# The Obamas' Portraits



## Designer (Feb 13, 2018)

Both are bad, but Michelle's is TERRIBLE!


----------



## pendennis (Feb 13, 2018)

Welllll, I guess it's art, and in the eye of the beholder.  However, I've seen better coming out of 8th grade art students.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 13, 2018)

Link?


----------



## JonA_CT (Feb 13, 2018)

Portraits of Barack and Michelle Obama make their debut in Washington, D.C. And they're not what you'd expect

They aren't traditional...so that makes them awful? Interesting. It's a good thing art is subjective.


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 13, 2018)

I thought Michelle Obama's portrait was well done.  Not a fan of the flowery background or pose in the Obama painting as it doesn't represent his strong personality.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 13, 2018)

SquarePeg said:


> I thought Michelle Obama's portrait was well done.  Not a fan of the flowery background or pose in the Obama painting as it doesn't represent his strong personality.


really? It doesn't even look like her.  It looks like the artist waited till the last minute and turned in a rough sketch.


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 13, 2018)

Braineack said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > I thought Michelle Obama's portrait was well done.  Not a fan of the flowery background or pose in the Obama painting as it doesn't represent his strong personality.
> ...



I've only been to the Nat'l Portrait Gallery once but the style seems to fit some of the others that are there.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 13, 2018)

I don't like them; that doesn't make them bad however.  What I don't understand is:  Michelle's looks like she's had orangutan arms grafted on; they seem about 30% longer than they should and in particular her right hand seems almost unpleasantly disproportionate.


----------



## katsrevenge (Feb 13, 2018)

They are pretty bad. They remind me of photoshop projects we did in college art classes or something. 

And I won't even get started on the proportions. They are all kinds of messed up.


----------



## terri (Feb 13, 2018)

The paintings were a deliberate intent to be different.   The background of Obama's includes flowers from all the places he's lived, like the state flowers of Hawaii and Illinois, and flowers from Kenya to honor his father.   The greenery is supposed to represent how they all came together and intertwined.   At least that's how the artist generally explained that background.   The portrait itself is very well done.

I love Michelle's.   The sweeping gown is gorgeous, and I just love the graphic designs on it.

It's a risk to sit down and give an artist free rein to interpret their subjects, isn't it?   You never know what you're going to get.   I appreciate not wanting cookie-cutter studies, though.    Good on them!


----------



## ceemac (Feb 13, 2018)

I dunno. You spend 8 years serving your country...  Shoulda gone for door #3.


----------



## Cortian (Feb 13, 2018)

tirediron said:


> I don't like them; that doesn't make them bad however.


They're not bad because somebody or another does not like them, they're bad because they're bad.  Really, really bad.

E.g.:



tirediron said:


> What I don't understand is:  Michelle's looks like she's had orangutan arms grafted on; they seem about 30% longer than they should and in particular her right hand seems almost unpleasantly disproportionate.


Precisely.  Never mind the fact that they're _supposed_ to be portraits.  The place in which they'll be hung is called the National *Portrait* Gallery.



> *portrait* n. A likeness of a person, especially one showing the face, that is created by a painter or photographer, for example.



Mr. Obama's portrait is at least identifiable as a portrait of him, but looks like somebody photographed him sitting on the porcelain throne, photoshopped that photo onto an antique chair, then photoshopped _that_ onto an image of some truly hideous wallpaper.  _His_ hands don't appear to me to be proportionate, either.

It is claimed these "portraits" were deliberately meant to be unalike anything else in the portrait gallery.  They certainly succeeded in that, but not in the way they think.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 13, 2018)

none of the elements look like they belong together in Obama's portrait. 
the chair, the suit, the floral background... just pick a theme and go with it. this looks like it started as a formal portrait and then the artist suddenly decided right at the end that it needed a floral background.  why is it any different than a photographer who shoots a portrait with seemingly misaligned aspects? apparently the artist also used Shaq as the hand model. 
Obama in the chair? amazing. 
the floral wall? amazing. 
put them together? For the love of God WHY MAN?
different? sure. 
good? no. 

the picture of Michelle is better from a portrait perspective, although I must admit her arms and right hand look very disproportionate to her body.  
would we not critique a photograph similarly if too wide a lens is used on a close up portrait, making the body look abnormal?
or does Michelle have Shaq hands in real life too?

but hey, who am I to judge?
ive never been commissioned to capture a presidents likeness.
easy to armchair quarterback these things i guess, but i still think they are pretty bad.


