The Obamas' Portraits

[vintagesnaps]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[vintagesnaps]

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]

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]

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]

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.