The Obamas' Portraits

[Designer]

Both are bad, but Michelle's is TERRIBLE!

 

[pendennis]

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]

Link?

 

[JonA_CT]

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.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

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]

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.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

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.

 

[tirediron]

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]

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.

 

[terri34 6]

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]

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

 

[Cortian]

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.:

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]

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]

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]

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.

at least Jimmys hands look like they are the proper size