelle’s portrait makes you think about Michelle, whereas Barack’s portrait makes you think about the painter.
Which is nice for the painter, I guess.
I abso-fucking-lutely love them both. Aesthetically, not politically. (I also enjoyed the Impressionist version of Ronald Reagan posted above, and I hate Reagan like poison.)
Michelle’s reminds me of Gustav Klimt, not only in the geometrical gown design but in the composition.
As for all those bitching about how “it doesn’t look like her”…
Gertrude Stein: “It was nice of you to paint my picture, Pablo, but it doesn’t look like me.”
Pablo Picasso: “It will.”
Others on the internet have pointed out the patterns in the flowers are identical like they were cut and paste. I have not seen anything about the actual technique rge artist uses.
Now that I am looking at more of his work, most of Wiley’s backgrounds look like William Morris wallpaper designs with a photo pasted over. The 3rd figure is the post painterly.
I agree about the backgrounds. But I see a hyper realistic look to the actual subjects that more resembles a painting to me, even if it turns out to be a digital painting.
To me, Obama up close looks a lot like that third painting in style, and that is what I meant by saying he looks good on his own.
That said, I like all three of those paintings. The second one is the only one that looks like a cut out photo to me, and I suspect that’s only because it’s a lower resolution, and would look more like a painting closer up.
I thought Obama looked more like a photo until I found that higher resolution picture I cropped.
I love both portraits.
The painting in its true scale is huge. Until you see it in person you aren’t in a position to judge anything about whether it needs to be “cropped” or not. I’ve seen many of Wiley’s paintings and the balance between the floral background and the subject is not at issue. You’re confusing a huge painting with a snapshot.
No.
No, not yet. I’m sure it’ll get even more publicity than this one.
Churchill hated the portrait that was commissioned in his honor and given to him; his wife eventually had it destroyed: Portrait of Winston Churchill (Sutherland) - Wikipedia
I know! I saw a fictionalized account of what went down with that Churchill portrait in The Crown on Netflix. So good!
As I recall in the Netflix version, didn’t Winston do it himself? Shout out to John Lithgow, who played an inspired Churchill.
It didn’t take long for the satirical Donald portrait to surface.
Oh that’s funny. Appropriate too.
No, some workmen did it at Clementine’s bidding, I believe, both on the show and IRL.
A young fan takes in the former First Lady’s portrait: Powerful photos capture young girl marveling over Michelle Obama portrait
