Kehinde Wiley's portrait of Judith is much more resembling Michelle Obama than Amy Sherald's painting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/arts/design/obamas-presidential-portr...
6
Both Obama's are underserved by the portraits.
10
I find the paintings interesting but completely undignified to be an official portrait.
12
Like a proud gardener tending his field of dreams, protecting His dreamers and always and forever wondering tirelessly on how to do more to grow his people, and his country. inspirational works. Great metaphors, good for the future.
44
The more I look at Mrs O’s portrait the more I see her in it. The mouth and expression and the way she holds herself is the true woman.
8
President Obama's portrait has the same quality --- that vinyl -like sheen --- as Alfred E. Newman's. I knew it reminded me of something. https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/03/03/a-boy-with-no-birthday-tu...
Michelle's is colorless and lifeless. It doesn't begin to capture her vitality, or for that matter, her likeness. It doesn't look like her.
12
While I applaud the choice of African American portraitists, I am underwhelmed with the results. A tired and stressed President is being subsumed by the jungle around him. A strong, smart, fit woman with richly toned skin is rendered in grey scale and posed like a debutante. This is to commemorate her role as FLOTUS, not her presentation at Cotillion. While both are interesting paintings with beautiful elements, neither truly does justice to the roles these two individuals have and will play in American history. I understand the symbolism each painter chose to present but they were tasked with presenting posterity with a truly historic presidential couple. I think they failed. I think they were more concerned with getting their style on national display.
24
I'm disappointed, alas. I admire Kehinde Wiley's work, having toured his retrospective three times last year. I confess I'm unfamiliar with Ms Sherald's work.
Frankly both portraits are flat, almost dead. The Obamas, both, are vibrant, alive, intelligent people. These portraits grasp none of that magic nor vitality. Michelle Obama's portrait could be graphics for a cosmetic advertisement I'm sorry to say. She isn't a fashion plate, she's a brilliant, energetic woman who wears beautiful clothes, they don't wear her.
Where is President Obama's amazing smile? We need their brains, integrity and heartfelt smiles during this current administration.
32
Have no real objection to President Obama's but his first lady...is well I don't know about her...frankly she appears somewhat bewildered...or lost. Don't see why it will add or distract from his 8 years of major indurance while in the White House. On the other hand, If they like it then we should love it.
7
I understand and respect Michelle for choosing a woman to paint her portrait but not sure Amy Sherald was the best choice. This looks like a flat, minimalist fashion illustration you could see on the cover of The New Yorker, not a skillful, thoughtful rendering of a fiercely intelligent woman like Michelle Obama. Reminds me of the way clothing has stolen the limelight from the faces of women in painting throughout the centuries.
Kehinde Wiley, on the other hand, with his strong, powerful portraits of women would have done her justice. I like how he captured President Obama, though I'm torn about the kitschy-ness of the flowers. They're gorgeous and compelling. But not sure how much they match his spirit and presence.
In the end, though, I applaud them both for making bold, modern choices and not going with the old boring portrait painters of so many past presidential couples. Heck, if they're happy, we should be. They certainly put up with enough for eight years.
7
Obama is our thoughtful eco-warrior. Beautiful portrait.
5
I am a bit confused - I thought the official portraits of the President and First Lady were hung in the White House. Are these " other official portraits" which are meant to remain in the National Portrait Gallery? I definitely like President Obama's portrait. It captures his intelligence, his controlled energy and his gravitas. Michelle's bears only a passing resemblance to her. It lacks any of her energy and strikes me as very one dimensional.
6
To those who say Michelle Obama's portrait doesn't resemble her:
It isn't about her.
She is a symbol.
Her work as First Lady was never about her. She didn't want the job, yet put her heart and soul into it and inspired many of us. She encouraged us to empathize with others, consider what their lives are like, not focus on ourselves.
Now that her role is history, she does not seek the spotlight. Instead, she encourages us to remember the work of the black women who helped build the country with strong arms and nimble fingers. The pyramid shape of the dress recalls the slaves of Egypt (and Washington, D.C.) and suggests that your labors will eventually free you to rise to the top and lead for others who still suffer. She also reminds us that in life there is not just black and white; there are shades of grey.
Her expression is serious and looks toward the future, as we all should.
We should all focus on our collective future, not ourselves.
The message of all great religions is to forget the self and work for others. Michelle may not promote her beliefs, as many public figures do, but her life reflects them.
Her portrait is an invitation to remember the past, be open to new experiences, embrace the future, and empathize with those who need the help of strong arms.
13
Imbedding President Obama in flowers is appropriate for the fairy tale Obama who loved humanity and stands above reproach. Alas, the real Obama waged wars, protected the budgets of DOD and Homeland Security, engineered the ruination of the Democratic Party thereby enabling the "election" of his Republican successor.. Heck of a job, Mr. Obama, heck of a job! Next to Obama place the portrait of St. Ken Burns in commemoration of his Disneyfication of America's war against the people of S.E. Asia aka "The Vietnam War". Obama signed the legislation which funded the Pentagon's retelling of that "noble effort undertaken in good faith".
5
As a photographer, I do not like the new/modern portraits. Just look at the classic lighting on Reagan, Clinton, Carter, Washington & Ford. Obama has nice skin and the harsh light on his face makes it look terrible. And Michelle's portrait is flat with no contrast, just middle gray and does not look like her. These portraits look cheap. Not a fan of this work.
6
This is the first time I know of the portraits being unveiled at the National Gallery and not at the White House with the current President and First Lady hosting the former ones. No reporting on the change? Who's decision was it to break protocol? The Obamas, or the Trumps?
2
Let's face it, Kehinde Whiley's Obama is no Velasquez Jaun de Parejo.
4
Fascinating portraits, both! i am intrigued by how large Mr. Obama's hands are, and how he seems to have six fingers on his left hand (we see five, and assume his thumb is hidden). That hand extends from (wrist) the left-center of his stomach all the way (fingertips) to the outside of his right elbow, which is by his side. And the background!! It reminds me of periwinkle or some other groundcover growing up a wall, but then continues below his feet, as if his chair is suspended in mid-air, or perhaps glued to that wall. What a way to combine the absurd and fanciful with the realistic! In Mrs. Obama's portrait, i love the subtle touch of the shade of her nail polish, which matches the painting's background. Both portraits do show the inner beauty of these two wonderful Americans, and make me long for their return to the White House.
8
I think both portraits are terrific. Congratulations to both artists and the Clintons on these fine additions to our national character. They represent two strong and intelligent individuals and the artists have done a great job capturing the Obamas' likenesses.
9
Does anyone know how much these 2 artists were PAID? And did we taxpayers fund them? (NY Times, you guys should know - or could find-out, yes?) I am curious - but no one is reporting this....
I like that lessor-known artists were seleccted -- the money infusion, and lift to their reputation (so future work) is wonderful for them!!
In terms of the results, I like them -- i just feel they're meant to hang elsewhere.. like maybe the Obama library (when finished), or an Obama Foundation office -- or even an Obama vacation home..
1
It looks like Mrs. Obama's dress is more important than she is. It is too dominant. And I don't recognize her at all. Not good.
14
What's surprising is that many commenters, who claim to be on a higher stage of cultural development than stupid republicans, accept these awful pieces as some kind of serious art.
9
Does President Obama have a mother? Maybe there should have been a flower for her
11
I'm sorry to say it appears to me to be a missed opportunity. My broadcast station did not provide a clearer image of President Obama's portrait as the Times does. Now viewing it in clearer detail I find the floral background as distracting and diminishing his presence in the painting. His actual image although very authentic appears cartoonish in presentation. Michelle's unfortunately does not reflect the strength of years of experience, but that of a younger woman. I can appreciate and see the artists desire to reflect the historic nature of the first black woman's rise to first lady and ultimately feel her portrait is the stronger of the two despite her lack of accurately picture her in a visual description of the first lady we have known. I credit the artists with their opportunity, but again I find the opportunity missed.
3
UGLY! They should have stayed with tradition for their official portrait. These are a disservice to a dynamic and vibrant couple.
9
So white presidents and their wives get nice portraits while our black president and his wife get cartoons.
Is this what we want future generations and visitors to view?
These pictures have their place but not in the National Gallery. Maybe some modern art museum.
8
I just love the portrait of Michele Obama - you could say it focuses on the fabric in the dress and less on her, but the effect is glorious and outsize - like she was - tall, sweeping and majestic - so I think it accomplishes its purpose. The work of Kehinde Wiley has always been a problem for me because he does not paint the whole portrait himself - he paints the actual faces I believe, but he has a studio in China where he pays Chinese artists to paint the background and other elements and, in my eye, his paintings have a disconnected feel where you can clearly see that the same artist did not paint all of it...it's as if he inserted the face (and maybe the hands) onto someone else's work...that being said - the face is beautiful and serene - I just wish that for this one, he would have painted the whole thing himself.
5
What strikes me above all is the look of deep concern on the faces of both the Obamas. No complacency or satisfaction, but rather an apprehensiveness over what is to come. From that perspective, for me personally and reflecting my own feelings about where the world's heading, they're both masterpieces.
2
Or if Hockney is not American enough, Kehinde would have too been a superior choice as well.
2
These will not be the only portraits but I love them.
I will get prints for my home and office.
The iconic Shepard Fairey poster hangs in my hallway, near the guest bedroom so all who enter know where their hosts' sympathy lie.
Why should all Presidents look like they were painted by Gilbert Stuart?
Bravo!
5
There's something remotely Klimt about both portraits, though an observational hunger is missing.
1
I think the portraits are fantastic. The break the mold of stuffy bureaucrat portraiture. The fact that my right wing friends were critical makes me think the artists did just the right thing. The last paragraph makes me wonder - about putting the president's women in the same gallery - what happens when the time comes to paint Trump's portrait? Will there be room for all the wives and girlfriends and porn stars. Envision that annoying frown captured in a 20 foot (it will have to bigger than all prior portraits - no?) painting, frightening small children for all eternity.
4
The Obamas have once again demonstrated their spot-on judgment and taste.
We can all breathe in the beauty of these amazing portraits as America sinks in the quagmire of present political woe.
We had 8 years of pride under the Obamas. Little did we know..........
6
Why is Obama sitting in a bush?
6
My initial reaction to these portraits was that the right hand of the President seemed out of proportion to his torso and the First Lady's startling gown up staged her. Then I read Slave Interviews done by the Federal Writers Project. Almost inexplicably these portraits conveyed a meaning that escaped me at first. The look the artists captured in the Obama's eyes seemed to say We've come along way together but we're back sliding now from an America filled with hope.
3
I voted for Obama twice (and as the joke in Get Out goes "I would have voted for him a third time") and I respect the former President and First Lady a great deal, but can we at least admit that both of these paintings are quite simply ugly? It is not a debate about "modernism" or what is fresh or new, but rather an aesthetic judgement that I think many people would agree with. The portrait of the First Lady in particular looks like something that would end up on the wall of a hotel room (granted a hotel that catered to hipsters) and belies her elegance and natural beauty. The one of the President says nothing about him beyond a reflection of him in a often repeated trope of the artist who painted it. I hate to say it but the choice of artists says a lot about the very real disconnect the Obamas had with much of the American populace. The choices and subsequent works come off as elitist, and valuing intellect over meat and potato substance. In that way they are probably perfect portraits of a powerful couple that tried to do good (and did quite a bit regardless) but didn't quite understand why they rubbed so many the wrong way.
3
The author writes, "...the artist presents Mr. Obama dressed in the regulation black suit..." But the regulation suit in DC is navy blue, not black. And, at least in the Times' photo, the President's suit does, in fact, appear to be blue.
4
These portraits are of mediocre artistry.
5
David Hockney would have been a better choice.
4
What wonderful art and what a refreshing approaches to official Presidential portraiture.
2
Portraits of 1st Ladies indeed should have a space reserved for them. You are in my opinion on the mark in observing that the portrait of 1st Lady Michelle Obama is more about her dress than about this talented & worthy person.
3
What is the symbolism of the poison ivy? Did the artist know he painted poison ivy instead of, say, a beautiful plectranthus verticillatus? Ivy in general represents eternity, fidelity and strength, but I don't get the specific use of poison ivy in this case.
6
The setting for Obama is the natural world, lush, productive, effusive.
It is, in a sense, the living ground from which Obama, and all of us, are sprung.
The richest heritage imaginable.
It is from here that Obama looks out, willing to see what is there, rather than trying to mold into what he believes ought to be there.
I hope I have the opportunity to see it in person.
10
A portrait is a portrait but the real thing, Barach and MIchelle "live" is the perfect antidote to what has been occurring the last year plus. Both of them connected with Americans and the world over and were compassionate and regal at the same time. Singing Amazing Grace, in I think it was South Carolina, showed his heart for the American people.
7
Both portraits were, at first look, shocking, so starkly unconventional.
However, in the hierarchy of things, they are
1 - refreshing
2 - a LOT better than Trump's shocking unconventionality.
15
Barack's portrait is a 'landscape' that is at least 65% Ivy. Michelle's portrait is about 60% dress, as though she was not enough of a subject to carry the painting on her own. Trump's portrait will be a photo realism close-up by Chuck Close that will show nothing but his face and enlarged pores. And, of course, his amazing single trained hair.
2
"If first men have an acknowledged showcase, first women — ladies or not — should too. Better, they should all be together, sharing space, offering a welcoming environment to, among others, a future first female president, and creating a lasting monument to #MeToo."
Why is that, exactly?" First Women" very rarely have any substantive contributions to the country, and when they try, they're criticized. You'll need a better reason than a Twitter hashtag to convince me that First Ladies deserve to be held in the same regard as Presidents, who were elected and generally have more responsibility than choosing from a catalog of dresses and decor.
5
Quite aside from questions of personality, aren't you missing the symbolism of a First Lady whose (presumably male) ancestors were slaves were among those who built the White House? But then add the fact that we now have a deeply mysonigistic POTUS whose views are surely more akin to the period when the WH was built than today's, and Michelle Obama's portrait takes on an even greater potency.
2
Hhhmmm. they have an important role to play and most of them carry it off. Jackie brought style to Jacks White House. Lady Bird brought her beautify American program. Eleanor Roosevelt may have BEEN the president for a while. Mrs Clinton tried to formalize that. and so on. Hard to marginalize all that.
2
A portrait has to look like the person, or dog, or whatever. Michelle's portrait looks nothing like her. The portraitist should have been honest and confessed she might paint fancy pictures but has no business with portraits. I feel sorry for Mrs. Obama because she is spectacular in every way. Put that picture in her den closet and have somebody else do the job. I can't believe there was no other African American female artist who could have filled this role. One reason she can't paint portraits is because that takes honesty. It makes me furious that she was chosen with no qualities.
16
Mrs. Obama chose Ms. Sherald after viewing her other work, which her portrait is in keeping with. What are your qualifications for adjudicating 'honesty'?
3
After photography was invented, portraits no longer had to attempt a total likeness of the subject. The important thing is to portray the essence of the person.