----------



## JonA_CT (Feb 13, 2018)

I just wonder why people are so surprised they opted to something different than this:







By Herbert E. Abrams - Digital Library, Public Domain, File:Official presidential portrait of Jimmy Carter (by Herbert E. Abrams, 1982).jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Why Jimmy Carter? Well, his happens to be the last that's in the public domain.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 13, 2018)

JonA_CT said:


> I just wonder why people are so surprised they opted to something different than this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



at least Jimmys hands look like they are the proper size


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 13, 2018)

Hey it was the '80's, at least Mr. Jimmy doesn't have a big shouldered jacket with rolled up sleeves and moussed hair.


----------



## compur (Feb 13, 2018)

Pushing bad art is an old scam brilliantly parodied in the Hans Christian Anderson tale, _The Emperor's New Clothes_.

Though I will give this effort some credit for at least being recognizable human forms. There is a lot worse art out there being foisted on fools for millions.

But, I admit to being prejudiced here as I don't care much for politicians of any stripe.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 13, 2018)

Cortian said:


> then photoshopped _that_ onto an image of some truly hideous wallpaper.



considered the background has a lot of repeating elements throughout, im pretty sure this is exactly how it was put together, then painted by numbers.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 13, 2018)

vintagesnaps said:


> Hey it was the '80's, at least Mr. Jimmy doesn't have a big shouldered jacket with rolled up sleeves and moussed hair.



popped collar would have been cool though


----------



## katsrevenge (Feb 13, 2018)

terri said:


> The paintings were a deliberate intent to be different.   The background of Obama's includes flowers from all the places he's lived, like the state flowers of Hawaii and Illinois, and flowers from Kenya to honor his father.   The greenery is supposed to represent how they all came together and intertwined.   At least that's how the artist generally explained that background.   The portrait itself is very well done.
> 
> I love Michelle's.   The sweeping gown is gorgeous, and I just love the graphic designs on it.
> 
> It's a risk to sit down and give an artist free rein to interpret their subjects, isn't it?   You never know what you're going to get.   I appreciate not wanting cookie-cutter studies, though.    Good on them!



Thing is... unless things have changed a lot since I was an art student... the whole flower symbolism thing was trite last century. It was cute when the Victorians did it, but it's just not done anymore, at least not so blatantly. And why no honor for his mother? Have to say, that bothered me a bit. His father was more a deadbeat dad than a good dad. And worse.. it's just poorly done. 

Michelle's was somewhat better style-wise.. but it doesn't look like her at all. 

There really is no saving these.


----------



## katsrevenge (Feb 13, 2018)

JonA_CT said:


> I just wonder why people are so surprised they opted to something different than this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Bush one wasn't that bad. It at least was well-executed. President George W. Bush Official Portrait Unveiled At White House (PHOTO) | HuffPost
And I was no fan of the guy. Still am not a fan. Obama deserved better.


----------



## Designer (Feb 13, 2018)

JonA_CT said:


> They aren't traditional...so that makes them awful? Interesting. It's a good thing art is subjective.


They could have been both non-traditional and well done.


----------



## pendennis (Feb 13, 2018)

katsrevenge said:


> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> > I just wonder why people are so surprised they opted to something different than this:
> ...


There are usually two different portraits done.  The first is the official portrait which goes in the White House, and a second which hangs in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery.  The latter usually has more latitude by the artist(s).  Evidently, the painters are pushing the boundaries.


