Cardinal Fang–“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?”
Answer: Not long ago. The portrait of Frederick Law Olmsted who designed the gardens of the Biltmore Estate in Asheville NC. Love that picture. Always been a favorite.
I had been following both of these artists for some time, so the paintings and style are not so surprising - very consistent with each artists’ point of view. I am a firm believer that folks can have their own opinions about whether or not these represent the Obamas. These two paintings are very much the artists’ interpretations.
And Michelle’s, in particular, gives a lot of food for thought. For me it represents how Michelle sees herself - thoughtful, quiet, vulnerable - not at all how the public would describe her from the negative comments of “angry black woman” even to the positive comments that she is warm and energetic. It is just interesting to think about - she may not see herself the way we see her, which would have led her to choose Amy Sherald to paint her portrait.
“To me, they are fresh and original, not stale.”
Like the people they portray. I honestly can’t imagine the Obamas with stodgy portraits.
@zomaha99 And to me it portrays the intelligent, calm, cool, and collected Michelle which is very much a part of her personality.
Frederick Law Olmsted was a gardener in the same sense that Frank Lloyd Wright was a construction worker.
Is it true that Obama’s portrait painter of choice, Kehinde Wiley, is best known for paintings of black people decapitating white women?
Funny how different is usually derided initially. This reminds me somewhat of the initial backlash over the Vietnam memorial:
Her minimalistic granite wall was initially derided as a “black gash of shame” by Vietnam veteran Tom Carhart. Carhart pushed for a more traditional monument and even submitted an entry into the contest featuring him carrying a fallen comrade. Some saw it as an anti-war statement; others wondered why an Asian-American should be the designer.
However, the initial hostility has faded, and the monument has since become a near-universally treasured piece of public sculpture. “The important thing to know about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is that it made memorials matter again,” says historian Haas.
Actually, no, @Kentriko
As Wiki would tell you:
Wiley "is known for his highly naturalistic paintings of African-Americans. The Columbus Museum of Art, which hosted an exhibition of his work in 2007, describes his work as follows: “Wiley has gained recent acclaim for his heroic portraits which address the image and status of young African-American men in contemporary culture.”
It also lists these career highlights:
Artist of the Year Award from the New York City Art Teachers Association/United Federation of Teachers in 2011
Puma commissioned Wiley to paint four portraits of prominent African soccer players and patterns from his paintings were incorporated into Puma athletic gear.[
His work was exhibited in the National Portrait Gallery as part of the Recognize exhibit in 2008.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I’ve deleted/edited a couple of posts here. As I have said on other threads, and bears repeating, obviously, is that one should not make things personal against another user. Please dial back the snark.
As should also go without saying, let’s not devolve this into a political discussion.
@mathmom I was just telling a couple of girlfriends yesterday that I wished Lucien Freud was still living so he could paint the current presidents’s portrait…or Francis Bacon…
Maybe Queen Elizabeth wasn’t familiar with his style of work? Very brave indeed. At least he painted her clothed.
“Usually I bring very attractive women with me to excite interest. I mean, it’s a type of, like, strangers-with-candy situation.” Kehinde Wiley
There’s a highlight for you.
But really–none of this stops him from being a good artist (minus or plus a few fingers). Just a questionable choice for a national portrait of the POTUS.
I think the Queen knew that she was not going to get a beautiful flattering portrait - she’s got plenty of those. This captures I think her toughness and grit. I’m all for more interesting portraits. I think the traditional ones are pretty boring even when very well done.
Nice dress, but not a good portrait of MO. It doesn’t look like her all that much.
Neither of the artists paint their subjects smiling. I think Michelle Obama does see herself, or her time in the White House, differently than most people. Those were some hard years for both of them.
Also, the portrait is more vibrant that what how it appears in most photos I’ve seen. The glare of the lights at the unveiling ceremony washed it out a lot. I saw one photo from the Rolling Stone where the colors were more accurate.
Also, Sherald paints her subjects with very smooth, unflawed (although gray) skin. Maybe Michelle found that signature trait of the artist appealing.
The dress is also kind of uncharacteristic of her isn’t it? When she was in the White House, she had to wear pretty boring clothes. She got flack for baring her arms once. I think she chose the dress because it was a bit daring. I feel like she put a lot of thought into how she wanted the painting to portray her and I bet she’s very happy with it.
I don’t care for either of the portraits. (My first thought was that they looked like the work of high school art students. )
I hated both pictures at first - too weird! Not “respectful” enough! And why wasn’t Michelle smiling?
Then a funny thing happened. I found myself drawn back to the portraits, especially his picture. I kept staring at it, analyzing the plants in the background and questioning his expression and bearing. Eventually I started questioning my OWN original reactions - as in, who am I to say what’s respectful or not? Why does Michelle HAVE to smile? Maybe her expression in her portrait really reflects her complicated feelings about her time in the White House. I don’t know.
I also don’t know much about art, but I do know that I Like both portraits now (and I say that as someone who loves Pete Souza’s pictures.) They’re much more complicated than I originally thought.
@doschicos, I recognize that the NPG portraits are official, but if you look at unveiling ceremonies for WH portraits for recent Presidents, those WH portraits do not seem to be on loan from the NPG, but rather they “live” at the WH from the day they are unveiled. The NPG paintings of 43 and Laura Bush are much more casual than their WH paintings. Pete Souza seemed to make the distinction in this post on his Instagram today (the one showing both portraits):
" Former President Obama unveils his official portrait by @kehindewiley at the National Portrait Gallery. Wiley and @asherald became the first African-American artists to paint official portraits of a President and First Lady. (These portraits are different than the ones that will be displayed at the White House.)"
I’m surprised that someone would say Michelle Obama wore boring clothes while she was First Lady. I’d say just the opposite is true. The fashion bloggers Tom and Lorenzo regularly featured her. She appears to love fashion and think about fashion. She made interesting clothing choices while in the White House, for example this stunning custom made Atelier Versace rose gold gown: https://fashionista.com/2016/10/michelle-obama-state-dinner-atelier-versace
Laura Bush, for contrast, does not seem to be a woman particularly interested in fashion. While First Lady, she dressed in attractive and appropriate clothing, but nothing particularly interesting.
That’s a good point, @scout59. I still wish, though, that her facial features were brought out enough so that people would know it’s Michelle Obama in the picture on first glance. I wonder if that could have been done while retaining the essential features of the portrait that the artist and Ms. Obama wanted to convey.
@“Cardinal Fang” Yeah, I messed up. I’m not a fashionista, so didn’t closely keep track of what MO was wearing, but she apparently wore several pieces by “Milly” the designer of the dress in the portrait - which were probably just as bold. And I didn’t pay too much attention to what she wore to formal events.
I guess I made that statement because I remember all the press about how she dared to bare her arms while wearing a dress in a more political setting (which was a simple dress and in no way revealing), and then I felt like after that, she seemed to wear “plainer” clothing that covered her arms. Like this, when she greeted Trump and Melania at the White house:
That was not a good day for me and I guess the image is burned into my brain. But if you scroll down farther in the article, you’ll see all the beautiful dresses that I missed.
@scout59 good for you for going back and thinking about the paintings, evaluating your initial response, asking yourself questions… that’s what great art does, I think. In the beginning it often does make you uncomfortable – I think in the art world they call it “the shock of the new” – but it also makes you think, and expand your ideas. There was a time people scorned El Greco, laughed at Van Gogh and ridiculed Gauguin.