The portrait of Michelle Obama succeeds in this by encapsulating her dignity, composure and beauty. I think it is a beautiful painting.
4
The portrait of Mrs. Obama is haunting. It speaks to history.
9
It's too bad those portraits don't resemble the people they are supposed to represent. I see a painting of a dress. Who is the model. She seems to be an afterthought receding in the background. I don't see Michelle in that painting at all. Barrack in Tahiti?? Sitting in a chair looking out of place? I can''t find the Obama I was so pleased to have in charge of our country for 8 years. He never looked out of place or bewildered or lost.
14
A nice reminder of when we had a President, not a Tyrant.
14
I take the perhaps naive position that when an artist chooses to do a painting he/she puts their whole soul into it. Even for paid commissions, as were almost all great works of Renaissance and Baroque art. Why else are you an artist?
The Michelle Obama portrait is simply bad as a portrait of a person, it is more a portrait of a dress.
The Barack Obama portrait is simply awesomely stupid. It looks as if the pretty and silly background has been painted first and then the strangely proportioned image of Obama sort of pasted on, with a few background leaves foregrounded for effect. Dreck.
23
I personally don't care for either. I don't think the expressions on their faces are characteristic of the people -- Obama looks kind of cold and Michelle looks snooty. Both of them are very kind, warm, compassionate people and neither painting portrays that. The styles of both are also kind of cheesy and amateurish, like something done by a first year art student without much talent.
5
Both fail to capture their subjects' personalities and warmth. Obama looks much like the cold, grim, militant King statue on the Mall.She is also lost to us, immensely popular and loved, way past the clothes she wore. Sad.
15
Naturally my mind goes to where they will get enough gold leaf for the next one. (I'm imagining 45 already cursing Cortez for getting there first)
4
1.No mention of the giant hands? I noticed it in his portrait immediately, but on closer look, hers too. The hands are longer than their heads.
2. I don't understand the foliage. First thought was of Sean Spicer in the bushes.
3. I love Bill Clinton's! It's super cool.
2
That jumped out to me too. Even his ring is huge. It also seems that his eyes are not both looking in the same direction.
Forget about Mrs. Obama's painting. It looked like she was upset during the unveiling. I don't blame her.
2
Wow. This is such good writing by Holland Cotter. A pleasure to read his full digestion of how radical a shift these new works are in connection to the portraits predecessors. And a reminder of the freshness the Obama's brought to the White House especially where art is concerned
4
I disagree with the author's view of Mrs. Obama's portrait. it is gorgeous, her face looks strong and perplexed. a new "The Thinker" - reimagined as a black intellectual woman.
5
@firststar,
You're right. It's a new The Thinker" - reimagined as a black intellectual woman, and Jay-Z is a new Bach - reincarnated as a black genius man. An unbreakable chain of the greatest peaks of humankind.
2
I figure these portraits are fantastic and totally representative of both the vainglorious subjects.
The only thing missing are all the talk show hosts, evening news anchors, and main stream media talking heads that swooned over them for more than eight years.
Clint Eastwood was correct: Obama was an empty chair as President.
11
I think these artists deserve a giant hand of applause. This portrait really grows on you. Leaf all your criticism behind and make sure you see the forest in the trees. You won't kitsch me making fun of these paintings. They are a mateur example of art. To a dress the other portrait, it's a flat out masterpiece. I think it reflects the subject's beauty. The color is especially agreyable. I am happy for Obama that he had found someone who looks like like that. I just hope Michelle isn't jealous.
3
What will Trumps portrait look like I wonder, who will paint it? Hieronymus Bosch? Francisco Goya? Basil Hallward I think would make sense.
4
Fernando Botero, perhaps?
1
Doesn’t look like her at all. If the portrait were hung somewhere with no identification, no one would be able to identify Michelle. Historical mistake.
27
Strange, I saw the paints in other articles, and the colour of Michelle's hairs are not dark, but rather clear. Which paint is the original one? Has one of pictures been manipulated (hairs darkened) to avoid controversy?
http://www.tmz.com/2018/02/12/barack-michelle-obama-portrait-unveiled-sm...
2
It seems to me that the painting has perfectly expressed the uniqueness of the first black President and his lovely wife. How could the first black President simply blend into the whiteness of all the others as though there were no differences at all. Remember, too, that he was not accepted by all the people and sometimes because of his differences in looks and cultural connections. I think Mrs Obama has captured an aloof look in her portrait which says "I may be first lady but I am still Michelle above all else." He is more willing to stick his neck out by choosing something not in the mainstream of thinking. I say Bravo to both.
29
I love both the portraits.
I wish there were some more explanation of the symbolism behind the foliage in the President's portrait. The flower symbolism is obvious, but why does the foliage seem to be on the point of growing over the President and his chair? Does it represent the unruly irrational forces that threatened at times to overwhelm his presidency? He sits on the edge of his chair, appearing quite ready to walk away from it if he wishes. The more that I look at the portrait, the more interpretations I come up with.
The background and chair remind me of Pre-Raphaelite paintings which were a reaction away from stuffy formalism to a style that was full of symbolism and the importance of nature, harkening back to a mythical time of authenticity and purity.
Authenticity. The Obamas are that and so much more.
9
I love these paintings, but wish there was a continuity (even a very subtle one) between the two portraits, as the Obamas truly seem like a team; uncommonly loving and supportive partners.
13
"Still troubleshooting, still in the game." What? Really? The guy NEVER was in the game after the campaign. Don't get me wrong, I voted for the man, twice. But for someone who held THE most powerful position in the world, he was anything but in the game. I would say he was in the locker room watching the game on TV. Huge disappointment, and such a let down that people looked elsewhere for hope and change in Trump, of all people, as opposed to another four years of the same under Hillary. His portrait is a perfect metaphor of his presidency. Potential yet unfulfilled.
8
I had the pleasure of viewing Mr. Wiley's exhibit at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts last year. What a pleasant surprise to see the portrait of President Obama. The inclusion of President Obama elevates Wiley's subject matter to include a man of power and grace. It also distinguishes the President as a man wiling to be seen in a contemporary context. Congratulations to the Artist and the President.
5
Laugh-out-loud funny, Brian. Nice work.
6
I love that Mrs. Obama chose to use her spotlight to illuminate an incredibly talented, but still obscure, artist. If I remember correctly, she did the same thing with clothing designers throughout the Obama administration, which says so much about her.
I am so happy the Obamas have such a remarkable place in American history and their own space on the walls of the Smithsonian. And, yes, the First Ladys deserve their own permanent space of honor as well. It's not an easy job.
10
It's nice to talk about the significance of the flowers, but the leaves are ALL the same, and the flowers are almost not there..If the artists wanted to consider the flowers, why not somehow include the whole plant - ???It looks like parthenocissus leaves to me, but they are NOT leaves from the flowers peeking out behind him..Otherwise, I really like the Obama portrait, but Mrs. O, she is having a mean day, and maybe it is not even her. I would rather see her in her garden, the vegetable garden on the White House lawn. With kids around her. Then the paintings would match. I think portraiture is a bit beyond the skills of Mrs. O's chosen artist.
5
The former president's hands are skillfully painted, and the painted face suggests the actual one. But the effort of the artist to convey something significant in the background is lost on this viewer.
The subject of the other painting is dwarfed by her elaborate gown, and, as a result, looks more mannequin like than human.
That the art work is indeed "contemporary" rather than traditional does not mean it is particularly memorable. Whatever one's political perspectives, it is undisputable that both husband and wife are vibrant, reflective individuals.
There is some reflection going on in both paintings, but the vibrancy is missing in each.
7
Conceptually, I love both portraits. I just can't get past the one of Michelle Obama. I love the dress, the colors, but it doesn't look anything like her face. I would have no idea who that was without a plaque or other label of identification.
11
Love the portraits!!! Thanks, too, for the artists' back stories.
1
Why do the Obamas look so unhappy in their portraits? Barack Obama looks as though he's sitting in the naughty chair. Michelle Obama looks really grim and tense.
I don't get it .
6
should they be saying cheese?
2
Considering what has happened to the Office, (and the country as a whole) since then, can you blame them?
2
The portrait is interesting and looks full of life. It seems as if Mr. Obama could step out of the chair any moment. However, the background foliage appears too dense (crowded with leaves). It could use a little more empty space between the leaves. A little empty space (distance) between the foliage and the president's chair would have added a little more depth to the painting. Anyway, this is how this viewer looks at the painting.
1
Ah, the sainted angelic Obama! Even he must be rolling his eyes at that picture. Still, I'm grateful the artist eschewed the wings and the halo.
10
President Obama sits before a Living Wall, not a garden floor nor a dead wall to keep people out. Are not the living walls the gardens of the future as they continue to blossom along fences and buildings? Lovely, imaginative, powerful.
10
I look at these paintings and sigh a relief remembering that brilliance did occupy the White House just 2 years ago.
10
I can't say I understand the author's wish that presidents' better halves' portraits be assured a place among those of the presidents themselves. Presidents have run for office and have been elected, their spouses have not - much as many of them may be admired.
5
These are amazing portraits, although I feel Michelle's arms are more muscular in real life. When you work out, aren't you entitled to flex!
1
All these comments offer opinions and critiques on the paintings, but we are only looking at the low resolution images on the screen or in the newspaper. One would need to visit and see the paintings in person to truly offer criticism. We're just seeing the superficial elements.
Most people will only be able to see the reproduced images, though, so we have to work with that limitation and imagine what the paintings actually "feel" like when seeing them up close in their proper space and proper dimensions (which I don't think the article even mentions).
4
I'm amazed at the amateurish quality of both these "official" presidential paintings.
They both look like they were done using a paint by number hobby kit
21
and what do you think of the de Kooning portrait of Kennedy or the Close work of Clinton, both mentioned in this article? Modern art has came and past, bringing us to a post-modern period and saving art from the uptight nature of realism as the only "true" and respected technique. perhaps you are against stylization?
4
The portrait of Obama does not do him justice. The choice of the this particular sitting posture is unfortunate as it does not communicate his energy and grace. The flowers are an affectation of the artist. They do not convey anything about the subject; rather, in their lurid brightness they detract from him. The portrait of Michelle is just a travesty. The likeness is barely there, and the modeling is poorly done, betraying the artist's lack of skill. The patterned clothing overwhelms the subject. The process that should have been followed is that several artists should have been asked to submit examples of their work as well as a statement/sketch about how they would execute the portraits if chosen. There should have been some serious thought given to what the portrait should convey about their subjects and how this should be accomplished (affect/expression, gesture and posture, surroundings) before any artist was selected. Instead, it looks like these two artists were chosen, it has to be said, because they were black, and they were given free rein. Poor process, and the results are very disappointing.
19
It looks like you didn't read anything about the process of choosing these particular artists and assume the only qualification was their race.
3
This is yet another example of the Obama’s high minded call to civic duty, to use their stage for the benefit of others. They continue in a class all their own and they continue to remind us what this nation can be at our finest hours.
In contrast, one wonders if a future artist will be allowed to bring art supplies into a prison to capture the Trump klan’s portrait?
6
Politely, I will say that neither portrait is representative of Mr. or Mrs. Obama. And quite unattractive. Such a shame as they are both present much, much better than the portraits indicate.
9
The Obama's prove again they are way cooler than the rest of us.
No drama Obama. *sigh*
10
Maybe "colder" is a better choice than "cooler'?
5
I was shocked when I saw these portraits! The ivy that is swallowing up Mr. Obama...really? Maybe the “ivy” represents the GOP who were green with envy that such a principled, compassionate and intelligent leader was such a stark contrast to their mean-spirited, party over country, hypocritical and obstructionists “character”. And the portrait of Michelle?! Swallowed up by the dress? Michelle was a fashion icon but in no way did the clothing wear her as this portrait seems to be conveying. She is a strong, beautiful role model for every girl, every woman of all cultures, races.
Time for a do-over— and not just of these portraits. I wish we could have a do-over of the 2016 election.
6
Have they removed President Frank Underwood's portrait from the National Gallery?
2
I find the president's painting most intriguing. The vines seem to grow toward him to hold him in that chair...don't go.
6
The reason I don't like these portraits is because they are not timeless. They are very specific, pop art that won't translate well 10 years from now, let alone in 100 years. Look to the portrait of JFK for example. It was innovative for it's time, different than the portraits that came before it in pose, color and style. Yet the image still resonates 60 years later.
12
To each their own. Neither Clinton's or JFK's portraits "resonate" to me. Nor does Michelle Obama's. And all three can be described as "pop art" and "innovative for their time."
My heartfelt reaction is that I so long for the days when this couple occupied the White House. The portraits are a wonderful refresher.
10
I love, love, love this portrait of Obama’s. The criticism that it is not “ presidential” enough is beyond me. It’s so alive and conveys his authority and his expression is one of challenging the viewer . Love the lush backdrop. Ms. Obama’s portrait is quite striking as well but feel the grey tones mute her somewhat. However like the angular lines of it and again, very modern and striking. Well done. I miss having them in the White House.
7
The portraits are like none other, because there has never been a president and first lady like the Obamas. Her arms show strength, yet they form an egg shape around her heart - expressing the love and compassion of this amazing woman, whose intelligence and competence are reflected in her pensive countenance. And he, the product of all he was, sits comfortably in the past and in the present, comfortably occupying the seat of power to which he brought great honor and decency. I did not agree with every action he took as President, but I embraced fully the goodness from which his decisions flowed. And, oh how I miss the sense of pride I had knowing that goodness prevailed in the White House.
9
I really like Michelle's portrait. Some people think it says nothing about her, like it glosses over her exceptional work as First Lady. What should the artist have done? Add veggies and bicycles to symbolize Michelle's health campaign? A portrait can't show everything. What it does show - Michelle's poise and her style - is more than enough.
7
I just wish the face looked more like her, rather than a Barbie doll clone.
The dress is nice. Sorry, but that's the only nice thing I can say about them. Pity.
7
Interesting paintings. The President's is fine; the First Lady's looks like someone else.
8
Neither of the portraits reflects the dignity of the office of President and First Lady. Moreover, I think each of them reflects the artist's vanity more than the subject's essential nature. Both portraits look amateurish and don't belong in the National Gallery, alongside Sargeant, Close & Rauchenberg.
19
"Amateurish" is the especially apt word for the portrait of Michelle Obama. That looks like something that would garner second place in a high school art contest.
17
I beg to differ - Chuck Close portrait of President Clinton perfectly captures that very complicated and pixelated man.
4
As a fan of the Obamas, I find the portraits unimpressive, unreal and attention seeking. Seems like a desperate effort to look totally different from other presidential portraits, to stand out, almost like celebrities!
13
Portraits, particularly those of public figure are Rorschachs. We project our feelings on them. A friend, who dislikes Obama, thought he was uncomfortable, sitting as if on a toilet, being over-whelmed by a field of flowers. The ivy is Wiley's default background for women - to me, a nowhere space in which the women float uncomfortably. I'll ignore the deeper meaning of the flowers, and say Wiley got it right. Obama is sitting on the pot, challenging us to think about his place in a contested, yet-to-be-defined American history. LBJ did it, Why can't Obama?