----------



## terri (Feb 13, 2018)

Just a little reminder here.  We can discuss the artistic merits or lack thereof concerning the portraits here, but any comments outside of that will be subject to moderation.   

Stay objective.  Thanks!


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 13, 2018)

katsrevenge said:


> Thing is... unless things have changed a lot since I was an art student... the whole flower symbolism thing was trite last century. It was cute when the Victorians did it, but it's just not done anymore, at least not so blatantly. *And why no honor for his mother*? Have to say, that bothered me a bit. His father was more a deadbeat dad than a good dad. And worse.. it's just poorly done.
> 
> Michelle's was somewhat better style-wise.. but it doesn't look like her at all.
> 
> There really is no saving these.



Yeah I was wondering about that.  I think I know the answer to it but I can't say LOL


----------



## terri (Feb 13, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > Thing is... unless things have changed a lot since I was an art student... the whole flower symbolism thing was trite last century. It was cute when the Victorians did it, but it's just not done anymore, at least not so blatantly. *And why no honor for his mother*? Have to say, that bothered me a bit. His father was more a deadbeat dad than a good dad. And worse.. it's just poorly done.
> ...


Likely that the Hawaiian flower, where he was _born_, covered that.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 13, 2018)

I looked before I read comments; I thought his was so unusual, but I kind of liked it. Hers I thought didn't actually look quite like her, and something seemed off... wasn't so sure about that one.

I measured roughly the way I learned in art in school and his actually seems in proportion - wrist to elbow and elbow to shoulder, hand size about the same as chin to forehead, etc. One hand seems longer but I think it's because the other hand is bent so it seems shorter. Her arms are way different in proportion and I think that makes for a distraction from the subject (trying to figure out what seems off).

The background of his reminds me of looking at an ivy covered wall. There is some depth to it so to me it doesn't seem like wallpaper (some of the ivy is around his foot and the chair leg as if he and the chair were actually sitting outdoors). I think the leaf green is a complementary color to his skin tone and the chair, and makes for a good background to the dark suit. The flowers don't look like they're naturally growing there but they're tucked into the ivy as if they're meant to be there.

With hers I almost thought if I didn't know it was her, would I realize for sure it was her? I don't know. I didn't think of it looking like a vintage-y B&W photo contrasted against the geometric design and color of the dress. I mean, I could tell it was gray, sort of like a photo, but I wasn't quite sure about what it was til I read about it.

But I do love the dress!

I think his shows the calm, thoughtful side of his personality, and hers shows the strength and bolder aspect of her personality. I don't know how well the two portraits will display together. Hers is rather striking, but I'm not sure I like them together. But I love that dress!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 13, 2018)

I was reading that the artist said that the dress reminded her of Mondrian (yeah! that's why I like it! lol) and of quilts of Gee's Bend (which I like, and I see that too). But that to me sounds more descriptive of the dress designer's inspiration than the portrait itself.  

It helps to look at them on a site like the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery (where you can see all of the presidents but not the first ladies) that has good quality images. I think by the time things get reposted and shared the quality's lacking and you don't necessarily see details or depth.


----------



## NancyMoranG (Feb 13, 2018)

When they unveiled it on t.v., both hubby and I said, 'is that supposed to be her?' 
It just doesn't look like her. I love the dress, but not her face.
And what's with Mr. Obamas extra finger on his left hand?
I don't mind different, but uhmmmm?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 13, 2018)

So we all want that dress! lol I bet that designer's work is going to really sell now. I read that she didn't realize her dress was the one worn for the portrait til it was unveiled.

I think on him that's just a fold of skin that's more pronounced because his hand and fingers are so long and slim. If you google it and look at some pictures where his hand is pressed against someone's arm, it's more noticeable.

