“It’s an artistic rendering of a biblical story,”
Yeah, I read that. Too bad the explanation stops there. More of an excuse. Move the heads around and listen to the excuses then.
I like his visually, I’m not sure if the artist tried to put some meaning in the foliage? On hers, I think the skin color is terrible and generally it looks as if the only important thing about her was her clothing.
http://nymag.com/arts/art/rules/kehinde-wiley-2012-4/
Wow.
I googled this, and it looks like none of the mainstream media are mentioning this. Hmm.
Interesting that he outsources some of the painting to China and Africa. I wonder how much of Obama’s portrait was actually done by him.
Wiley made a statement about the greenery and the different flowers which you can find referenced here:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/12/wiley-explains-obamas-portrait/
This is cool about flowers. But the beheading paintings later in the article are disturbing.
Not a fan. Is it too late to ask for a refund ?
“There’s nothing new about artists using assistants—everyone from Michelangelo to Jeff Koons has employed teams of helpers, with varying degrees of irony and pride”
^Also from your link, @notrichenough. I’d add in Andy Warhol and many, many others. If you read the full article, you’ll see that Wiley spent many years at the time of the article living in China. Kind of different than outsourcing.
“After visiting an artist friend there and liking what he saw, he and a couple of his New York staffers flew out, rented some space, and started painting, “sort of like a retreat,” he says. One thing led to another—“another” being a five-year relationship with a Chinese D.J.—and eventually the Beijing studio became the main production hub as well as his second home. He recently bought an apartment”
I hope taxpayer dollars didn’t pay for this.
Yes, that Nixon portrait is pretty terrible. I like the looseness of the Reagan portrait. The Kennedy portrait is the most unusual, I don’t think it quite works, but I like it.
“Kind of different than outsourcing.”
The title of the article is “Outsource to China” so… maybe not? He is deliberately vague on how much of a piece he actually does. The fact that he lived there doesn’t mean he’s not outsourcing, the article says he employs 4 to 10 workers, think that’s cheaper than in NY? As you quote, it’s the main production hub. Isn’t that the very definition of outsourcing?
“The Kennedy portrait is the most unusual, I don’t think it quite works, but I like it.”
It’s very somber in tone and stance/composition. Given the nature of his death at a young age in the middle of his presidency, it evokes a proper feeling IMO.
If you want to see a nice Nixon portrait, here’s one by Norman Rockwell. Rockwell was 74 when he painted it.
http://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.72.2
I know little about painting. But I do know that a painting is situated in history and in art history, and if I judge it without knowing what else is going on, I’m not going to understand it.
Check out this Wikipedia page, with lots of Judith-Holofernes pictures. The various Judiths have a lot of different reactions to their killing. Lucas Cranach the Elder’s Judith has a kind of mean-girl vibe. Saraceni’s Judith looks like she’s sorry for Holofernes. Reidel’s Judith looks like she has just completed a disagreeable task (and wow, that shiny gold fabric). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_beheading_Holofernes
In both of Wiley’s Judith pictures, I see pride and disdain. Why are these Judiths beheading these young white women? I get the feeling that Judith just wants to get the job over with. I thought I’d see anger, but I don’t.
Not a fan. Hers is very stylized and looks like cover artwork for a magazine issue, not an official portrait. I think she is the warmer of the two and that doesn’t come across. His, I’m not so sure about. I know it’s not intended to be as photo realist as other presidential portraits but I find the proportions distracting with huge hands and large head.
I don’t like either one - his seems far too casual for a two term president. How long does one have to sit in a chair to let the ivy overcome you? I think the artist for Michelle didn’t do her justice. I don’t like Michelle but she deserves a better likeness than what she got. Nothing about her should be so washed out.
“Women have always been decorative,” Wiley says, gesturing at the portraits around him. ‘They’ve never been actors or possessed real agency.”
This is another quote from the article in post 62. Maybe that’s why Michelle didn’t sign up for him to do HER portrait.
I read that Wiley originally wanted to paint Obama with crimson robes and holding a scepter and Obama said he had enough political problems without that–choose something else. And he ended up in a tangle of leaves. With extra fingers.
If the Kennedy portrait being referred to is the one where he’s looking down and pensive–that was commissioned by Jackie after his death. She wanted something totally different than all the other pictures where he’s looking straight at you.
Source, @gouf78?
Wiley does uses symbols of royalty in his previous paintings but I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere that it was his intentions to do so for Obama’s portrait.
And it’s not an extra finger. It’s pretty obvious it is the meat/muscle in his hand.
It’s also obvious that some can’t separate their politics from their comments.
I am, to put it mildly, not an admirer of the Obamas. However, I really like the portrait of the former president, and dislike intensely the portrait of Mrs. Obama, whom I do believe to be a very beautiful woman. I think that’s kind of a shame.
I like both portraits, and love the fact that this is I believe the first time the artists have been asked to speak at the unveilings. They are a class act, boy do I miss them.
Wow. They look like something my kid would have done in her art major class in HS; great for HS. But for official portraits? God awful!