For all the “art” comments. Art does have purpose and this is a special case. They were commissioned as portraits of the president and first lady. Not to hang on your living room wall. Commissioned art is different than “doing your own thing”. There are guidelines. There are customers.
Both portraits completely miss the mark in illustrating that “this person at this point in time” was president/first lady of the USA. That’s an important position no matter your politics. The position carries a lot of weight.
Most official portraits portray the trappings of office as clues (pretty traditional especially for history)–you can see the background, uniforms, some convey the gravity of office–the expression on their faces etc. Some a combo.
You know that THIS person held office and was important even if you don’t immediately recognize the person. I personally think the greatest art in this sense is the piece that makes you wonder “who was this person? I need to know more about them. What was going on in history at that time?.”
These don’t–Obama sitting in ivy doesn’t speak to his high office–if you didn’t know he’d been president you wouldn’t know afterward. You’d say he was a gardener. And if you don’t know the symbolism in the flowers–you’d know even less. It’s a guy on a chair.
And Michelle is a vibrant person and first lady who is presented as a washed-out fashion ad for a dress. You would never know that painting was a “first lady”. Never. Nor recognize her. The dress has more meaning than she does in that portrait.
Why on earth would you think a man in a suit, sitting in a garden, was a gardener? When was the last time you saw a gardener wearing a suit?
A lot of times people of color say that when they are at official functions, wearing the normal clothes that guests or speakers wear at official functions, they are mistaken for valets or waitstaff or sales clerks.
I think Obama’s feet are a little off in the portrait, like they aren’t on solid ground, and almost like the left one is turned like a child fidgeting. And the extra pinky thing bothers me too.
Kennedy had no input on his, and Nixon wasn’t in the best mood after he left office so probably said ‘whatever’ when asked about it. Clinton looks like he’s sucking his stomach in.
I wasn’t sure about these at first. I liked Michelle’s more at first glance, and I really like it after reading the background on the dress and designer.
I loved the actual depiction of Barack. I had the pleasure of meeting him when he just started campaigning, and I remember shaking his hand sooo well. In my mind, his hands are one of his best features, and no painting could do them justice. I know that sounds weird, but his handshake had that kind of effect on me. It’s difficult to describe. I guess I’m just trying to say that I’m not surprised that the artist chose to emphasize them. The greenery in the background bothered me initially. He was so disrespected in office that I wanted the portrait to fit the mold because, yes, he did belong there and his portrait should reflect that. But the more I looked at the portrait and then heard the artist speak and read about it, the more the picture has grown on me if for no other reason that some might see it as a middle finger to the “establishment:” that so disrespected him.
These artists were chosen by the Obamas, as is their right and privilege for serving their country. The Obamas were the customers and they chose the guidelines. They obviously admire and know the work of the artists they chose and “get” it, as do most art critics. If you skipped over it, I highly suggest you go back to post #47, open the link, and read President Obama’s statement in his own words. I would quote it in full here if I could, but I can’t, so go find it and read it.
“And it’s not an extra finger. It’s pretty obvious it is the meat/muscle in his hand.”
Maybe you should say that to the internet and everyone else on this thread that’s mentioned it.
“It’s also obvious that some can’t separate their politics from their comments”
It certainly is.
“his handshake had that kind of effect on me. It’s difficult to describe.”
@“Youdon’tsay” I belong to an athletic club where Obama would work out when visiting Denver, and a club member friend of mine met him there once. Later, he just kept saying “he shook my hand…” and kept glancing at his own hand in a kind of amazement. I never got the sense this guy was a fan of Obama – I suspect his politics are right-of-center – but Obama’s handshake really did move him in some profound way. Maybe it’s the touch of Great Power, I don’t know. But you’re not the only one affected by Barack Obama’s handshake!
@mathmom, After I saw the Obamas’ painings, I also flashed on Freud painting the Queen. I remember being impressed she agreed to sit for him… kudos to E2… or her advisors!
From what little I have seen, there seems to be (sometimes) a more relaxed and contemporary approach for the official portraits hanging in the National Portrait Gallery as opposed to the official portraits hung in the White House. I’m attaching the images for JFK to illustrate. Per my adored Pete Souza’s Instagram, no artists have been commissioned yet to do the WH portraits of the Obamas.
Not a fan. In fact, I don’t see much artistic merit to it at all. If I didn’t know that it was a portrait of Michelle, I would never have guessed. I just do not see any resemblance.
Not liking what art critics like or not liking non-traditional portraiture does not make one unsophisticated or uneducated in art. It’s a matter of taste.
Actually, there is only ONE official portrait and that belongs to the National Gallery. They are loaned out to the White House. Other portraits do exist (gifts) but that doesn’t make them official WH portraits from what I’ve read. If anyone can find evidence otherwise, I’d definitely be interested in seeing it because I’ve looked.
It’s a matter of taste – and being able to articulate your taste.
If you want realism or a photograph-like likeness, you’ll hate these paintings.
If you’re interested in an artist’s depiction – after all, painting should convey something other than a mere likeness, it’s not photography, it’s a highly sophisticated and skilled interpretation – you’ll want to at least consider why these acclaimed artists painted these two iconic figures in the way that they did. Mathmom brought up an interesting point about the usage of light on Barack Obama’s painting. I learned something from her and got a new insight into the work. That’s what this discussion is about, I think.
The more I look at the Michelle Obama portrait, the more I like it, and the more I see the resemblance. It’s like she’s looking at me, challenging me, saying, I know you aren’t going to like this portrait, why is that?
Both portraits have grown on me (although I liked them from the get-go). I do like them more and more each time I look at them. To me, they are fresh and original, not stale.
I also saw much more of a resemblance after looking at the piece for a bit. I think it was you (?) who brought up the lack of a smile - we’re so used to seeing MO smiling that the lack of it gives us pause?
