Discussion in 'Off Topic Chat' started by Designer, Feb 13, 2018.
Both are bad, but Michelle's is TERRIBLE!
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.
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.
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.
I've only been to the Nat'l Portrait Gallery once but the style seems to fit some of the others that are there.
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.
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.
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!
I dunno. You spend 8 years serving your country... Shoulda gone for door #3.
They're not bad because somebody or another does not like them, they're bad because they're bad. Really, really bad.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.