Michelle Obama's portrait doesn't look just like her. It doesn't have to.

[AtlantaAdonis]

Am I the only one who noticed the racism of Obama is sitting in what looks like a jungle? Yeah, no racism there. :roll:

 

[Perotista]

Imagine the MSM and these idiots should the melania painting not look exactly like her. Do you all think there would even be a hint of an article like this?


Already they are making excuses for that sorry looking portrait of the former first lady. you can't make this stuff up folks. [/FONT][/COLOR]

You're right. It doesn't look a bit like her. If I wasn't told it was her, I would have never guessed so.

 

[TheGoverness]

Am I the only one who noticed the racism of Obama is sitting in what looks like a jungle? Yeah, no racism there. :roll:

 

[Perotista]

Am I the only one who noticed the racism of Obama is sitting in what looks like a jungle? Yeah, no racism there. :roll:

I think if someone wants to see racism bad enough, they will see it. It's a dumb background in my point of view, just plain dumb. But that is all it is.

 

[Acadia]

Am I the only one who noticed the racism of Obama is sitting in what looks like a jungle? Yeah, no racism there. :roll:

Not sure if you're being serious, but it seems that the vines, leaves and flowers are a leitmotif which the artist likes to use, as seen here:



and here:

 

[Mason66]

Imagine the MSM and these idiots should the melania painting not look exactly like her. Do you all think there would even be a hint of an article like this?


Already they are making excuses for that sorry looking portrait of the former first lady. you can't make this stuff up folks. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Reverend, did you pick up on the first line of the story?

"Washington (CNN)The Obamas were back in Washington on Monday for the"

Yes, the Obama's were BACK in Washington, where they live. Yes they were back. Where did they go?

 

[Mason66]

I'm a bit conflicted. I think the portraits are much more modern and impressionistic. They have more artistic merit. But when I look at these portraits of past heads of states I care more about seeing what they really looked like than artistic merit.

Edit: I had some time to have a better look and I like Obama's portrait more than Michelle's. You get a good sense of what Obama looked like and artistically it's bold and interesting. Michelle's portrait is not a portrait. It's terrible.

I think people in the future are going to ask why the artist didn't think Obama was important enough to show him in a setting that befitted his station or position.

He was painted surrounded by plants not with the White House as the background.

 

[Mason66]

Maybe he wanted to illustrate how much bigger Obama's hands are than Trump's :2razz:

That would be extremely petty in a portrait, don't you think?

Nobody in the future is going to remember any of the childish taunts from today.

 

[bubbabgone]

This is the photo of President Obama that is holding his place in the on line Presidential gallery. I think it would be appropriate as a Presidential portrait as well.

View attachment 67228445

The gallery of Presidential portraits is here:
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/galleries/presidential-portraits

For the record I didn't like GWB's portrait either.

He's hiding that extra pinky on his left hand that the portrait showed.

 

[Barnacle]

Heck; Obama was known for his many "unprecedented" actions, so I really see nothing wrong with being the first "presidential" lot to have caricatures of themselves in the WH.

 

[Mason66]

It was painted that way on purpose. Geez....

That is the problem.

A Presidential portrait is not the time to make a political statement.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I think people in the future are going to ask why the artist didn't think Obama was important enough to show him in a setting that befitted his station or position.

He was painted surrounded by plants not with the White House as the background.

The flowers represent Kenya, Hawaii, and Chicago. There's a lot of symbolism in art. Obama's sitting down but he's leaning forward assertively, looking you in the eye and engaging you. Traditional portraits are bland, little changed in decades, if not centuries.

 

[KLATTU]

The pictures are horrible.

They both deserve much better.

Despite the fact that I don't agree with him on most issues, his Presidency was historic and they handles themselves with class and dignity.

 

[Lovebug]

Imagine the MSM and these idiots should the melania painting not look exactly like her. Do you all think there would even be a hint of an article like this?


