After looking at Sherald’s other painting, I did see that she paints blacks with black paint, as a group I like them, but as a portrait I think you have to have likeness, and it’s not even close.
Most great art that advances the field seems a little strange at first. These paintings have a very specific point of view, and don’t look like Hallmark Cards from the 50s (like Laura Bush’s painting, for example.) I thought it was fascinating to portray an intense, focused Obama against the lush, vivid, exotic background. Likewise, the portrayal of Michelle Obama in such an almost removed, cool way was an unexpected take on a woman who usually radiates warmth. So yes, I like the paintings because they seem to me to be highly original and suffused with meaning.
Oh, lol, @notrichenough! That is funny!
If you do an image search if Michelle as First Lady, and of Melania as First Lady, you get very different results. They are both beautiful and stylish, but Michelle is happy and vibrant and radiating energy outwards. Melania is cool and removed and cloaks her energy.
Michelle’s portrait is beautiful but it just doesn’t contain or reflect her essence.
Here’s an article that shows the string of official presidential portraits. Nixon’s is the worst, IMO.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2012/may/31/us-presidential-portraits-pictures?CMP=fb_us
Well, count me as one who doesn’t really like them. I don’t like his sitting position, and I think it’s silly looking suspended in all the ivy. I don’t like the washed out portrait of her and I don’t think it even looks much like her.
@doschicos , Eisenhower’s looks like a photo. What a good artist.
Depends how one defines art and a “good artist”. I don’t mind Eisenhower’s portrait and think it is definitely rendered well. However, many think the best artists have a unique voice/style. Think about the famous artists we all know by name from different periods of history. The majority have a unique voice/style. My kid who is entrenched in the art world LOVES the Obama portraits and I bet has many peers who feel the same. Not all like photo realism. They’d probably argue, just take a photo then. (contrary to the previous comment made about just take a selfie because neither of these paintings look like selfies at all 
) After seeing these paintings and now having the artists on our radar, I bet most of us would see another piece of work by these artists and will be able to say, “that’s an Amy Sherald” or “that’s a Kehinde Wiley”. I doubt most would be able to do that with other works created by the artists who created the previous presidential portraits.
I was reading some comments that the Obama Foundation sent out from Barak. Here it is in part if you haven’t seen it:
"To call this experience humbling would be an understatement.
That’s because, as a former president, when you choose an artist to describe your likeness, you have the opportunity to shape, quite literally, how someone sees the office of the American presidency. And how they might see themselves in that presidency."
https://www.obama.org/updates/portrait-unveiling/
It’s traditional for the sitting President to invite the predecessor President and First Lady back to the WH for the unveiling of their WH portraits. I expect to see more traditional likenesses of the Obamas in that setting, but I wonder when that will be. Looks like it was almost the end of the first Obama term before the GWB & LB returned for this. The Bush/Obama relationship was genuine as evidenced by this NYT article:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/us/politics/obama-hosts-george-w-bush-for-portraits-unveiling.html
BTW–Nixon’s OFFICIAL presidential portrait is wonderful–that blue thing wasn’t it.
I am disappointed in both Obama portraits, feel they do not do the subjects justice.
Michelle’s does not resemble her; she is almost unrecognizable facially. Plus her gracious smile and positive demeanor, such significant aspects of her, are missing from the image. The dress dominates the portrait, IMO. I would be OK with the dress and appreciate the heritage links of it, IF the facial image were a more accurate representation of the subject. But in this portrait it seems that the dress got priority over the person.
Re the Barack portrait, that is a better representation of the subject. It does accurately depict him and conveys his depth of thinking, sincerity and wisdom, IMO. However, I find the botanical background distracting from the main subject. Plus the more formal “indoor” chair does not “go” with the setting and seems “dropped in.” Finally, I, along with others, am confused re the fingers of the left hand.
I suppose that the backgrounds of the artists were a major consideration in awarding the commissions, which limited the field of artists being considered. I wish several portraits (perhaps three per subject) had been commissioned, and the two chosen for the Gallery could be selected after they were all done. Perhaps that is impractical and such an approach would come with its own issues.
the part that’s him is really good. except for what looks like and extra finger on his left hand. but it looks like he is being swallowed up in a super-fast-growing poison ivy jungle. the background overwhelms the subject – literally, since it is overgrowing him in several places. it’s just a really jarring contrast that makes an otherwise good portrait sort of weird and off-putting. it’s like they shoved his chair into the outfield wall of Wrigley Field and had him pose for the painting.
hers is a very good painting – but as a portrait of Michelle Obama it’s comically bad. it’s on the level of the Cristiano Ronaldo Airport bust or “Scary Lucy” Ball statue. it’s a good painting of a model in a dress but it’s not her. in any other context – sitting in her studio, hanging in a gallery – no one could look at it and say, “hey, it’s Michelle Obama!” his, you would immediately say “hey it’s Obama” while wondering why someone pushed him into a poison ivy bush.
Ugh, I don’t like either of the portraits. I saw better urban art in Miami’s Wynwood district yesterday!
Ok, I’m confused. How many portraits are they going to have?
Barack’s painting looks like him but is very serious. I miss the twinkle in his eye. I don’t care for Michelle’s. It seems too dull and doesn’t capture her beauty.
Michelle’s is like she is wrapped in a Maryland state flag.
It looks like Barack’s thumb is literally on the wrong side of his left hand. I think that’s what it is.
Perhaps he got done and it looked like Obama only had 4 fingers so he drew one in. Not impressed.
But to choose a painter who has painted black women holding the decapitated heads of white women doesn’t impress me either.
So are there White House portraits and museum portraits? Which are the ‘official’ portraits?
On the link provided Truman’s was the best I thought.
It’s an artistic rendering of a biblical story, one that has been portrayed by many artists. Interesting how people only get upset about it when it’s rendered as different races.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_beheading_Holofernes
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/02/12/pro-trump-■■■■■■-are-coordinating-smear-campaign-against-obama-portrait-artist-kehinde-wiley/219343
My understanding is there is only one official presidential portrait.
From Wiki:
"Currently, an official oil portrait is commissioned after the presidential term is finished, and takes one or two years to be finished.
Presidents often display the official portraits of other presidents whom they admire in the Oval Office or elsewhere around the White House, loaned from the National Portrait Gallery."
There can be more than one portrait, some are given as gifts, but the others aren’t “official”.