3
Let's see...Michelle is grey and the face in her painting does not look like her at all. Obama is floating on the ivy wall at Wrigley Field with flowers that don't bloom there. These portraits are caricatures and demean both people and what they represent. Flea market material.
18
I like this picture. It tells me a story. It may not be the right story or the story the artist intended but then that's the risk every artist takes when the painting leaves her or his studio. That said can I share with you the story I think the artist is trying to tell?
The thing that struck me first was not Obama's face, nor the posture, nor the background - it was Obama's hands. They are exaggerated, both in their form and in their relative size. (And yes it could be a joke in reference to the size of the present incumbent - but I don't think so.)
Why did the artist paint them this way? Could it be that Obama uses his hands a lot when he speaks - he does. Contrast the way he used his hands with the present incumbent. His body is often steady but his hands dance with an impressive range of movement and meaning.
His left arm sits over his right. There is a hint of a watch - no flashy jewellery. Perhaps he is not going to worry about time. He is not going to suddenly rush into handshakes. Those hands are capable of reaching out to make contact when the time is right.
He is leaning forward listening intently. His face is totally focused. That's another feature of Obama. He will hear you out and on multiple levels. What will he do when he finishes listening?
And the background, no seal of the POTUS, no symbols of power, no artifice.
Again what is he going to do?
This force of nature.
Journey with courage and kindness.
[email protected]
80
We really miss you guys!!!!
10
The portrait of Michelle Obama is just terrible. It makes her look cold and introverted while she always seems just the opposite. The emphasis on the dress is odd, especially because it's nondescript, and says pretty much nothing. I guess the artist was going for thoughtful and well-dressed?
I'm trying to like Barack Obama,'s portrait, tho I can't help thinking it looks like a photo superimposed on a background of wallpaper. I do, however, like his demeanor. The chair, maybe from the White house, is an example of rather ugly early American woodworking. I guess it's meant to give historical context.( I like the creases in his pants.)
9
I miss them so much it hurts. If we only knew then what we know now...
6
What I see first is Barach Obama's hands, and the symbolism of their position. His white cuffs are aligned, as if bound together and the watch face peeks out, as if it is a lock. He is "cuffed" by white hand cuffs, (but no tie around his neck). His hands are pointing in opposite directions, left and right. On the left is the wedding ring and also the clock face (patience). This reading might sound simplistic, but the beauty is that the symbolism is hiding in plain sight and very succinct. The hands speak volumes, and are posed very intentionally to cross each other and embody the inner dilemma of the complex man represented here. Kehinde, what say you?
4
Re: the president
I LOVE IT!
3
I am just glad to see Mr. Obama not wearing a tie. As someone who wears his suits without a tie whenever I can, I fully back that sartorial choice. I would like to note that that era where it was fashionable for world leaders were tie-less was an era generally of peace. I think the two (peace and tielessness) go together.
5
Barack and Michelle Obama's portraits are a testament to good taste and honor, a clear and present picture challenging ethnic discriminators, if not racists, 'a la Trump'. It's about time we recognize the richness of our diversity, and the wonderful addition of the Obama's to our heritage, however imperfect it's dark past...until now. Let's hope that, if the tradition is to add our current ugly and vulgar bully, once he is done destroying this democracy, his portrait be confined to the basement...where it belongs.
Michelle's portrait is grossly retouched. She is much younger, more feminine, and with a prettier face than in real life, and is made to look and sit like a Queen, not a first lady. Barry's portrait is great.
6
Both are beautiful works of art befitting the brilliant legacy of The Obama. They are sorely missed in these dark days.
3
I'm not a fan of the Obamas, but my dislike of these paintings has nothing to do with that. I would dislike them no matter who was depicted. Mr. Obama's especially, what in the world is the greenery and flowers supposed to represent? It looks like Kudzu. He doesn't look presidential, he looks ridiculous. Michelle's is less bad, but the gown is not pretty it's...strange. Put Mr. Obama's portrait next to the rest of the distinguished portraits of past presidents, and the contrast is striking. Not in a good way.
7
Didn't you read the article?
3
The one reason these portraits are noteworth is the respective subjects,as for their artistic quality the less said the better.I see nothing of their persona.
5
The former first couple are learned people who follow contemporary art and culture. These portraits express the high level of sophistication in which the Obamas inhabit. I love the choices of artists. I can't help wonder what horrid dictator-esque social realist work Donald Trump will have for his portrait. We don't have the former classy first family in the White House, but we can now visit their cool likenesses at the National Portrait Gallery. Somehow this is comforting.
7
So, I'm so glad that this article 'educated me' about the portraits and artists. This was so helpful and very fascinating as well as a Politico article about the same.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/13/michelle-obama-portra...
It did much to help me understand the messages conveyed in the portraits. Of course, I greatly admire the Obama's and now that I understand better how to view these portraits, I love the portraits!
4
These indescribably beautiful works will definitely bring more people who never cared about painting to the appreciation of the pinnacles of this great art form.
4
I think the portraits are beautiful. Seeing the Obamas feels like coming across a picture of an old love that once broke your heart and you still pine for them. I miss their intelligence, grace, and dignity so very much.
13
There's also more about these wonderful painters and their spectacular work:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/arts/design/obamas-presidential-portr...
2
The first image is especially beautiful and thought-provoking. Deep and powerful narrative of our times.
1
When one takes the time to listen to the profound messages the President and First Lady are conveying through these portraits, one cannot but be blown away by their wisdom. These are not vanity portraits. Let us shun the superficial and teach our children to think carefully and deeply.
8
I agree that First Ladies should have a permanent collection in the National Gallery. The impact they have had on governing when their spouses were president is evident when one looks at Dolly Madison, Edith Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt among others.
4
I love both portraits. Each painting is original, vivid and alive. I miss the Obamas so much.
11
I like both portraits. One note: Interesting that one who considers himself an art critic completely missed the fact that Mrs. Obama's dress appears to incorporate quilt patches in parts. Quilts have a special place in African American culture and history, so it seems right to have this granddaughter of proud African Americans subtly reflect that culture in her portrait. Surprised that the article didn't make that connection.
10
The dress is the only part of her portrait that I like. The face does NOT look like Michelle.
5
As an artist, I really want to like these paintings. However, the background on the President's painting makes him look like he's floating in wallpaper from the 1950s (I understand Wiley's explanation of the flowers, but feel they deflect from his image rather than draw you in). President Obama is such an intelligent and grounded man of real substance, but he doesn't come across that way in this painting. He appears un-tethered rather than the solid, dignified Statesman he is. The painting has the look of a collage. Mrs. Obama's dress is lovely, as is everything about the painting of her, except the face doesn't really look like her or reflect her beauty and strength of character. The background could use some depth and warmth (although, it does reflect the artist's typical style). 100 years from now, I'm not sure people will grasp the immense importance of this couple in the history our country from these portraits.
12
Looking at these portraits gives me the same heavy-hearted feeling of loss as when I wake from dreaming about a beloved person who is no longer alive.
9
The pictures are simply, poorly done.
26
The background of President Obama’s portrait looks like he’s sitting in front of the ivy-covered outfield wall at Wrigley Field - something any self-respecting White Sox fan would never do.
7
Wonderful rendering of Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Painters captured these two individuals's likeness, but the backgrounds, greenery and couture should be switched. Michelle pushed for healthy vegetables, and Barry always was a natty dresser.
I can't imagine the next "presidential" portraits. We could have an oversized Napoleon figure on a horse, leading a Bastille parade on Pennsylvania Avenue, or, better yet, standing up, giving his inaugural address to a packed mall foreground. As for Melania; a portrait of a mysterious but sad looking lady, dressed in a radiant white pant-suit, like the one she wore for the first state of the "uniom" address. Imperial couple, indeed!
1
Love these. This is art, not documentary. Of course, for a section of the populace that would sooner have zero public funding for art, nothing would have been good as long as it included a visage of either of these people. Own it.
1
Art is documentary.
I like them both. As with most good art, they reveal more, the more you look at them. I was a little thrown off by Michelle's gray color. Her persona has more "snap" than that, but I think it forces the viewer to look deeper, closer. Her expression is both more tentative than I associate with her and, yet, strong. It's a face you could study over and over again, looking for what's really going on. Also, true of Barack's face. Yes, it's troubled, thoughtful. His role as the first black president carries an inherent burden. I like the mix of a very realistic figure and fantasy background. And, yes, to a permanent gallery for First Lady portraits.
5
I like them both. Here's why. They're bold and unsettling. Especially the portrait of Michelle Obama. It's filled with secrets. Regardless of how long I look I can't get inside the space she holds. I think these works are going to more than stand the test of time. I've read many comments about these paintings not looking the part as historical pieces. These paintings rewrite history. They break convention.
9
They break convention because they don't even look like them.
7
trying to be kind here, but I hope the two artists did this work gratis, as the results are indeed disappointing. PC standards do not equal fine art.
15
merci
1
Well done! I think these are absolutely beautiful. Congratulations to the artists and the Obamas.
7
Both portraits are spectacular. I'd happily live with both in my home and stop and look at them once a day.
If more fake news was this beautiful, who'd complain?
2
It will take some time, years or decades, to assess and reassess the Obama portraits as neither one fits a conventional template of the presidential portrait. Mr. Obama’s face and hands jump out for the extraordinary strength and character the artist has captured. The detail is fantastic. I also like the unusual background that forces one to decode and contextualize. While my initial reaction to the first lady’s portrait was mixed, a closer examination reveals an artist who elegantly captures her regal nature. These portraits invite the viewer to reflect on the Obamas and their many legacies.
5
Before judging, take a look at the previous portrait works by these two talented artists to see why the Obamas chose them in the first place. These two paintings are each representative of a body of modern portraiture work that creatively reflects the power and humanity in its subjects. Lovely!
6
Maybe....but I'm having a hard time getting past Ms. Sherald's "decapitation" paintings. That art does escape me.
4
@Rebecca,
Yes, you're right. Here's a very useful link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/arts/design/obamas-presidential-portr...
1
@rainman,
And why would anyone think there's something wrong with a black lady holding a head of a white woman in Kehinde Wiley's painting? Doesn't it speak correctly of the noble ideas of contemporary social awakening? And wasn't it one of the reasons the artist was chosen to depict the great influential direction of our greatest president?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/arts/design/obamas-presidential-portr...
2
If the artists sought to portray the class of the Obamas, they were successful.
5
Really, Really disappointed in these portraits.....
10
I can't believe people don't realize the President is sitting in front of the
( left of center ) outfield wall in his beloved Wrigley Field!
3
These portraits of Fred Armisen and Nicki Minaj speak to our times.
12
Good one, Ralph !
1
I wasn't impressed with Michelle Obama's portrait. It looks mundane and nothing like the real-life subject. Mrs. Obama is a classy lady, the portrait doesn't do her justice at all.
7
Thank you! President Obama's portrait for me displays how he took the time to consider the facts and how he cared about each citizen. The First lady's portrait speaks not only to her style and grace but how she cared about us all. Thank you again! Outstanding!!!
5
As long as the Obamas are satisfied with their portraits that's all really matters. What individuals think doesn't. Personally I think the portrait of President Kennedy by Aaron Shikler is the best presidential portrait ever.
3
I find myself enjoying Obama’s portrait. It is both celebratory and pensive, rich and engaging. You could almost have a conversation with the man. Well done.
But then I’m taken aback by the writer bizarre and propagandizing statement:
“And today we’re seeing more and more evidence that the social gains of the civil rights, and Black Power, and Obama eras are, with a vengeance, being rolled back.”
Nonsense. The gains and transformation for civil rights have been nothing short of phenomenal over the past fifty or sixty years and the crowning achievement was the Obama years. Nothing is “being rolled back” in legally, constitutionally or in terms of socio-economic opportunity.
5
@MacBook - "...Nothing is being 'rolled back in legally, constitutionally or in terms of socio-economic opportunity."
See: Sessions, Jefferson Beauregard
2
Nothing is being rolled back? You're kidding, right?
2
Needless to say I expected some overwrought moral panicky replies. I assure you Mr Trump and his crew are repugnant. But isn’t the writer hinting that we are returning to Jim Crow or maybe Mr Jefferson Beauregard wants to restore institutional slavery, perhaps rescind women’s suffrage or round up pesky foreigners? Your rights to education and do business and your liberal privileges are intact and will remain so. Yes, we do have dire problems but we will survive trump populism and hopefully learned something.
While the dress and background of Michelle's portrait is alive with energy. She herself seems so deadened. Not the vivacious women we all know.
6
The Obama goal with these dreadful portraits, as usual, is to provoke controversy and to allow him and his wife to appear to be outsiders fighting the system. The portraits appear to be photo shopped images softened to fit the strange backgrounds chosen for each. As far as their artistic quality, there is none. if they have to hang in the White House, put them behind some large potted plants.
9
@Paul - Do you mean to replace the Andrew Jackson portrait hanging behind the huge squatting potted plant in The Oval?
2
Why does Pres.Obama have six fingers on his left hand? Did anyone else notice?
3
Obama is orage and Michelle is gray. Neither of these likenesses look like real people. Did I miss the boat? Isn't that the the essence of portraiture?
5
Obama has really big hands!
5
He's a southsider Sox fan and I think the portrait shows he's sitting in front of the wall at Wrigley Field!
1
Well, President Obama is from Chicago, after all. Perhaps the vegetative background is refers to the outfield wall at Wrigley Field, and may even suggest that Obama has transferred his allegiance from the White Sox to the Cubs.
1
On first glance, the background is lovely, and the man seated on chair seems intrusive. Wiley may be better at vegetation than he is at human figures, which are notoriously hard to capture in a lifelike way. This isn't my image of Obama, but then Wiley actively sought to get away from the Olympian figure that I, and many others, remember. He WAS a bit detached ("cool") wasn't he, or at least appeared to be so?
3
@Robert Crosman - While he may have appeared detached or aloof to some, many of us recognize President Obama to be a fellow Introvert; thanks for the reminder, and with that in mind I will reconsider his visage's placement among the foliage.
2
They asked contemporary artist to paint their portraits. Artist who have a POV, unlike traditional painters who create expected visuals.
The Obama's artist selection of their artist was a gutsy move, but then again not totally unexpected.
3
Gov Brown has an abstract portrait in the Capitol but after knowing about him It is not a stretch to assume it is what he sees in a mirror. Perhaps these two images are who each of the subjects actually see when looking into a mirror or better yet, at each other.
1
This NYT article appears to ignore the artist's past work: "What is even more perplexing is why Obama chose Wiley to paint the portrait, considering his other paintings that display violence toward white women, showing black people beheading them."
14
I love it--and all art and artists--they create and make the world a better place. Plus, President Obama has the perfect California tan in his portrait and anything that upsets the Racist (formerly Republican) Party is fine by me :)
1
I freaking love these portraits and miss those fine people
3
I like both portraits, but they are no more interesting or important than any of the others that hang in the museum. Unless you think they are MORE important only because the subjects and the artists are black, in which case, give them all the Nobel Peace Prize, for all I care.