I think it's more pronounced as are the lines of his face, which I think can depend on the medium used (acrylics v. watercolors, etc.), how heavy or light someone's touch is, how bold the lines are drawn/painted, etc.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 13, 2018)

I thought the rendering of Michelle Obama was unflattering, in the sense that it did not look at all like her. President Obama's likeness was clear and obviously "him", but Michelle Obama's rendering simply did not project the Michelle Obama that millions of us have actually seen and heard on TV...just...looked...like...somebody...else. Not flattering, not really well-executed artistically either. AWKWARD hand and arm positioning.


----------



## limr (Feb 13, 2018)

Okay, no one is talking about the most egregious mistake in all of this.

It's the Obamas' portraits, not the Obama's portraits.

I waited until page three to point this out. I think I deserve points for restraint.


----------



## Cortian (Feb 13, 2018)

Ha!  I outlasted you!


----------



## limr (Feb 13, 2018)

Cortian said:


> Ha!  I outlasted you!



I am an English teacher; there is only so much eye-twitching I can handle before I snap


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Feb 14, 2018)

NancyMoranG said:


> And what's with Mr. Obamas extra finger on his left hand?
> I don't mind different, but uhmmmm?



I had to look back to see what you meant. 
Kind of looks like there’s another finger but I think his shadows while painting make it look like that. I’m sure more people will think that though.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 14, 2018)

limr said:


> Cortian said:
> 
> 
> > Ha!  I outlasted you!
> ...


 




Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 14, 2018)

These are well executed from a technical standpoint. Definitely not in the traditional, classical, portrait style. I would expect various negative responses due to the stylized rendering. However, the First Ladies portrait takes me back to early 19th century, African American artists. I think the artist has captured the soul of her subject in this fine render. When I look at portraits, I search for the subjects soul in the render. This painting hits all the marks and is beautiful on so many levels.

The President's render is extremely busy, highly stylized, and captures his soul to the core. There is a lot to consider when entering inside this large canvas. The subjects posture invites the viewer to sit next to him, have a conversation, take in the landscape, and smell the flowers. It really is a great lesson on how to engage the viewer. I find the render consistent with the artist's other works but in this one, he is clearly challenged by the lack of a close relationship. He makes up for that by rendering it in a way that let's the viewer explore a potential relationship. It is a very perceptive, and thought provoking render. I would prefer to be in it's presence as opposed  to viewing a small jpeg. There is a great deal of substance here.  I would connect better being close to it so I could enter in.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 14, 2018)

I like the picture I saw of him standing looking at her portrait, that's kind of cool. I often like stylized work, but for some reason with hers when I looked at a smaller version of it, it was hard to tell who it was. That proportion being off just bugs me! lol That seems pretty basic stuff an artist should have learned. Making something intentionally disproportionate can work too, but I don't think it does so much with this portrait, her arm just looks too long and has an odd shape to it. I agree, I'd like to see them in real life actual size.


----------



## Designer (Feb 14, 2018)

Amy Sherald Paintings Has a very identifiable style, and she needs only one color to paint all her subjects' skin.  They all look very much alike as well.  She appears to spend a great deal of her energy on painting the fabrics of their clothing.  Looking at her "about" page one might begin to understand why Michelle selected her as her artist, although controversy was sure to follow.


I'm particularly interested in this one:  http://www.amysherald.com/2016/9/11...laiming-ownership-of-that-freedom-was-another  Here we see the same face as nearly everyone else, "lightened" somewhat by the overlay of some gray pigment, and the clothing rendered flawlessly.


----------



## terri (Feb 14, 2018)

Talented artist.   What a vivid life to lead.       Thanks for the links, Designer!


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 16, 2018)

I really love them. Maybe it's just me, but I think it looks like Michelle, and I think both are really beautifully rendered. I would LOVE to have a framed copy of Michelle's portrait.


----------



## TheLibrarian (Feb 23, 2018)

His looks like bad cgi. Hers i like the dress but her actual self seems flat and seperate from the rest of the painting. His irks me more every time i look at it. I'm sure it took some effort to get all the folds and lines but is so computer rendered and floating in space. i would have went with traditional and painterly.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 24, 2018)

Not my style.  Meh.


----------

