“People who have never seen them will look at these portraits in the future and think that this is how they looked”
I think times have changed and I’m glad that the Obamas chose portraits by artists that imbue their paintings with other meanings and make you think about them rather than just capturing a more photo-realistic likeness. Portraiture back in the day of the early presidents (and throughout much of history) was done because it was a way of capturing someone’s likeness for historical purposes. There was no photography or photography had its limitations. Now, we have so many photos of famous people that no one is going to forget what they looked like and the many sides of each person because honestly we as humans all have many sides to us even in photographs. Painted portraits aren’t always a true historical and accurate reflection of the person either. If you’ve seen Pete Souza’s great coffee table photo book of Obama, you’ll know how many great photos there are of Obama and his family (and that was just a very small fraction of over 1 million photos). Oftentimes they are painted in a favorable light. I bet some of those old portraits of presidents from 100 or 200 years ago were painted in a flattering way. Instead, the Obamas chose artists who tell stories and who represent a story themselves for having been chosen. It’s time, IMO, to move on from a portrait as photographic replacement and towards a portrait as an artistic statement of its time.
In fairness to the National Portrait Gallery, they also have this one of Nixon, though the Rockwell has been on display the past several times I’ve been there: http://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.78.TC642
Now that’s Nixon.
This is a fairly traditional portrait of George W. Bush, who, like Obama, is seated. He has some rather remarkable spreading going on himself:http://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.2008.51
It’s fun to look through the presidential and first lady portraits on the gallery website: https://americaspresidents.si.edu/
Yeah I don’t like the manspreading thing with Bush either, though at least his portrait looks like him and doesn’t have any extra appendages. 
I think it’s who Nixon wanted to be, and came close to being after the presidency.
The great thing about art is that it’s all in the eye of the beholder. I love the paintings. The Obamas were always unique and original as are the paintings. Definitely nothing run of the mill. That’s what I see in the paintings. To each his own.
@doschicos, exactly! No one in the future is going to just have these two portraits to look at. There are tens of thousands of photographs of the Obamas if they want to know ‘what they really looked like’. To have had them sit for a photographic type traditional portrait would have gone against everything that those two embodied as President and First Lady.
Slightly off topic but while I have his beautiful book and would LOVE to see Pete Souza (President Obama’s photographer) who is out on book tour I WAS able to see Amanda Lucidon White House photographer for Michelle Obama this week and hear many backstories about the photos in her book. Both books have stunning photos and informative info describing each photo- well worth a look at to get insight into those 8 years at the White House.
An example of other photos that live on.
@frazzled1 Thank you for that link to the presidential gallery! What fun looking at those. Some are terrific, others not. For those who don’t like the Obama portraits, they likely would have gone crazy with those of JFK or Clinton! 
It’s interesting to read the details about the artists and their vision. I liked the significance of the flowers in President Obama’s portrait.
I really think that the portrait of Bill Clinton is the worst. 
I know someone who saw the Obama portraits last weekend, and he said they are wonderful in person.
I saw a news photo of a little girl looking at Michelle’s portrait. I liked it much better from this vantage point.
I saw them in person. The dress is much less distracting in person. Still don’t love Michelle’s expression - too sad/pensive, but overall liked the portrait very much. Thought Barack’s was great. In person the background is really gorgeous.
Friend was in DC for the March… went to see the Obama portraits and said the gallery was mobbed… throngs of people… Michelle’s portrait so popular it had to be moved to a different area… She says trying to actually see the portraits was like trying to see the Mona Lisa at the Louvre at the height of the tourist season
Went to see the portraits today with a CC friend. The line for Obama was longer than for Michelle, but the guardshad set up a dedicated line so that each person could go up to see Obama’s pic (and take the requisite photos/selfies). There was not that kind of setup at Michelle’s picture; people were more informally gathered. The portraits are much more striking and communicative IRL than in the media pics I’ve seen. There is a portrait of LLCoolJ done by Kehinde Wiley in the same room as Michelle’s portrait; the parallels in style between LLCoolJ’s and Obama’s portraits are clear. What struck me most about Obama’s portrait is that he stares at you straight on – it feels like he sees you and acknowledges you.
In the Presidential Gallery is another pic of Richard NIxon – done by Norman Rockwell. The placard next to the piece said that Rockwell said that if he was going to interpret Nixon on canvas, he was going to do it in a way that would please Nixon, not necessarily Rockwell’s own eye.
The contemporary portrait of JFK was a surprise – had never seen it in books or other media.
I don’t frequent art museums. However, this past month I did go. I was amazed at how different art work is in real life compared to just print, I stood in front of a Norman Rockwell for about 15 minutes. I don’t like the Obama pictures that I’ve seen, I hope one day I can see the art in person, to see if it changed my mind.
Kehinde Wiley chosen as one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world 2018.
http://time.com/collection/most-influential-people-2018/5217612/kehinde-wiley