2
• Mrs. Obama’s choice of Ms. Sherald as an artist was an enterprising one.Mrs. Obama’s choice of Ms. Sherald as an artist was an enterprising one.
To say the least,
Amy Sherald’s take on Mrs. Obama isn't even a viable resemblance ... right down to a dress I'm sure Mrs. Obama would never wear..., as if she were that shallow.
"To me, elitism means a love of excellence and superiority, but America has declared war on both and developed a sick love of the lowest common denominator to make sure no-one becomes too fine for our touted democracy. We are almost at the point of regarding every virtue as elitist."
~ FLORENCE KING
R.C., Painter, professor of figurative art, anatomy, colour theory, art history, drawing and painting; fonder of L'Atelier Robert Coane, NYNY, 1983-2004; RTD.
6
I think that an important piece of information was omitted from this story. The artist Wiley has painted portraits of people holding severed heads of people. Google it. Is this the message that the Obama wants to send with these portraits? Imagine if the races were reversed in the severed head paintings...would that be appropriate? I ask the NYT to report all the news not just puff and to apply the same standard of coverage to all sides.
15
Political correctness is NOT quality in Art.
9
Is it just me, or does the central geometry in Mrs. Obama dress recall this famous trademark of high celebrity:
https://www.google.com/search?q=studio+54+logo&oq=studio+54+logo&...
1
It's just you.
I’d like to see George Bush paint the portraits of the Obamas! Then let’s see the comments roll in. I love the paintings. I am working on a portrait commission right now, and I know how hard it is to get the right feeling, especially in this day of digital accuracy; so thanks for the article, and for spurring a discussion.
3
Mrs. Obama's portrait is downright mediocre and disappointing. Some have noted that it hardly captures her likeness and I tend to agree. And, at least to my eye, the subdued tones and flat perspective seem wholly disassociated from the dynamic and energetic persona projected to the public and for which many admire her for. Presumably, there must have been some sort of symbolic purpose motivating these decisions (...or not, perhaps). Whatever that purpose may have been, the portrait strains to communicate its message and is singularly uninspiring.
Mr. Obama's portrait is all together superior. Many have drawn comparisons to a celebrated portrait of Lincoln. Though obvious, the parallel does come off as satisfying, if only for its directness and simplicity. For those who did not catch the reference, the subject's sternly pensive gaze communicates a weighty and weary concern which, though heavy-handed, is imminently becoming of a presidential portrait. On the other hand, the informal pose and business-casual attire (so to speak) resonates the approachable demeanor many public spectators came to expect from Mr. Obama, though without diminishing the seriousness of his presence. The portrait stands on its own and does not strain to communicate. Whether or not one associates its features with the traditionally celebrated image of Lincoln as a wise yet human leader of "the People" is not essential to the message, though the reference comes off well. The flowers do not.
5
Debate, criticism, and praise aside, perhaps the most intriguing aspect of President Obama's portrait is that it will never outstrip the iconic, campaign-era image of him by Shepard Fairey ("HOPE"), which has since become a meme, of course. Just as, sadly, Obama's presidency never quite outstripped the immense hope and optimism that his candidacy generated. 2008 seems aeons ago, now...
1
I love both these portraits. I love African American artists and their color interpretations of the world as they see it as well as the subjects of their creations. I love the one of Mrs. Obama. I like it more every time I see it. It does look like her to me and I have nothing but enormous admiration and respect for her. The president's is entirely different and depicts him in a way the author has accurately nailed as a deeply contemplative thinker of great integrity and ethics. We were so lucky to have these two responsible, accomplished and thoughtful people in the White House for eight years. My how we miss them, their dignity, their honesty, their real family values. We've entered a barren winter with this administration, barren of decency, filled with cruelty and darkness. I hope we have an opportunity to have one more pair at the head of the country like the Obamas. I love the portraits. They remind me of what was.
5
I'm surprised and delighted with these elegant, modern portraits.
3
I see Michelle's portrait as embodying every black woman--indeed, perhaps every woman. She is dressed impeccably and seemingly calm, but look at her face! Just as her glamorous dress with its many patterns envelopes her body, so do intelligent thoughts and deep concerns occupy her mind. And lest we think it is not Michelle, look at those unmistakable arms!
3
Wow! Magnificent! Like the Obamas
3
Michele's arms. YES!
1
But hasn't anyone noticed that Michelle's portrait does not even resemble her?
15
If you're going to discuss a lot of portraits, why don't you display them so that we can see what you're talking about?
1
These are cartoons. Where are the real pictures?
7
if you stare at president obam's portrait long enough , you'll see fish swimming by . as for the first ladies portrait , it looks like a generic photo shop . that is michelle Obama , right?
3
The bountiful egos shin through with these portraits! Who would have thought?
1
Kerry Washington was first lady for 8 years?
4
is it just me.... But Mr. Obama's hands are too large compared to his body. I find it a distraction to the overall impact of the portrait.
3
"...Mr. Obama's hands are too large compared to his body..."
Perhaps a fitting contrast to his successor?
2
Yes, his hands are twice as big as his face. Mrs. Obama's hands are awkward too, like long, deflated tubes. And too much dress, not enough Mrs. Obama.
4
Who is the woman in the portrait next to Barak Obama?
8
President Obama's portrait beautifully and elegantly captures him; the First Lady's doesn't do her justice.
7
Good article, bad ending sentiment.
“If first men have an acknowledged showcase, first women — ladies or not — should too. Better, they should all be together, sharing space, offering a welcoming environment to, among others, a future first female president, and creating a lasting monument to #MeToo.”
Um, no.
While FLOTUS is a de facto public figure, as the spouse of a national leader, it does not, and should not mean you get a dedicated spot in a Presidential portrait gallery.
Since we’re imagining things, let’s imagine a 46th POTUS HRC, do we want another portrait of Bill Clinton hanging- even malingering around? I don’t.
To conflate Ms. Obama’s portrait with #MeToo is wrong because frankly, it’s just unrelated. Looping #MeToo back in to everything feels tiresome and opportunistic. Just because something talks about women, doesn’t mean it’s a #MeToo moment. #MeToo is a lot of things (a sexual assault survivor, a collective solidarity hashtag movement, infinite other personal meanings). This, on the other hand was an article on presidential portraits & spousal portraits that’s one paragraph too long.
3
Of course the writer does not like the portrait. It was not done for his eyes to see. This is a woman's portrait and, as such, it is meant to cast its eyes out over the future of women coming forward. It is easy to decipher the text of Mr. Obama's portrait because we have the language of form and being for men already installed and ready at hand. But the women's portrait is a new and novel art form which does not readily become classified in terms men are willing to relinquish. Where the writer sees 'couturial spectacle' others will see and respond to the revolutionary, global aspect of the portrait. The portrait is a challenge because it demands looking past the image in order to capture the subject --- a task the writer failed at miserably. But get closer, look past the intentionally obliterating lines of the cultural oppressions of the fabric and you will see the commanding aspect of Mrs. Obama rising upward, towering if you will, above the petty and, yes, tawdry reductions of the writer's (and patriarchal society's) expectations. This is a woman who demands not to be objectified in simplistic symbols of generational feminism. She is global, she is ascendant, and she scares the snot out of people who don't recognize the imperative nature of her inevitable conquest. Wheeze on you tiresome insipid men...
3
I don't know which is funnier, these horrid paintings or your tortured analysis of them.
Trendy nonsense doesn't date well, and these portraits will be viewed as a silly embarrassment in a generation. Like putting Eisenhower next to a flying saucer or Grover Cleveland dancing around a maypole. The Obamas deserve far better than this tripe.
Silly stuff and hardly presidential. High school art indeed.
16
If the purpose is to stand the test of time in a national gallery, then these paintings fail as they primarily reflect the artists, not the subjects. The human warmth, liveliness and beauty of the Obamas are captured in neither portrait. (And, assuming the thumb is hidden, five fingers on Mr. Obama's left hand?!?)
2
"...(And, assuming the thumb is hidden, five fingers on Mr. Obama's left hand?!?)..."
Or else the thumb is on the wrong side of the hand, and tucked under the hand.
1
Mrs. Obama is a lovely woman, a fact well disguised in this portrait. Both of them deserved much better "portraits" than these.
6
Just another example in a long list of Obama's poor choices.
5
It's been only a little more than a year since they were in the WH, but it seems like auld lang syne.
At the end of the day, the Obamas chose the artists and either they have weird taste in art or their quest to choose an African American artist of some well known stature clouded their usually excellent judgement. I agree with other readers that the warmth and humanity that this couple exuded to the entire world are not reflected in these paintings. Obama looks beady-eyed and haggard while Michelle's portrait looks sophomoric by a fashion designer aspiring to fine artist status. Michelle was a woman of such depth and nuance which belies the flat color and shapes depicted. She loved flowers and growing things, she should have been in Obama's portrait!
There are plenty of superb African American artists who are more mainstream in their style and let's face it, if these paintings are for posterity, they should have avoid being so trendy. These styles are just too far afield to be classics for the ages. Also, Obama was urban cool and sophisticated, and shouldn't be swallowed up in a garden. Nor should he be sitting, since he was full of vigor and energy. In this rendition, he looks like steely eyed, hard nosed autocrat from a banana republic. He always wore a tie, suddenly not? He was pro-environment, but not a botanist. In his remarks, he said working with the artist was a great joy but didn't say he loved the work. Telling!
7
Obama's portrait is excellent in every way, including likeness. Michelle's portrait, for me, does not look like her or stature her though I like whoever this person is in the portrait. The gown may say more about Michelle's fashion consciousness than her character should, but overall the painting's design is rather nice. Too bad Michelle does not resemble the real Michelle more than a little.
2
While the painting of Michelle Obama is quite beautiful, it simply does not, in any way, look like her. The Barak portrait is just silly.
4
These "portraits" look like mundane commercial art. Maybe something you would see in a second-rate magazine.
4
I like both paintings, but they do not look the real Mr. and Mrs. Obama.
4
Cotter's comment of the eroding rights of US minorities is baffling. Never has parity been better than now-thus the rise of the alt-right and, um, well, you know. The Obama's portraits are beautiful, and should stand the test time!
I really like the portraits. What's missing, is the flower for Obama's mother? How could that be missed?
These portraits are very disappointing, to say the least.
The President has been diminished by setting, positioning, and scale. The background is lovely, but overwhelming and brought too far into the foreground. His "manspreading" position is undignified. His head is too small, and his hands disproportionately large. This is a man who stands out among men, and nothing about this painting depicts that.
The First Lady's portrait is a total travesty. Mrs. Obama's bubbling personality and great beauty is virtually nonexistent in that painting of a dress. Why is she depicted as a mere shadow?
They both deserve a do-over.
9
I love that the Obamas were open to a fresh perspective for their NG portraits and chose young, African American artists to paint them. Obama's portrait is vividly unique but the First Lady's really doesn't do her beauty and strength justice. Her likeness looks completely anonymous and conveys no personality whatsoever. A wasted opportunity.
89
>I love that the Obamas were open to a fresh perspective for their NG portraits and chose young, African American artists to paint them
I know! Thank GOD they chose the artists based on their age and skin color rather than their skill sets and content of character! So progressive!
7
There's always photoshop to bring the photos closer to what you had hoped for!
1
you people in the beltway , need to crack the bubble and let in some fresh air . I could have done better with crayons . I still say, stare at president Obama's portrait , and you'll little fish swimming by. I don't even know, how anyone could tell that. that is michelle Obama ? I don't think , I would like portraits like that , hanging for eternity with my name on them .
What a shame. Neither piece is acceptable. You'd expect a portrait to actually resemble the person depicted, and while the president's does--unflatteringly--his wife's does not. That face does not look like the Michelle Obama I saw countless times in the media for over a decade. The artist seems to have spent her creative energy on the dress, and forgotten her lessons in background, if she had any.
The president is literally planted in overgrowth that is starting to overtake his body--see both his feet. That suggests stasis and immovability, but the garden party silliness of the random blooms reminds me of the unicorn suggestions during his first campaign and year or so of his first term. (See JibJab's "Time for Some Campaignin'.")
Hard to believe we're supposed to take these two send-ups seriously.
6
I agree with Holland Cotter and many readers that the portraits are lacking, perhaps because I hold both the President and FLOTUS in such high esteem. In neither portrait is their intelligence and intellectual curiosity, their energy and their joie de vivre, as well as any hint of strength of character, which both possess in extraordinary measure. Mrs. Obama's natural beauty as well as her strength is completely missing. I agree with Holland Cotter: the person in the portrait could be any cover girl. Such a shame - the Obamas deserve the very best. I fear neither received that in these well-intentioned portraits.
4
I love the Obamas but hate these portraits! As a Masters Degree artist myself (RISD w/honors) who has done portraits all her life, I find these, while somewhat skillful in technique, vapid in meaning and totally unreflective of the Obamas. Mrs. Obama's does not even look like her nor express her generous and thoughtful nature, and the cold color choices are poor for such a vivid personality. She is more than clothes!--which detract from her by the way they were rendered. What is Pres. Obama doing lost in vines? While the likeness is there in his image, the surround is ridiculous--so not reflective of his personality! Unless he is passionate about flowers, why choose to arbitrarily make them symbols of various aspects of his life? Nothing about these portraits is appropriate!
155
It is rare one finds an artist so critical of another artist's work. That said, it's good to disagree with one who feels that way.
1
I agree! Atrocious!
5
Agree 100%. I too love Obama's but find both portraits inappropriate. Michelle's dress is awful.
1
I’ve seen all of the presidential portraits. Most of them aren’t really art.
I disagree with Cotter about Clinton’s portrait. You can like it or not like it, but to me it’s brilliant, it is art commenting on politics, and it’s gorgeous.
The Obama portraits; they make me weep with their beauty and power. I can’t wait to see them in person.
And YES, please, IF a president has a significant other, put their portrait next to the president’s. Seriously. That’s a no-brainer.
5
Commissions are not easy. As an artist myself I find them challenging as the pressure "to please" often outweighs the joy of making the work. Sometimes the personal connection to the artist is just as important, if not more, than the actual work itself. It was clear President Obama felt an emotional connection to Mr. Wiley's heart warming life story that paralleled his own. I was touched by his story of becoming an artist and his mother's influence which he tearfully honored at the end of the ceremony. The artist also thanked Mr. Obama “for giving me a chance” and “for giving this nation a chance to experience your splendor.” We're making progress. Bravo!
3
I totally understand your perspective, because I am doing a portrait commission right now, And struggling with the very same issues you mention! I also thought to myself about the personal connection the Obamas had with each artist, and that was obviously important here, as you write. Thanks! This is a fascinating synchronicity to my day of painting!
1
Modern and mold-breaking, just like the Obamas. How far we have caused our country to regress in such a short time!
These portraits make me feel so sad.
6
I find both depictions to be a great disappointment.
