Obama's portraits unveiled

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: japhrimu

That just makes me laugh. It looks ridiculous. I really don't know what to think of this. Surely there has to be some symbolism to this loud statement.

And why is he man spreading so widely? I thought that became a no-no and worthy of disdain during his administration.

Perhaps to highlight the power of do as I say not as I do that was so proficient during his term?

I don't know nuthin' 'bout art. Apparently.

Trump's should be interesting.

a reply to: Bluntone22Obama seated in a field of poison ivy and Michele ... kind of like in a street mural wearing a bedspread. Yeah, those are BAD portraits. Going for distinctiveness and originality and it failed. Still, if anyone deserves a ridiculously bad portrait its those two. Marge Simpson should have done one with Obama naked like Mr. Burns.

We're watching the presidential portraits morph into modern art, and it's as ugly as modern art often is.

from the article

"The paintings, like the presidency they honor, are a historic first. Wiley and Sherald — both already famous for their portraits of black Americans — are the first black painters to receive a presidential portrait commission from the museum."

seems to me the article said that the paintings where commissioned by the museum not the Obamas. didn't see further reference.

originally posted by: ketsuko
We're watching the presidential portraits morph into modern art, and it's as ugly as modern art often is.

Official Presidential portraits should be presidential and accurate depictions, imo. These are absolutely inappropriate, but what did we expect. They would be fine to display outside "official portrait" status.

They look like Velvet Elvis style. But, I have laughed so hard tonight at the memes that have been created out of BHO's depiction especially. Comedy relief for sure.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Bluntone22

Those are heinous....and they forgot Michael's penis....

Terrible pictures, I agree. but are we know calling all first ladies Transexuals or just the black ones? I didn't get the memo. Or should all ladies be judged on their looks no matter age, race or physical imperfections? My grandmother's going to be pissed, at 80 she doesn't look like a beauty queen any longer.

Way to bring race into it. Take a good look at yourself. That's the first thing you default to. His comment may have been immature, but it had nothing to do with race. Join us in the 21st century, bigot.

I disagree.. I think it was a serious question. Why would he call Michelle Obama a transgender? Does he do that with all first ladies or only the black ones? I would bet that he never asked about Barbara Bush's penis. Prove me wrong.

Why would you assume it had anything to do with race? Maybe he just finds her ugly and didn't even think about her race. The fact that the first thing you assumed was it was racial reflects poorly on your part. Stop seeing everything through colored glasses. We can leave racism behind, if only you'll let us. Stop holding society back. Let go of skin color.

Then why would he ask about her having a penis? You're saying it's okay to judge a woman by her looks and ask if she's a man, very crudely if you don't like her looks? What do you guys do when you go to a hospital to the burn ward or to an old folks assisted living home? That's a terrible way to live life and judge other people. if that's the case, he must have asked where Nancy Reagon's penis was or Barbara Bush? Yes? No?

I'm not saying it's okay at all, in fact I called his comment immature. You keep reading what you want to read instead of what people actually said. Why do you want racism so bad you have to invent it in places it didn't exist? The poster's comment still had nothing to do with race. Stop letting race identity politics run your life. You have no idea what his motivations were, to just assume racism is ignorant and possibly revealing bigoted feelings in yourself. You just assume he's a white person saying that about Michelle because she's black, revealing that you just assume random white people have such evil feelings without any evidence. That says a lot about the prejudices you harbor for white people. That's bigotry in itself. Don't be part of the problem. For the last time, please stop focusing so much on skin color. Thanks.

a reply to: evenkeel

No, they both hand picked them. It is in other articles. Horrible choices. The one who did Michelles paints only African Americans but colors them all grey. That is why it looks odd.

a reply to: queenofswords

The Velvet Barack...

Yes, they will certainly stand out. Im not sure if this is their way of thumbing their nose at what the presidency stands for or not. Considering they had access to the best portraitists in the country, these are especially abysmal. a reply to: CynConcepts

It looks like a “magic eye” image in the background...
There are some repeating leaves in there... split pretty much in the middle of the whole thing... You can get a 3D effect...(make the purple and yellow flowers that are in the upper section merge/overlap... Right about there gets the effect, so match the leaves from there.) Nothing wrong with repeating image. I’m not criticizing... Has this been mentioned?

(Also posted in another thread)

i think they're both lovely portraits, actually.

originally posted by: fiverx313
i think they're both lovely portraits, actually.

I think they both suck.

originally posted by: c2oden
I think they both suck.

okay, yay for you?

a reply to: fiverx313

I want to see yours and c2oden's avatars battle over who's right...

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: c2oden
I think they both suck.

okay, yay for you?

You said they were lovely.
I said they suck.
So, yay for you?

Watch this video....

WOW! she says...a few times...like when you see dog# on the floor.

The best is Barack behind her trying not to laugh at it....

Link

then she calls it out with her mom...

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I don't know nuthin' 'bout art. Apparently.

Trump's should be interesting.

All I can think of is in the movie Dodgeball, Ben Stiller's character has a huge painting above his desk where he's all buff and wrestling a bull. That but with Trump's face of course.

"Yeah, that's me taking the bull by the horns, it's how I like to run (America) my business. It's a metaphor. But that actually happened though."

- White Goodman (Trump)

I'm not impressed. Barack does look like Barack, but I do not think the Michelle painting resembles her, and like others have mentioned, the background of Barack's is, to me, also not impressive. It's too 'busy,' what with the bushes/leaves.

Who commissioned these guys, and who approved these?

I get and respect that each artist has his or her own style, because that's what art is, but that these are official portraits almost seems to be a subtle mockery.

I dunno.

ETA:

Artistically, I like them, and also respect them, but I they seem somewhat inappropriate for official gallery portraits. But that's just my opinion.

Michelle's is just bland I think. Just not striking at all. Looks like an illustration for an article in a magazine.

Obama's is good. He looks presidential but not stiff. The manspreading doesn't bother me to be honest, but I can see how it would be controversial among feminists. The ginormous hands could work simply as a stylistic choice; I like the idea of distorting some details to make the image more interesting, just make it a little bit weird. But I think it's pretty obvious that the hands are in reference to Trump's famously small hands, lol.

The leafy background looks good too, but honestly for a presidential portrait I'd still go with a more traditional approach. Time will tell if it's appreciated or not. JFK's portrait is by far the best, but maybe it just feels that way because he got shot.