Already they are making excuses for that sorry looking portrait of the former first lady. you can't make this stuff up folks. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Nature loving BO at least looks like himself. Is that hops growing behind him, may be a reference to his beer brewing?
Michelle looks like someone else and a bit ? pale.
Of course the former FLOTUS made a big deal about race in her speech, so the skin color of the artist might have been more important than her talent.
In Michelle's defense I must say that even she looked a bit surprised, but caught her composure quickly.

 

[apdst]

Am I the only one who noticed the racism of Obama is sitting in what looks like a jungle? Yeah, no racism there. :roll:

At least they are depicted beheading white people.

 

[Mason66]

The flowers represent Kenya, Hawaii, and Chicago. There's a lot of symbolism in art. Obama's sitting down but he's leaning forward assertively, looking you in the eye and engaging you. Traditional portraits are bland, little changed in decades, if not centuries.

The portrait was not to celebrate him being a citizen of Kenya, Hawaii or Chicago, it was to represent him as President of the United States.

It is sad you don't see how inappropriate his portrait is and that people in the future will be asking what the hell he was thinking.

 

[nota bene]

He's hiding that extra pinky on his left hand that the portrait showed.

This is a great photo. I think the graphic that Josie posted in another thread shows one of the problems with the portrait: https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...do-you-like-them-w-12-a-8.html#post1068170147

 

[Lovebug]

The flowers represent Kenya, Hawaii, and Chicago. There's a lot of symbolism in art. Obama's sitting down but he's leaning forward assertively, looking you in the eye and engaging you. Traditional portraits are bland, little changed in decades, if not centuries.

Some people lean forward like that when ready to do other "jobs". Shows much about the man, that's true. Lots of symbolism.

 

[AlbqOwl]

He's hiding that extra pinky on his left hand that the portrait showed.

I briefly saw a headline last night and didn't check it out so don't remember the source, but it was asking a question whether the artist had added an extra finger? So I went back and looked again and I think it is a mistake. For sure if it is the thumb folded under his hand, it is on the wrong side of his hand. When you cross your arms like that, both thumbs will be closer to the body than the fingers will be. So that is a major goof in the portrait I think. Intentional or not? We'll never know that. But it will be interesting to see if they leave it that way.

 

[JMR]

This thread is about presidential and first lady portraits. I refuse to participate in the haters dragging it off topic. Thanks for understanding.

I imagine it's easier for you to deem that question off topic. You stated:

I don't want our Presidents being 'casual' when addressing their responsibilities as leader of the nation.

My question: Is tweeting too casual?

 

[Acadia]

I imagine it's easier for you to deem that question off topic. You stated:

My question: Is tweeting too casual?

Would you prefer formal proclamations from the Truman balcony:lol:?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I imagine it's easier for you to deem that question off topic. You stated:

My question: Is tweeting too casual?

If it is tweeting in a Presidential portrait, yeah, too casual.

 

[JMR]

If it is tweeting in a Presidential portrait, yeah, too casual.

We'll have to make sure then that someone removes the cell phone from Trump's hands for his portrait, because otherwise he is so very presidential.

 

[JMR]

I read an interesting article today about the role of portraiture in this day and age. Considering the fact that presidents are photographed daily, the need to preserve their likeness for posterity is not falling to portrait artists, as was the case with Washington and Lincoln. Did you know that Teddy Roosevelt was so upset with his portrait that he destroyed it?

In fact, art critics have labeled the last 6 or 7 presidential "portraits" as mediocre work and question their place in an "art" gallery.

This thought could lead to an interesting discussion of whether time should march on and invite a more contemporary view, or whether we should be frozen in time and present a "traditional" portrait. Unfortunately I think that discussion would be buried in who likes Obama, who hates Obama....oh look Obama has a sperm on his head kind of discussion.

But I think 50 years from now, those of us still around might be surprised at what turns up in the presidential portrait gallery.