I suggest an immediate do-over - especially for Michelle.
Her expression/portrait is NOT cool. It is cold ..... and she was far from that in every regard.
4
Barack - seated on a colonial-era chair - a nod to the constitutional attorney background. However rather than sitting - he's seated on the leading edge of the chair - intent, observing, ready to move forward. Hands crossed - satisfied with what he's done.
Michele - poised, confident, listening - a thoroughly modern woman and mother - clearly at ease in who she is. She's reflective - but alert - and like her husband's portrait - inwardly intent - not just a casual observer.
The ivy - America's abundance surrounding the former President. The unique flowers - not dominating but representative of the small seeds that we all have as part of the larger background.
Michele's background - the shattering of the glass ceiling where the sky is the only limit. Empowering.
These pieces are fine examples of descriptive art and are deserving of a place, but I’m not sure that place is the Portrait Gallery.
1
You missed the important point of the design of Mrs. Obama’s dress. In her speech at the unvailing of the portrait, the artist Amy Sherald shared that she was inspired by the quilts of Gee’s Bend. There is much to learn from these quilts and the African American women who made them. An article about Gee’s Bend, its people, political history, the quilts would be an interesting contribution to the NYT. Understanding the connection between the quilters and Mrs. Obama’s portrait dress adds to the interest and meaning of the portrait. (There are many interesting articles about Gee’s Bend readily available online.)
5
I am OK with the backgrounds and the style of painting, but not with the faces I think an official portrait should do more than vaguely resemble its subject's face. This especially true of Michelle, who is much more vibrant than the portrait suggests.
11
agree. Michelle's face looks no more expressive than a vogue model. not at all like the smart, loving and assertive woman I believe she is.
5
Politically, I am no fan of the Obamas, but I think Michelle's portrait does not do her justice.
The President's portrait allows the foliage to overwhelm him; this was the most important and powerful man in the world, but those aspects of his character are lost.
9
I agree with the commenters who say the first lady's painting doesn't bear a striking resemblance to her. It's much more impressionistic, and puts me in mind of a tarot card, possible one that represents water offset by the contrasting colors of the dress grounding it in history and this current era of redefining our mythologies about race and gender. One could assert that this isn't a particularly soft, feminine look either. However, Michelle Obama's comment about the lack of resemblance to her individual features also resonated with me: that any number of African-American girls can look at this and see themselves, or at least the potential of themselves looking back at them. That I think is just as important, if not moreso, for those who don't want this African-American First Lady to also be the Last one we have.
I'm a portrait painter my self and have studied this almost all of my life. While I appreciate the design aspects of Mrs. Obama's painting, I have some problems with the pallet of colors the painter used in this portrait. First of all the skin tones on the First Lady are way too cool, almost gray, not the warm tones I see in her face. Second the background color light blue does not work with the flesh tones. It gives the overall tonality of the painting a cool detached presentation. While I find Mrs. Obama a warm inviting and inclusive person. This painting misses her completely.
11
The two paintings are both a nod to traditional formal portraiture as well as to the particular and distinct style of the two artists who painted them. The nod to traditional portraiture comes, with Mr. Obama, in the seated posture, the antique chair, and the formal attire. The symbolic, lush background is typical of the artist's style--rather than an office or institutional setting, we are presented with lush greenery representing the sitter's personal background, not his job. In contrast to formal male portraiture, which has always described the sitter's job, female portraiture has focused on her beauty and status, and the dress has always been front and center. In this case, the skin color may not be warm like Mr. Obama's, and the execution not as detailed and realistic, but that interpretation reflects the artist's style more than anything else. In both portraits there is a blend of realism and symbolism.
2
Just more of Wiley's shtick. It would be more appropriate as a magazine illustration.
10
A thousand comments yields a thousand different interpretations of what one person tried to convey. You gotta love art.
22
Let's be honest, the painting of Mrs. Obama is terrible. If not presented at a world-wide unveiling, most people would not have recognized who the portrait is. In addition, it looks as though her left arm is as long as her leg.
18
The portraits look like they are from the 21st century, they are fresh and with a different point of view, that hated word 'multicultural'; not eurocentric style from 200-400 years ago.
80
It wasn't sufficient for the Obamas to be the first African Americans to have their portraits commissioned and completed in their roles as President and First Lady. It seems the choice of artists would ensure that their likenesses would forever scream...."look at me....see how different I am...". The racial tension that was sewn in the White House 2009-2017 is now ensured to live on wherever these portraits hang....a fitting legacy.
5
How different your perspective is from mine! All during those eight years my white self was convinced the racial tension was coming not from the Obamas but from all the scared white people insisting that racial tension was being sewn in the White House, which they seemed to insist truly be white.
I still wish to think Keats was right: Truth and Beauty are one and locked into the historic tableaux painted onto the ceramic urns meant to carry the ashes of our past. Sadly, in the last year when truth is claimed as falsehood by those spreading falsehoods and the vile and ugly claimed as beauty by those who act in vile ways and claim gold leafed rooms and fake Renoirs as beauty, Keats must have been wrong. Cold pastoral and still unravished brides of quietness indeed!
1
His looks like a Beatles' album cover, hers a van Gogh south seas islander.
6
The Beatles' album covers were much more artistic than this awful "portrait" of President Obama. Also, I think you mean Gauguin. He painted South Sea islanders---but much more colorfully than this dreadful, dull "portrait" of Michelle Obama.
2
You gotta be kiddin, this is the official portraits? What, have we lost our pride?
3
Yes, when the country elected Draft Dodging Donnie to be President. His first year in office demonstrates that our pride is in the gutter - along with Donnie's thinking.
10
Love the portrait of President Obama, but how about a flower representing his amazing mother, who raised and provided for him, and not just one for the father he barely knew? Yes, he was born in Hawaii (an explanation that seems to omit the person who gave him birth--this wasn't an independent event, I'm thinking!) but she was from Iowa, right?
Mrs. Obama's portrait puzzles me. I realize she chose to be painted by an artist who paints everyone with gray skin, instead of one who would paint her with her own lovely skin tone, but the likeness is poor apart from that, and she plays second fiddle to a dress. This is not what I would have expected from such a warm, brilliant, vibrant lawyer, executive, mother and fascinating person in her own right.
19
President Obama's mother was from Kansas.
1
Maybe the National Portrait Gallery should expand their arrangements to all portraits of First Ladies to be hung by their President husbands. After all they were an intricate part of the story. Many had direct influence on their husbands policies. And all of them were involved in their husbands elections.
Time to honor these women equally.
8
Love the picture of President Obama, though it should include sunflowers, the Kansas state flower, in honor of his mom who raised him.
10
Detached and angry is Obama's portrait. The other one I have not identified. Just thought a portrait was supposed to look like the person. Did not do Michelle justice. Poorly done
5
Barack's portrait looks like him and shows his serious, thoughtful, intelligent side. It's a well-rendered portrait. I appreciate modern art, but why does he have to be sitting inside a huge shrub?
Michelle's portrait does not look like her and has nothing to do with her. It's all about the dress. The woman in that painting is younger than Michelle, has no expression on her face, no thoughts in her head, no history. She's pretty and bland and signifies nothing. Terrible.
12
I think Michelle's portrait is all about the dress, not her. Her face doesn't look like her. I don't know why a portrait artist would not have a better likeness.
11
My question is: will Donny and Mellie be enshrined if he is dismissed?
3
Why is Obama shown with six fingers on his left hand? Is it intended as a metaphor of some sort?
1
No, it's just bad art.
2
These for me these portray and personify the Obama legacy. He and Michelle offered 'Change' not to make America great because it already was but to move us into the 21st. Their gift was for the next generation, our grandchildren. It was not about the Obama's but everything that surrounds them...the world we live in.
John Singer Sargeant was one of the world's greatest portrait artists of the great and famous of his time. But, the Obama portraits offer a much more liberal interpretation of the world we live in today. Enpowerment does not go to the sitter but to all that surrounds them. For me, these portraits represent a total freedom to the viewer.
2
I love both these portraits. I think the rendering of Mrs. Obama captures her determination and strength, while the portrait of President Obama reminds me of why he was such a great president: his intelligence and compassion seem to shine through. The gown Mrs. Obama wears is beautiful and is as suggestive of her journey as the greenery that forms the background of President Obama's portrait suggests his.
5
The students at the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts will be thrilled today as Kehinde Wiley is an alumnus. Serving all of LA County, students audition for entry. Many would not have access to the arts without this school. How exciting to see these portraits offer an example of how important an arts education is to these students.
5
The dominance of green in the presidential portrait also evokes compassion and open-heartedness... A quality sadly lacking in our current political leadership.
9
I admire the Obamas very much, and am grateful to them. I find the portraits interesting as art, but disappointing.
6
The portraits make me wistful for the Obamas. The one of President Obama is striking! I am still processing the other one of Mrs. Obama. I hope it will grow on me but the Michelle in that flowing designer gown seems to over emphasize the haute couture aspect and does not fully capture her essence and her many accomplishments (some at-the-top-of-my-mind examples: “Let’s Move”, school lunch program, WH vegetable garden, that brilliant, inspiring speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention...) Regardless, I hope to see the actual portraits soon.
14
Art, good art, should make you look and see maybe think.
I like the serious expression on Obama's face and the way he leans toward you. He's portrayed as a thinking man, perhaps at work, intensely engaged, questioning. His hands, as many have pointed out are proportionally large, surely a choice on the artist's part, basketball player's hands, perhaps a subtle taunt thrown out to his successor who's been known to be a tad sensitive about the size of his own--er hands. The ivy looks like it's starting to engulf him as it has the flowers.
Symbolic of the tendrils of corruption and inertia that he tried to struggle against as president? A plain dark background would have been more effective in my opinion in portraying the president's personality, but this was the artist, and I suppose the subject's choice.
A subtle joke perhaps?
Michelle looks angry--as if she's saying to the artist--you're going to do WHAT! Or she's impatient with something. It's a much harder painting to get into for me and maybe that's the idea.
7
As the old saw goes, "I don't know much about art. but I know what I like." The portrait of President Obama looks just like him, and I like it. The portrait of his wife, Michelle, looks like somebody else. Hey, I told you I didn't know about art, but really, shouldn't a portrait look like the person supposedly portrayed?
15
Yes!
The portrait of Mrs Obama reminds me of that awful statue of Martin Luther King, the one that doesn't look like him at all
1
i see a captured moment on canvas of two remarkable African-Americans; one the President of the United States and the other the First Lady of the United States. As the former FLOTUS said in her speech yesterday, these portraits will remind African-American kids of what they can accomplish. Isn't it all about passing the baton to the next generation?
7
It's a nice portrait of the president, but the hair looks oddly thick and flowing on top. He always had very close-cropped hair.
4
A genuine observation, and yet President Obama is portrayed in a state of continuing growing and rejuvenation, blending in with the revival of Nature in new Spring and its wonders.
Some of the adverse reactions recall the story of the two men viewing a Matisse of an anonymous subject.
"What a terrible thing to do to a beautiful woman!"
"Yet you know she was beautiful."
15
My titles for the paintings: (a) Former President Surrounded by Butterflies (alternately, Former President Using the John in a Garden); and (2) Black Figure Tending to Ashen Gray Submerged in Sea of White and Periwinkle Blue (alternately, All of This Musing Is Hurting My Neck – Good Thing I've Got This Hand to Hold My Head Up). What were the Obamas thinking?
9
Maybe they wanted something different? Not every portrait has to look 100 years old.
41
JFK and Clinton's pictures are modern rather than traditional, although I don't particularly like either of them. I like Barack Obama's picture, but Michelle's is unidentifiable - more like a generic cartoon face than anything personalized.
It's not greenery, poison ivy, Virginia creeper, ferns, ground cover, weeds, pot, a bush, etc. --- it's rose foliage, probably because the American Beauty rose is the official flower of Washington, D.C.. It's even got little red rose buds in it.
4
I very much like the Obamas. I do not like these portraits. At all.
4
Great portraits, reminding me that I miss them both.
3
Wiley's presidential portrait of Mr. Obama is as much a departure as that president. I like it in that it shows us an approachable man, willing to meet us on our level, to see us and listen to us. At least, that is how always felt during those years, even when I thought him naive in his belief that the Republicans in Congress were anything other than the opposition party or would listen to their "better angels". Sheralds portrait of Mrs. Obama is disappointing. It does not look like her and the focus is on the dress rather than the woman. Why was such a warm, relatable, smart and beautiful woman portrayed in grey?
9
Both paintings are so disappointing. How much we love these two beautiful people and how not like them these portraits are. I wish I hadn't seen them. I like Wiley's foliage around Mr. Obama. The painting of Mrs. Obama is so unlike her, it's like the artist wishes to be someone else, which is so not what those who admire her so much want!
3
"How much we love these beautiful people..."
We?!
They are corporate neoliberals, loving the limelight and power-- and expensive fashion; he presiding over an expansion of the Security State spying on Americans; drone attacks on civilians; expanding overseas wars; failing to address racial inequalities; imposing test-driven misguided accountability on schools; pushing charter schools; pushing a health care reform package built across private interests; bailing out the banks yet failing to prosecute a single banker for their malfeasance and the economic meltdown; etc.
For sure, Obama is far better than Trump in almost every way, but let's not let our nostalgia blind us to their faults and the very major damage he caused.
1
If asked who was the woman in white portrayed in this art work, it would take this viewer less than two seconds to recognize Michelle Obama. Let us remove the smoke from our eyes.
When I look at them on this site my reaction is "meh" but when I saw them on the news from my high def flat screen television where the colors "exploded" I got a true view and I think both of them are wonderful. And I love what President Obama said when he talked about "negotiating" with the artist. He said "the ears could be smaller." And Mrs. Obama's portrait is perfect. She looks so elegant and beautiful. God, I miss both of them!
9
I like the portrait of Mr. Obama very much. He was a great and thoughtful President. I like the portrait of Mrs. Obama less as it is so different than other portraits before hers. I miss them both and long for the days of their steady dignity and personal approach that all people mattered.
6
BLaaaaaaaaaa... it just needs some cropping....
I think marijuana leaves would've been more telling and poignant.
4
Both portraits, particularly Mrs. Obama's, portray frowning leaders which is unjust as they emanated rays of sunshine from the White House every day for 8 years.
8
African textiles, Gees Bend, Underground Railroad. Perfect.
1
Yes, but the former First Lady is much more than a symbol, she is a real woman with huge modern-day accomplishments and personality. A portrait should highlight the human being wearing the dress more than the dress itself.
4
All three species of flowers surrounding the former President are non-native to North America, while he sits in a pose, a mockery of Lincoln's.
This is the best possible representation of his presidency: A humorless, judging demagogue, surrounded by foreign ideas.
10
A humorless demagogue? He drew a lot of laughs on Dave Letterman's new show; showing what a wry wit he can be and without malice. Astute and with cool humor with a smile in his eyes, he nearly turned the tables on Letterman. Priceless!
