I’m curious about the leaves, too. Rather than being compound leaves, these may be stems with closely spaced individual leaves. I don’t think it’s ivy. Could be jasmine, as the leaf shape is correct and some jasmine leaves are opposite (pairs of leaves on either side of the stem are attached across from one another rather than alternating).
I don’t think it’s ivy either, but it amuses me to think it is.
the Obamas had more control over their portraits than some of the past presidents. Some had died so a spouse may have chosen the artist or just left it to a committee. The Obamas got what they wanted.
I love what they chose (and wanted). Unique and original. To each his own.
I think you may be right, @zipyourlips . I looked at some photos of jasmine leaves and they look right. I found this: A Jasmine leaf is arranged opposite in most species. The leaf shape is simple, trifoliate or pinnate with 5-9 leaflets, each up to two and half inches long." That leaves a lot of possibilities for leaf arrangement, depending on the species. But the shape of the leaf or leaflets do look like jasmine.
I know more about native trees than ornamental plants. If he’d been sitting underneath a tree it would have been an easier puzzle for me to solve .
Statement released by Wiley yesterday on his painting:
https://milled.com/obama-foundation/painting-president-obama-rJN4uVtMqlcTKTGz
Interesting segment on Amy Sherald, the artist who painted MO, from CBS Sunday Morning:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/artist-amy-sherald-on-painting-michelle-obama/
I was thinking again about what we bring to art. On a bike ride a few years ago, riding up through some groves of trees, I saw a yellow street sign that said n d mdl. Hmm, I thought, is this an art installation? What is it? The road continued up. Next sign was of d jrne. Yeah, this must be some kind of art. of r lyf. The road was steep. I stood up to get over the top. i fownd I crested the top of the hill, passing some sculptures. Starting down, still in the woods, I saw mself.
Needed to concentrate on the downhill, because there are speed bumps that could have made me crash. Partway down the hill I glimpsed in a drk 4st. Yeah, it was dark there, and the speed bumps hid in the shade. Halfway down, 4t str8 wa. Really concentrating, because the last two speed bumps are tricky. ws 404.
One has to bring a bit of knowledge to this to appreciate it.
I love the portrait of him. I think that many elements of the background place it directly in the context of historic art traditions:
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/467642
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primavera_(painting)#/media/File:Botticelli-primavera.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man#/media/File:GreenManAndFrenchHornSign.jpg
Yet there are important differences. In his portrait the greenery has the lushness of the tropics, appropriate for a person who was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. It has an untamed quality. In contrast, the chair is historically European and formal in design, Sheraton or later I’d say. (And no, I would NOT consign it to a garage sale! ) He’s wearing a formal Western business suit, but not a tie. He’s bathed in light, the skin of his brown face and his brown hands springs into the foreground. He is serious, intellectual, cool yet direct. Disciplined, in contrast to the lush background that impinges on his figure here and there. His hands are long-fingered large, sensitive yet effective.
There are a lot of tensions in it: I find it highly effective.
I can see good things going on in the portrait of Michelle, in terms of what it implies: “You don’t own me. You don’t even know me.” But I find her face and hair much too generic and blandly prettified, which turns it into too much of a fashion shoot. I wish she had captured the strength and character of MO’s face.
ETA: I’m sorry, I can’t seem to get any link to Primavera to work. You’ll have to google it yourself.
I admit that I, at the time, did not realize that the art installation in #167 was the first line of Dante’s Inferno in text-speak. I should have, because I’ve read the Inferno, but I didn’t. However, I liked that there was a hidden message that I had to decipher (in my case, by Googling). In any case, to fully appreciate the piece one needs to have a familiarity with other works of art.
I am just back today from DC and actually saw the portraits at the Portrait Museum. They are much more beautiful and classic than they appear on television and in print. President Obama’s is a better likeness, but the positioning of Mrs. Obama’s more graceful and artistic. They are VERY large pieces, and the crowds on line waiting for a look seemed pleased with them.
I’m not sure that I want to revive this thread- but this little girl’s reaction is priceless. Obviously SHE is a big fan of Michelle Obama’s portrait!
She’s adorable!
Would like to see an Asian woman US President in my lifetime. sigh
I would like to see a woman US president of ANY racial or ethnic background in my lifetime!
These are not good pictures, there is some weirdness about them. Like Michelle’s looking cranky and nothing like her, and his sitting position with his legs wide open, manspreading, and with the fifth finger. Why do that? People who have never seen them will look at these portraits in the future and think that this is how they looked, and I find that disrespectful. Maybe he is a manspreader, but do they really need to capture that in his portrait?
It’s difficult to separate our opinions of the pictures from our opinions of the subjects. As for me, every time I look at the two portraits I see more depth, and I like them more.
But who knows how the portraits will be viewed in the decades to come. I remember when the Vietnam Memorial design was selected, how so many people thought it was bad and disrespectful. Not very many people believe that now.
I think the Obamas are awesome and at the same time I am not a fan of those portraits.
Not necessarily. It’s an easy one for me. I can acknowledge that these are good people without liking their policies, while thinking that their official portraits should actually look like them, and should not show any disrespect to them at all. One shouldn’t have to stare at the portraits time and time again, getting different interpretations to explain why they look like they do. If they weren’t such an important portraits, and were purely works of art, it wouldn’t matter, and the artist could do what he pleased.
This conversation makes me think of Richard Nixon’s portrait by Norman Rockwell: http://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.72.2
I have a fondness for Norman Rockwell (Nixon no) but the first time I saw this I literally laughed out loud. This is not who Nixon was. Maybe it’s who he could have been if only he hadn’t been a completely other guy. But the portrait, which Rockwell admitted was done to be flattering (and is it ever), today says rather a lot about 1968.
I think that art is telling us something about the subject or the painter or ourselves, and usually all three; also that it’s worthwhile to examine how paintings make us feel.