1
I'm of two minds. On one side, I can appreciate the likely intent of breaking the traditional approach to portraiture, given the historic nature of Obama's election and presidency. Let the medium reflect the message. On the other, there is execution of the work. Wiley's portrait is what you would call his signature if you fancy his work, and his gimmick if you don't. I'm less familiar with Sherman's work, so I can't speak to her overall style. That said, even taking this stylistic approach to the portrait of Ms. Obama into consideration, Sherman just missed the mark. It is less Ms. Obama in figure and face and more an everywoman, which would be suitable in another context but not this. Great painters do two things: they represent their subject well while also announcing their own unique vision. Wiley seems to do this much better: you know it's Obama and you know it's Wiley. If Sherman's were unveiled anywhere but in its context, without any other clue, you might say what a lovely portrait. Who was the model?
5
Why does Obama have 6 fingers on his left hand? I know his thumb isn't showing, but it looks like his pinky finger is tucked under another pinky fingers. I agree - that's not a likeness of Michelle, except her arms.
3
OMG 6 fingers!
The President Obama portrait looks crisp real looks as though he could walk off the canovas" Michell’s on the other hand reminds me of a half way carpenter with caulking makes him what he ant, more like cartoon.
"Few people know how to see, to see well, to see fully." ~ PIERE BONNARD
The colour 'flesh' is not 'copper' or 'gray' but an explosion, especially in dark skin tones.
• http://www.atelier-rc.com/Heads/053Valentine.jpg
• http://www.atelier-rc.com/Heads/027T.Browne-Osborne.jpg
"Oil paint was made for depicting flesh." - WILLEM DE KOONING
Even Obama's is colour-flat, monochromatic at best, vs. Michelle's which is colour-less.
"There are myriads of tiny tints. I must find the ones that will make the flesh on my canvas live and quiver." - PIERRE-AUGUSTE RENOIR
They are BOTH cartoonish, as if official portraits were fun and games for children. Official portraits are produced for generations to come, not to satisfy the PC of the moment. Substance, colour and form have all definitely been sacrificed in both.
I hope these are both kept at home as personal mementos, not for public viewing at the National Portrait Gallery.
1
I loved the "informality" of both portraits and the departure from the stilted traditional approach. As to the artists' perceptions and interpretations? I would have preferred Michelle put forward in the beautiful shades of brown that are so rich and warm and allow the vibrant energy shine with luminance that so represented her. As to the President...I wish the artist had payed more attention to the slope of his eyebrows and the distance they are from his eyes. As the portraiture more resembled photography, I would have liked to have seen the representation embody his lofty dignity rather than the expression that seems almost angry.
End note...art is art, and if we want exactness, then we have all the wonderful technology of modern day photography.
6
With eyes concerned, awake and reflective, a quiet, yet powerful portrayal of a brilliant match. Mr. Obama placed in Nature with his elegant hands at rest, he sends a message to our Planet. His Lady, Michelle, emanates grace and strength, remaining cool in the most adverse of times.
A feat on the part of the artist Kehinde Wiley, and food for the soul at a time much needed for many Americans.
5
They are both beautiful. After gazing at Michele's it does look like her, but in an unexpected way. Both represent the unique nature of their time as our leaders.
8
They are lovely portraits.
6
I personally think the Kehinde Wiley painting is garish and incredibly un-presidential. Why can't the portraits just be classical? The portraits were obviously intended to cause a stir, but I simply find it disgraceful that presidential portraits are a pair of contemporary mishaps. The First Lady's portrait hardly looks like her, so they might have unveiled a Jackson Pollock.
8
I don't dislike the Michelle Obama portrait, but of whom is it a portrait? Shouldn't she be identified?
8
Now I get it. I googled Amy Sherald's other paintings and now I understand Michelle's portrait and I understand why Mrs Obama chose this artist. I still don't love her portrait though; it seems more a painting of a dress to me but in the context of Amy Sherald's body of work I can appreciate it.
The choice of these modern portraits feels very Kennedyesque to me. As I looked through all the past presidential portraits, I was struck by how 'of the moment' JFK's is and it reflects his and Jackie's appreciation of the arts at that time. I think in the years to come, these portraits will stand out as a representation of the energy and vibrancy that the Obamas brought into the White House.
The Obama portraits are intriguing and have created a national conversation about art...imagine; we're talking about art today. What a refreshing, desperately needed change of topic!
7
On first glance I thought the portrait didn't look like Michelle Obama, but upon further study I think it's a good likeness. I really enjoy how Ms. Sherald used Renaissance elements in the portrait yet created a vibrant contemporary painting.
Both portraits are excellent works and I hope to see them in person one day. Judging from their size, they will easily command the viewer's attention, creating a sense of immediacy and intimacy.
6
President Obama’s is more pleasing especially after I read the artist intention. But Michelle’s? This is a portrait of a dress not one of our beautiful, strong, intelligent and beloved First Lady.
8
Tremendously uncomplimentary. His body is oddly truncated on the chair. Her face...looks like some random 30 year old sat for the torso part, and he then forgot to put in the FL’s face.
7
Too bad John Singer Sargent is no longer around. Even though Obama would not rate his talent.
4
Look out Mr. Obama, you're standing in poison ivy!
2
A great portrait doesn’t need a fancy dress or a symbolic background. It observes the head and features so closely and with such consummate skill that it captures the likeness, and then, if grace, will, and a little bit of luck are joined, the miracle of character and even soul emerges. Rembrandt’s self portrait at the National Gallery down on the mall sets the standard. Neither of these paintings rises to that level, and yet—they are fun pieces that fit the populist air of the National Portrait Gallery and capture the first couple in our shiny, strange postmodern moment. Now if we can just convince Jeff Koons to follow up with a one hundred foot plastic odalisque of Trump.
5
The problem with the Michele Obama portrait is that it doesn't look like her!! Does it? If I didn't know who it was supposed to portray, I would never guess it. I love the strangeness and uniqueness of the President's portrait. And Lord, I wish he were still President!
22
While I find POTUS's portrait engaging enough, that of FLOTUS seems all about the dress (and nails!) and hardly any of the likeness. In the rendering of the face, you can barely make out that it's Michelle Obama. And the two portraits just don't fit easily with each other, ironic considering how exemplary the Obamas were as a first couple who were devoted to each other.
11
One complements the other, while retaining their own nature.
I'm agnostic on the portraits.
I'm hurt and offended by the choice of Mr Obama's artist, a man who glorifies/fantasizes a beheading. Nothing good comes of depicting a beheading, no matter who the "heroine" or the victim, and when racial overtones are added, the commissioner of the painting can now, justifiably, be called complicit in the artist's earlier works.
I think the president and art community is ignoring the elephant in the room, the right will look at the beheading paintings and rightly say we have double standards.
6
I think Mrs. Obama is such a beautiful, cultured, strong woman. I'm sure the artist's intent is to capture this, but for me, it does not. I do not think the portrait does her justice.
13
Unfortunately, the portraits are a miss.
They do not do President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama justice. The President and First Lady brought an incredible mix of intelligence and street smarts, ivy league style and Chicago grit. They became icons representing the best of American style.
In contrast, these paintings look like folk art paintings. He looks like a retired gardener, cornered on a chair and she is drowning in fabric. Barack Obama was never cornered and Michelle Obama was never drowning. In fact, their personal grace and elegance is completely absent.
Had the artists not been chosen by the Obamas, these portraits would have been considered an insult to the Obama legacy. Perhaps the folk art style was meant to be some kind of thought provoking exercise as in Sesame Street: "Which one of these is not like the other ones?"
Sad really. Both for the Obamas and the National Gallery.
12
These are great magazine covers. When will their portraits be done?
19
These portraits are beautiful and, as importantly, will gnaw at our not-so-closet racists. So I love them.
18
Interesting modern portraits. Unfortunately, Michelle Obama’s looks nothing like her. The caricature artists outside the Met could have done a better job.
11
Hideous...a grade schooler could do a better portrait
5
I really love them both. I especially love Michelle's.
9
Sorry, I don't like them. She looks like a wax figure. Mr. Obama's picture has that "My Buddy" feel. Not Presidential at all. Hopefully there will be more inspirational photos soon.
3
The background for Obama is cheezy deluxe! I never knew Obama had five Fingers ! Not sure if he also has a thumb or not ?
That other painting is of somebody but not Michelle Obama. Looks like a high school art class painting .Very fitting for a president everyone fawned over without him every accomplishing anything .
Perfect and fitting indeed
3
Did Renoir paint these?
A bit anachronistic, but that’s what it looks like.
There is nothing about either portrait that resembles Renoir. Not the colors, the brushstrokes...nothing.
3
No painted young girls here carrying a garden can, and Mr. and Mrs. Obama are not depicted as Monet water-lilies either. A portrait of a union, while maintaining one's unique personality.
1
My first reaction at seeing Mrs. Obama’s portrait was negative; it doesn’t convey her majesty. Frankly, I don’t know what the artist had in mind.
When I see President Obama’s portait, it projects earnestness and heat. Overall, it’s a better effort
7
I have so enjoyed reading the comments today. These portraits have accomplished what art does best: to provoke. As with the subjects, it seems no one is on the fence. It’s subtle, but rarely since Lincoln has the weight of the office so laden the eyes of our chief magistrate as he looks to the future knowing just how difficult is, and has always been, the task of leading this fractious Republic forward.
13
Placed side-by-side like this, we see a married couple (Obama, Earth- Michelle, Sky) very much in love with each other. Note the wedding bands. Is it my imagination or do not the President’s left hand and the First Lady’s right hand seem to reach for each other across space and time?
6
The Obama Portraits are a disgrace. They lend no dignity, inner grace, beauty or intelligence to the Obamas. President Obama looks like he is lost in a botanical garden with the plants eager to devour him. His posture is almost slovenly, not dignified. Michelle’s portrait looks like a high school art project. Painting a portrait is both a grueling and uplifting process where you try to capture the inner soul of your subject. The artists have failed miserably.
12
The Emperor has no clothes!
7
this is about the Obamas, not the current White House occupant.
3
The Obama haters have plenty of nasty remarks I'm sure. Myself I like them, but I like Barrack's more.
4
Obama portraits are weird and strange. Fitting for them. But about as unpresidential as one can get.
4
As a portrait artist, I see this as amateurish. Note the intense light on the left temple and yet the ear anatomy is so dark. No light reflecting off the left ear. Yet, the right ear is lit up. So seems sounnatural. Seems as if multiple light sources bleached out his real essence. And to hunker him and bed him in poison ivy, well, is just so disrespectful. He should appear proud, confident, erect and looking upward like an optimist does.
7
I guess that is why it is called art, I suppose.
2
Call me a grouchy old lady, but these portaits are awful. What a disappointing representation of two lovely, impressive individuals. Future generations will look and wonder what was wrong with the first lady that she was such a strange color and why the president, who was hardly known for his love of horticulture, is sitting in a patch of weeds..
12
I suppose there is no accounting for taste but I would not be happy if I were the Obamas. President Obamas hands appear to be intentionally overstated in size and the background lacks seriousness of a presidential portrait. Worse is Mrs Obama. Where is the beautiful smile she brought to the White house and why is she not black?
9
My comment is with the words in the article. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were “slaveholders”. So sanitary, it’s like they were holding the slaves comforting them. Please stop trying to make the past and these men sound not so bad. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were “ slave owners”.
10
The First Lady of The United States, Michelle Obama must have a soft spot for primitive, interpretive art. The effort of the artist, Ms. Sherald, is not a representative likeness.
3
Why does he have five fingers on his left hand and not counting a thumb?
4
Well sadly they are not very good especially the poor draftsmanship of Obama's hands they are clearly out of wack in relation to the rest of his torso. The first ladies portrait grey skin, really looks like a rendering of the dead.
I know it is not political correct to be critical but bad rendering is just that.
12
I have to admit I was horrified by Mrs. Obama's portrait. A vital, smart, vigorous woman portrayed with gray [gray?] skin and overwhelmed by a flashy, rather cheesy dress. Insulting!
7
I loved the dress -- the striking variations in the pattern; the neckline and the exposed arms that echo the outfit she worn for her official first lady photograph, the one that caused such (faux?) outrage and contoversy. I remember that discussion went on for weeks; Karen Findley did a wonderful performance about it. The painting alludes to the many things that were projected onto Michelle Obama as well as representing the woman herself -- who to me seems very much present, thoughtful and strong, in this portrait. I suspect the painting is full of detail in tone and shading that don't translate that well in a photograph.
They are interesting but they look like the type of painting done by those artists at farmer's markets and state fairs who usually make a quick likeness -- only in this instance colorized. I'm sorry -- you can't exhibit "gravitas" sitting on a chair in a bunch of leaves. I like the picture of the First Lady, but it looks like a magazine cover. Of course, the paintings should be exhibited together on the second floor -- they were a team (all the first ladies should up there as well).
4
These portraits could be two stick figures and the rabid Obama fans, who I fall just short of, would be commenting: ‘The lopsided circle that represents Barack’s head perfectly captures his historic struggle with an obstinate congress.’ Or, ‘The single line slashed across Michelle’s upper torso manages to combine both the famous tonality of her arms along with a shadow of Sasha’s playfulness on Inauguration Day.’ Or, ‘The inverted V that composes the former president’s legs is clearly a code for the victory that his tenure became.’
6
Obama's portrait is terrific, Michelle's I don't like as much. Seems very pale and lifeless next to the electric colours of the Wiley. Pity the same artist didn't do both. Can't wait to see Trump's... can you imagine?
4
Controversially conversation starters, yes -- but did anyone notice that Michelle's head is proportionally too small and Barack's hands are proportionally too big?
4
These portraits are horrible. What has happened to the arts? I guess it's fitting though, horrible portraits of a horrible time in America's history.
5
Sorry, but this portrait does not resemble Ms.Obama. It's more dress than person.
9
These are fine. They’re neither Rockwell, nor Dali or Picasso, but that will more than do.
What they do invoke well is the recent passing of a bygone era, when the White House housed “guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times; before the Empire....” –OWK, “SW:ANH” (1977)
1
Gilbert Stuart would be rolling over in his grave. These portraits of the Obamas are so flat and lifeless.
4
These are awful. President Obama looks like he took a dip in the White and East Asian pools and the person to the right of him is not the former first lady.
2
I like these as art, but as official portraits, they are tasteless and inappropriate.
Imagine a future president putting that portrait of Obama in the Oval Office next to a portrait of Jefferson or Lincoln.
Just doesn't work, does it; Obama's portrait was made without regard for gravitas, or the aesthetic of the other portraits in the White House.
6
Dear Mr. And Mrs. Obama.
Can you please come back? Michelle is who we need in the White House.
8
The picture of Mrs. Obama does not really look like her
4
Apparently, everyone is a critic.
8
Great guy, not a great president......
1
As opposed to the bad guy and bad president who we have currently?
8
What could be a more appropriate memorial to President Obama's era than for him to have hired a portrait painter who outsources most of the painting part of his job to low paid "assistants" in Beijing ... From NY Mag in 2012:
"There’s nothing new about artists using assistants—everyone from Michelangelo to Jeff Koons has employed teams of helpers, with varying degrees of irony and pride—but [Kehinde] Wiley gets uncomfortable discussing the subject. “I’m sensitive to it,” he says. When I first arrived at his Beijing studio, the assistants had left, and he made me delete the iPhone snapshots I’d taken of the empty space. It’s not that he wants people to believe every brushstroke is his, he says. That they aren’t is public knowledge. It’s just a question of boundaries. “I don’t want you to know every aspect of where my hand starts and ends, or how many layers go underneath the skin, or how I got that glow to happen,” he says. “It’s the secret sauce! Get out of my kitchen!”
"Producing work in China cuts costs, but not as much as it used to, Wiley says. These days in Beijing he employs anywhere from four to ten workers, depending on the urgency, plus a studio manager, the American artist Ain Cocke. …"
http://www.unz.com/isteve/obamas-portraitist-outsources-the-painting-par...
12
That dress would have sent a "Project Runway" contestant home
4
What is that on the right side of barrack’s forehead? A giant vein??
2
The man looks more like Joe Biden than Barack Obama. The woman is absolutely not Michelle Obama, more "generic black woman." I hope both Obamas give these portraits a big thumbs-down.
1
The President's is beautiful! The First Lady's, amateurish. Looks like it was painted by the lady who tried to "restore" that Ecce Homo fresco in Spain - (yes, you know the one I mean!)
2
Who is that woman in "Portrait of Michelle Obama"?
5
Imagine if they had been painted by artists ! The Obamas are good looking people. These “paintings” are rubbish. Do over !
2
As Lyndon Johnson said when he saw his portrait, "That's the ugliest thing I ever saw." Both Obamas can say the same thing. These pictures are awful. Especially the one of Michelle Obama. That could be anyone.
5
The Obama portrait looks like a bad Time cover illustration.
8
Did anyone pay attention to the left hand of Barack Obama? Based on the knuckles, it appears his pinky finger is tucked under his hand. Then there are four long fingers with the thumb apparently tucked under his hand. Wiley appears to have drawn Barack with an additional finger.
Not suitable for the Smithsonian Exhibit. The plant background is cheesy enough, but Obama deserves better than a lifetime of ridicule for that extra finger.
6
No, pinky is next to his ring finger. There is no extra finger!
1
Look at the knuckles. It shows 5 finger knuckles.
The portrait of Barrack Hussien Obama is very good, nearly photographic, but I can't say the same about the one of Michelle Obama. I guess it will have to do.
1
Michelle is everything Melania wants to be and never will be. Melania no doubt will covet this portrait and crib for her own, just like the speech.
5
I think that if a white artist had painted this portrait of Mr. Obama, he would have been accused of situating our first black president in a jungle.
4
Horrid portrait of our legendary President Obama! Why show him sitting as on a toilet, with his arms crossed in negative stance, and with a glower? Reminds me of the glowering, menacing Chinese sculpture of MLK in DC. Terrible!!! (By the way I am degreed in Fine Arts.)
3
Geeez! These are as bad as Ronaldo’s bust.
1
Both portraits look like they should be put on display in the Little Shop of Horrors. The vegetation is swallowing up Obama, and Michelle looks like her dress has covered her over.
2
What about that 6th finger ?
2
Looks like the emporer and empress got some new clothes
3
Let's be honest. You would have found penciled stick figures something the marvel at as long as it was the Obamas. Oh, and especially if the 'artists' were African Americans.
3
Am I the only one who is appalled by a painting that shows former President Barack Obama with his legs spread wide open as if he were manspreading on the Metro?
3
Both of these are wonderful paintings, but both of these are not necessarily wonderful portraits. A portrait will highlight the person with the background generally being less important than the foreground. In both of these portraits both figure and ground are equal. The foliage is painted in such a way as to overtake Mr. Obama as he floats in a sea of leaves and flowers. This is consistent with Mr. Wiley's work, and his style also has the quality you get when you enlist a group of hired Chinese artists to do much of the background painting. Ms. Sherald's also creates a space where the background is equal to the foreground which is indicative of modern and abstract painting. I think these were wonderful artists to choose for the portraiture. Both artists have created modern portraits. But in doing so have revealed that in contemporary painting the portrait is not as important as the painting or the idea of the painting. The actual art of portraiture has fallen away much like the leaves in Mr. Obama's painting.
7
If anybody’s frowning it’s Michelle.
1
Kehinde Wiley. How cool is this guy?
3
Why is Obama sitting in poison ivy?
1
Egads! Is that a loosey goosey pot patch behind him? How about a more dignified setting. And poor Michelle looks like she was pulled through an ash tray and then clothed in a death shroud.
3
The President's portrait, with all the greenery, brought to mind that moment when he, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and a Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley had a beer together in an area just outside the rose garden. It came after an exasperating series of events which began with Gates' arrest after being taken as a burglar in his own house by Crowley. One of this president's most famous comments - "what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart" - was exemplified by this "beer summit." The fact that Gates later discovered a common ancestor with Crowley makes that point even stronger. Barack Obama did many things during his White House years, but that simple act, demonstrating the need for us to come together as a people, may be his most noteworthy.
7
A refreshing and bold choice of artists. A reminder of what it felt like to have a couple in charge who were dignified and confident enough to be originals in the best way possible.
15
These are really making me think. I have conflicting emotions and, in that sense, the portraits are real art I think, more than just a portrait conveying a great leader how he wishes to be remembered.
9
Wonderful and thoughtful portraits of wonderful and thoughtful people. Hopefully these portraits will serve as a reminder of what we as a country should demand in our national leadership.
7
The First Lady is unelected; when the first First Gentleman has his portrait done, it too should sit in a lesser location.
5
Much as I admire Barak and Michele Obama I am disappointed in these paintings. The painting of the ex president has the same "cuteness" as a kids "painting by numbers" kit. The painting of Michele Obama is flat, dull and generic. Sad to say neither of these paintings get anywhere near the level of sophistication l needed for a fine portrait.
7
The portrait of Michelle is awful. The facial structure and expression has little relation to her natural look and demeanor. Outside the sleeveless gown, a positive trait of Michelle, there is little resemblance to how she is normally portrayed.
14
I agree!
His portrait is fine, if a bit studied. I’m afraid the vegetation tends to overwhelm the man, which is unfortunate. But altogether, I think it will be a popular draw for the museum, and must be judged at least a qualified success. Her portrait, however, is a disaster. It’s shallow, flat, and facile, the patterns in the dress dominate the entire work, and worst of all, the subject looks like any stylish black woman — decidedly NOT Mrs. Obama. The face is utterly devoid of personality. Missing, and sorely missed, are the warmth and beauty that are the true hallmarks of the former First Lady. Her remarkably lively features have been flattened, drained of life, and made subservient to the design.
Full disclosure: I’m an artist myself, and an admirer of both the Obamas. They deserve much better than this. By the way, the National Portrait Gallery should be one of the do-not-miss sights for any Washington visitor. Over the years it has improved vastly. Formerly a drab collection, it has blossomed.
16
As an artist yourself you might want to consult the artist's other works for context, as Ms. Sherald's style utilizes flatness and grayness for effect.
3
“Traditional” state portraits typically portray the subject in a setting representative of something for which they wish to be remembered; a full length portrait of Washington in black mufti pointing to a table on which are law books, paper, and ink stand with quill to emphasize his civil, rather than military accomplishments; Catherine the Great pointing with one hand to a ship in full sail as a symbol of Potemkin’s achievements in the Crimea and the other hand resting on the Imperial scepter, other Imperial regalia at her side to remind the viewer she is the Russian Sovereign, not the little German girl from Anhalt-Zerbst.
The same is true of the Obama’s; they choose portraitists who would paint them in a style depicting them as they wish to be remembered, not as a literal representation of how they looked in a moment in time.
10
I don't think Mrs. Obama's portrait really resembles her. The President appears to be being devoured by a bush. What is the symbolism of that?
2
The sheer contrast to the current occupants is beyond words.
How could we have fallen so far?
17
I thought they were magnificent in very different ways. Not looking forward to the next set of presidential (with a lower case p) portraits.
6
It’s briefly mentioned by Cotter, but I think it’s important to remember that Michelle’s portrait was painted by the artist. Barack’s was not - it was made by assistants in China. I wonder if that’s a first for a presidential portrait?
9
I so regret joining others in disappointment over the FLOTUS portrait. Yes, it is a lovely piece of art; kudos to the artist. But it does not represent Michele Obama. Not just the likeness --which I wouldn't require --but the spirit of this woman. She is all heart and soul and fire in a J Crew dress, not an aloof ice queen wrapped in high couture.
As for the POTUS, it's perfect. So Barack. Serious, caring, intelligent, worried, engaged, always thinking. Surrounded by the nature he tried to protect. The green representing renewal, regeneration, a spiritual spring for our country--an opportunity for new life rising from the dark ashes of our country's history of hatred and violence. But yet not...the juxtaposition of his worried eyes and tense body against that verdant, hopeful backdrop. A brilliant cultural commentary on a country caught between hope and despair. A clear sense the man knows the epilogue will depict an orange-haired tin-pot dictator standing with a puffed chest full of faux military medals, wickedly smiling with fistsful of taxpayer dollars and Koch donations amidst a dead, scorched earth--a greedy green face painted against a black background. The exact opposite of his predecessor--in every way.
We miss you, Obamas.
11
1) That's quite a manspread for a presidential portrait.
Not the only one (George W. Bush too), nor the widest one (Grover Cleveland, but that's because he's corpulent), nor the most imposing one (that would be the Lincoln Memorial), but an impressive one nonetheless.
Contrast Michelle, no manspread there.
2) Kehinde Wiley's painting technique is like Vermeer's: he paints over a photographic image projected onto the canvas, a very high level coloring book technique. That's not to take away their skills, but just a statement of technical fact. Vermeer used the camera obscura technique, WIley uses 21st century cameras and projectors. Different technology, but same technique.
That is why Wiley's portrait has the feel of a photoshopped photo onto a fanciful background, what one could find on instagram or pinterest. Wiley composes composite images, striking contrasts with material given to him.
A portrait for the 21st century and the hip-hop crowd.
3) In that sense, Amy Sherald is a more original artist. She paints Michelle out of her own eyes.
8
Very good, relevant points.
2
Michelle Obama looks like she is “sitting on the mountaintop”. The longer I look, the more I like these portraits. Two enigmatic portraits of two enigmatic people.
7
Curious pictures which fit our times. They are so very different from one another, but both feel like illustrations, superficial cut-outs of their physical likenesses. I prefer the portrait of Michelle far more than that of Obama, but then I admire Obama so much. I also admire Michelle so much, and I think she luckier in her choice of artists however. Sadly, or somewhat ironically is the fact that Mr Wiley directs an army of workers in China to 'paint' his commissions. That is the way of the world today, ironic or not.
3
Here's what I see in Obama's portrait:
Optimism. Hope. Young plants sprouting with new ideas, and some even (the flowers) blooming. But look closely and you'll see behind the green dark grey leaves. A darkness below the surface that has already reared it's ugliness, destroying the hope and dreams.
3
I had my differences with President Obama, but for rhythm, grace and debonair there's never been another President like him.
3
These are not flattering depictions. In real life President and Mrs. Obama are warm, gracious, and approachable. These portraits project an undertone of hostility.
3
I really do appreciate the Obamas, and therefore like that they are being portrayed. But in terms of art, this is nothing to write home about. Not only do the paintings lack subtlety (the symbol-laden leaves are like a bad wallpaper), President Obama's is like an odd echo of painting techniques perfected in the 50s and 60s - a time, by the way, where black people would never have held political office. These techniques consequently changed the aesthetics of commerical advertisement - again a subtext that is not exactly flattering to a presidency. A strange choice indeed. As for Ms Obama's painting, the radio active symbol in the pattern is a weird wink to the link between couture and harmful substances, although I rather doubt that this connection was voluntary.
I like both pieces. They make the nation look engaged and forward looking. Too bad the nation doesn't live up to its representations!
2
the manufactured occasion of the presidential/
first lady portrait unmasking brought home some truths that have been lost in the weeds or leaves or grand fashion displays of politics.
listening past the relative smoothness of the rhetorical overlay, (yes the obamas have a degree of polish that trump does not), anyone who has been around the academy for more than a cup of coffee knows the style and, for all of its gloss, the lack of substance.
both obamas took ego baths in the occasion and where trump would boast, the former president overindulged in self deprecation (a form of boasting as shrink will tell), where trump was blunt, pounding the same old adjectives into every niche in every speech, mr obama, took his time, his pauses indicating (to those who took the bait) reflection and also covering those moments when he was uncertain and did indeed fail to reach words he was grasping for, where trump might protect his place, mark his own turf, with an flatfooted jab at his target, barack put his painter in his place with a snide reference to his suit, (a singular outfit compared to obama's establishment vines) sugared over with a chuckle.
trump is no prize but the gifts he and we got from the smoother talkers (a nuclear korea, a flaming middle east, the longest war in our history) are no picnic either.
shame on those of us of similar privilege for being taken in by the sound of our elitist language on the big stage...that we are ashamed may explain our rage at trump.
1
Highly self-indulgent, and in their way, highly accurate depictions of two self-styled pop stars.
2
Why do they not go together? Will they be displayed near each other or in different places? Is there another one of them together?
I couldn't help during both "live" discussions feel a sadness in everyones voice in particular when Amy so profoundly said how the Obamas reflected a break in American history & our paintings reflect that break. Knowing the un evolved throw back currently sitting in our white house I could help feel the same. But the long arm of history is just if we don't loose faith.
Fight on America
ox
3
Unique portraits for a unique President and First Lady.
2
I like President Obama's portrait, it's challenges the eye as well as provokes thought. But who is the woman portrayed alongside him? It sorta looks like his wife, maybe a little, oui? The real Michelle Obama is much more ebullient, exuberant, and colorful. I wish the artist portrayed the real First Lady instead of an artist's interpretive rendering. If I were Mrs. Obama I'd be asking Barack who's that woman he's hanging out in the gallery with?
DD
Manhattan
3
The portraits make me sad. Very disappointing.
2
I LOVE that Bam is depicted in "greenery" and hope he does get outside more often.
1
I'm very disappointed in both these portraits. President Obama is overwhelmed by his background, an unintelligible field of greenery against which he floats, looking bent and burdened -- not at all the assured, calm, elegant, incisive leader he was. Knowing the iconography of the little flowers around him doesn't help. Frankly, this is not a president I associate with greenery, despite his late push to take action on climate change, since he dragged his feet on Keystone for so long, and did far less than he could have to acquaint our nation with the existential gravity of this problem.
Michelle Obama is similarly overwhelmed by her dress -- which in real life she certainly never could be. She always looked great, but she was not the kind of unaccomplished, passive First Lady who seems to exist mainly to wear clothes. Her pose also doesn't express her character. I never saw her girlishly resting her chin on her hand. And the resemblance is poor.
Why are either of these people depicted sitting, anyway? They were powerful, active, history-making leaders.
2
I think they are both pretty neat.
1
Come on. These portraits are not "interpretive" pieces, capturing the. "essence" of the Obamas. The portraits are awful. These are two, good looking, dignified people and the artist made the former First Lady look like a cartoon character and stuck the President in a pile of weeds.
6
One day there will be a trump poster. It will have numbers in the lower third.
1
Deliciously ironic portrait of Obama, posed in front of, not hidden behind, the odorous shrubbery of the old South's plantations (is it Virginia creeper?) and sitting in the Massa's chair, none to comfortably, with no stable contact to enduring ground. His hands, though, are huge!
1
They are gorgeous any ways you frame them
3
I like President Obama's portrait very much. Not so much Mres Obama's, because I am a huge fan of hers, and would have liked a portrait that actually looked like her.
5
Michelle Obama’s portrait is spectacular. And the back story of the artist inspirational. Finding beauty and meaning despite adversity. Brava!
5
My initial reaction to the portraits was arresting. Mrs. Obama. Majestic comes to mind. President Obama. Like the leaves that surround him, I'm thinking his portrait will grow on me.
4
I had my President Obama “portrait” moment last December in, of all places, the book section of our local Costco. I was paging through White House Photographer Pete Souza’s “Obama, An Intimate Portrait.” The pictures brought it all back - what it felt like to have a president who conducted himself like a leader who cared deeply about his role and responsibilities, and our nation. There were plenty of personal candid shots, too - of him with his wife and girls. The affection with his family was natural, often spontaneous, and clearly rooted in love and mutual respect.
A woman I didn’t know and I met eyes over the open pages, and she moved to stand beside me before we spoke a single word. We paged through the rest of the book together, making comments about things we remembered from his presidency. We came to the end, and I closed it, put it in my buggy, and said goodbye. I don’t know why, but the experience of sharing this moment with this stranger was cathartic. I got down a nearby aisle away from everyone before I let a couple tears fall.
BEST COSTCO TRIP EVER.
74
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised when I first saw these portraits however after listening to a fantastic interview of the artist Mr. Wiley on the radio this morning, I enjoy the portrait more and more every time I see it. Congratulations to Mr Wiley on a thoughtful piece that brings together so many facets of not only an amazing president but an amazing artist as well.
8
President Obama is quoted saying that Mr. Wiley's production is strong generating "awareness of power and privilege".
Online one can find images of his hallmark pieces showing powerful black women holding in their hands chopped off white heads.
The portraits are a magnificent addition to the Smithsonian collection and I look forward to seeing them in person. If only the magnificent Obama family was still living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave....... They do go high and right now we are seeing new lows in the White House .
9
He's golden brown, and she's essentially grey. I wish they had made the two portraits with some feeling of similarity.
4
These are fitting portraits of the quintessential American Dream Michelle and Barack Obama. Stunning, thoughtful, unique, full of grace, dignity, intellect and compassion. The best of the best. If only we could go back.
16
These portraits seem to capture the subjects perfectly, which is after all the objective. Although I make this point out of ignorance as I never met either of them.
In my view these portraits will come to be regarded as iconic, not only of them but of the times we live in.
Excellent
14
I’m an admirer of I am an admirer of all genres of art and expression, but the portraits do not do the former President and First Lady Justice.
10
I agree. It brings to mind the portrait done of Winston Churchill that showed essentially a broken old man- not the brilliant thinker of his generation. I think the protriats should capture the stunning intellect, physical beauty and "je ne sais quoi" that these two exude. To me these are more about the artists than the subjects- something that has its place in art but not as the official portraits for these two phenomenal groundbreaking subjects..
3
How nice to see politics taking a back seat to art for once. A portrait doesn't have to be an exact likeness of a person. It's not a photograph after all. But it should resemble and capture the essence of the subject. Barack Obama's did just that. So did the Chuck Close portrait of Bill Clinton and the wonderful John Kennedy portrait by de Kooning.
7
Sorry it doesn't. You can spin all you want, it is amateurish and says nothing about the man or his office. Political correctness in art is diminishing and will not stand the test of time.
2
Not PC at this end. I was trying to be kind, not mentioning what I thought of Michelle's portrait. But I do think Barack's caught the calm and thoughtful demeanor that was the hallmark of the man.
1
The portraits appear to be artistic interpretations, not formal portraits that you would hang along side portraits of past Presidents and First Ladies. Obama's portrait makes him look like he fell into a blackberry bush. Mrs. Obama's portrait looks like she is in front of a blue industrial tank.
Who approves these concepts before they are executed?
11
My guess is that the subjects approve them.
2
Mr. And Mrs. O.
The two Obama portraits are the artistic equivalent of the political/emotional jolt the Obamas gave to our country for 8 years. The Obamas embodied all the best qualities that we as a nation hope to represent to the world. These two portraits are outstanding examples of how bright, thoughtful and vibrant the Obama presidency was. It seems like an eternity since they left the White House. The unveiling of the portraits leaves us longing for leaders who were intellectually curious and generous in spirit. Oh, how I miss the Obamas!
25
God, I miss Obama.
60
I am almost brought to sobbing whenever I think this exact same thought.
Why?
I have been crying a lot today.
Marvel comics as portraits. Perfect considering the subjects. And the safe space shrubbery, the antebellum presentation and the hint of a conk experiment reveal more than meets the eye.
8
Interesting. I like the Obama likeness, but the background is a little overwhelming, and incongruous unless you have the story behind it. Michelle's is a stunning painting, although as a portrait of her it falls somewhat short. Plus, it makes it seem as though she was just a fashion plate, and she was so much more than that in her role.
13
Yes, it seems to be about the dress on a nondescript woman.
2
Ethereal images of a modern day power couple!
These paintings will proudly adorn the Smithsonian for the world to reminisce a country in a Progressive ear !
11
I am disappointed that Mrs. Obama's face does not look like her. Should not a portrait be recognizable as the person? She has such a wonderful expressive face, instead we got a lot of dress, a toned upper arm, and a generic African-American woman's face.
33
Agreed. To me, her face in the portrait looks more like Serena Williams.
1
Maybe, just maybe - considering lack of likeness at the First Lady's portrait's face - we should leave behind patriarchal demands for objectification of females body - or face - and try figuring out instead what the ideologically strong (while in artistic skill not so accomplished - author of the portrait is trying to convey?
We should be alert and watching to have those "traditional" standards, expectations and stereotypes sneak on our mind.
Thank you for the article about the two portraits. Explaining why the flowers present were chosen was helpful. I do not think that the portrait of Mrs/ Obama does her justice. The face does not look like her. I was wondering why neither background referred to the Presidency or the White House or America. Some of the other portraits referenced also did not but would have appreciated further discussion of that. But as long as the President and the First Lady are fine with their portraits then that should work.
10
Fine with their portraits? Well, at least diplomatic.
2
Both portraits provide a unique insight into the subjects. Each one reaches out and grabs you making it impossible to take a quick glance and walk on. Quite remarkable in their depth and as such will stand up well to the test of time.
15
There really aren’t words to describe how we miss these decent people.
Paying tribute before them at the gallery will give great pause.
I guess that will be the best moment to just stand before these portraits and whisper “thank you” and probably a tear or two will be shed.
74
Good riddance from the bottom of my heart. I cried during his entire tenure.
1
Yeah. It is not that much about artistic merit, it is about emotions. I have been crying all morning today.
Just gorgeous. Beauty & brains.
The Obamas are brave Americans on every level. Bravo.
Both of these contemporary portraits reveal intelligence, depth, thoughtfulness, colour, determination, energy and American excellence.
The world misses these exceptional American leaders.
47
My initial reaction was dislike, to be honest.
Not my type. I have a hard time relating to them.
However, with time they have started to grow on me, and now I am seeing an element of straightforwardness that is admirable.
Maybe I learned something...
The portrait paintings are also interesting.
38
Out of the two portraits, I prefer Michelle Obama's, a much better likeness of her and conveying her cool, strong demeanor. Love it. With Obama's portrait. I just can't get past the giant swathe of greenery overpowering him.
Unless that overwhelming Bush behind him is perhaps a comment on the presidency that preceded his...?
14
You are funny with that bush.
1
I love Michelle's portrait and it bears some similarities with Gustav Klimt's portrait of Adele Bloch Bauer; the otherworldly interpretation of skin tone, the color field background and the abstract geometry of the dress pattern.
The Obama's consciously decided to commission artworks instead of standard vanity portraits. Everyone is entitled to view art through the lens of their own experience and desires, but many of the comments speak more about the viewers sense of vanity than the sitters.
To that end this is art.
25
Perhaps more Hieronymus Bosch than Gustav Klimt. Both in style and subject.
...
if only it remotely looked like her...
I like President Obama's portrait, but I remember some right-wing relatives and their fellow Republicans who called Obama a 'hot-house flower'. If this was a wide-spread Fox News metaphor, the painting might play to their contempt.
1
President Obama's portrait captures him completely, it should have had less greenery. The First Lady's portrait captures her sense of style but the grey skin tone and the face just don't reflect her at all. Michelle Obama's charm, beauty, and strength are not present in this portrait, not at all.
15
Perhaps you see something in Michelle that the artist cannot...maybe because it was never there?
This article is like a bad joke from an "art critic."
Seriously, the only thing that really distinguishes B.Obama's portrait is the bush imposing itself in the foreground. Yup. It's not background, like you'd normally see in a presidential portrait. Instead, it imposes itself like living bad wallpaper one can't escape from. The "critic's" view of past portraits indicates he either has not looked at them all, or was choosing to do a PR push for Obama's by his grossly generalizing (and ignoring historic contexts) of the other portraits, as well as the personalities of the men coming through their eyes and facial expressions, etc. ...And, really? He didn't notice that others had posed in similar types of chairs, or in thoughtful, strong, even aggressive poses (both seated and standing)? Oh, please. That, not to mention that a great number of portraits of First Ladies show them to be fashion forward for their times. Many women have commented to me that the portrait of Michelle is somewhat close, but not on the mark. It certainly comes short of capturing her beauty. Is Holland Cotter a real art critic, or more of a writer on politics who has a bit of interest in art (at least where it touches politics)?
13
Am I the only one who spotted the radio active symbol in the pattern of the dress?
2
It's the the right of Michelle's left elbow, (three triangles)
I think the artist was making a statement about Michelle.
For me, the portraits fail to capture the spirit and beauty of these people. Obviously, I’m missing something.
7
What's missing is that the portraits fall short of portraying the spirit and beauty of these amazing people.
1
You’re missing nothing. Neither portrait adequately portrays the subjects.
1
These portraits demonstrate that the Obamas are not just world class politicians, but world class people. The thought and courage that went into the selection of the artists and the final works demonstrates the Barack and Michelle understand their importance to people of color and to our national identity and soul. This is what it looks like to be write your own narrative versus trying to fit into the prevailing one. These portraits are amazing works of art and statements honoring the President, the First Lady, our traditions, but realized through their cultural lens.
The difference between these beautiful black portraits and the classic suit, tie, and desk portrait is the difference between sending the message that people of color CAN be part of the established, white cultural narrative and the message that people of color ARE part of the narrative on their own terms, with their own voice, and in their own skin.
Bravo for Barack and Michelle, and Wiley and Shepard, for understanding this difference and realizing it. Thank you.
37
Maybe I am nuts but these look like the work of Times Square sketch artists. I was about to say that in two hundred years people may think we were crazy back in 2018, but probably well before that we will have presidential portraits that are abstract and in no way look like human beings
12
President Obama's portrait has both thoughtful and creative idea as well as great craftsmanship by an outstanding and accomplished painter, even while the ivy wall a bit overshadows very expressive and impressive posture of the President.
On other hand, Ms. Sherald's portrait of the former First Lady to me - who had his takes in fine arts appreciation - seems to be elected not so much for her artistic skills but more for ideological posture? While I would it so strongly as "Socrates" (who is otherwise very sensitive) who suggests that Ms. Obama might ask "for a full refund", I believe that a better opportunity to create and enjoy a portrait of the first African American First Lady was missed.
4
Stunning portraits. They make history on their own. How I miss these gracious individuals in public life.
31
Not so Presidential. Not classic First Lady-ish.
I like it.
8
JFK Portrait "looking down" in the White House will remain my favorite.
5
SridharC
The Post Office is selling that image on a stamp sheet.
Buy it !
https://store.usps.com/store/product/buy-stamps/john-fitzgerald-kennedy-...
6
"I don't know much about art" or how art is commissioned, would sum up with a lot of people are saying here.
7
I thought they looked like they were done in Times Square by a sketch artist. They clearly did not like them the whole thing was uncomfortable.
7
I like both pieces. I like that they are not pompous but offbeat, contemporary and play with colour. Bravo!
17
My late dad would’ve smiled at Mr. Obama seated in front of the ivy-covered wall in Wrigley Field. Go Cubs!
11
Wow. Portraits that make one think. How appropriate, looking back from our unfortunate vantage point.
29
President Obama’s capable, big hands are a fine sight. Presidential, for the ages.
25
Obama isn't frowning, he's attentive, and the foliage works. Michelle's painting is lovely, restful, and pleasing to look at. Count me impressed.
31
As a 58-year-old white girl, I never in my life paid attention to the unveiling of the portraits of a former president and his (or maybe someday her) spouse. Just as before the Obamas, I never paid attention to a presidential inauguration. But with them, it was so different for me. So much opportunity. So much of what we stand for in America.
Michelle is so beautiful you couldn't get it wrong with a crayon. Sorry, art critics. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
I miss them!
46
Rural Girl: Take some Arts Appreciation 101 in your local community college. You might be also able to get some Lifetime Learning Credit on your income tax return (if you file any).
2
I really don't see the point of President Obama sitting in greenery.
Michelle Obama's portrait fails at the most basic level. It does not look like her. I think the pale near colorless style does not do her justice.
14
I agree! This portrait fails to show us Michelle’s large, beautiful and expressive eyes. We see nothing of her character in this portrait.
7
Watch the video.of the unveiling ceremony. Kehinde Wiley speaks to the meaning of some of the elements in the painting.
His portrait is well done. Her portrait is a nice painting... but without being told, I wouldn't ever guess that it was of Michelle Obama (and I doubt there are many others who, subject to that condition, would do so). It has nothing to do with the artist's signature use of gray. The face just doesn't recognizably look like Mrs. Obama's.
13
What makes the Obama portraits so exquisite is the two remarkable people behind them.
And I will take these contemporary portraits over Melania’s retouched glamour shot any old day!
9
So, ideology over artistic merit? Yet again?
1
After a good while studying the portraits of the former President and former First lady, I think I do understand them better: Mr Obama appears to be in a sorrowful astonishment, because of the current situation, and for the same reason the First Lady Michele Obama is in an angry, depressed, and defiant mood.
I like to say we, too, feel your disappointment, for the current state of affairs and the certain to follow calamities.
2
What current situation should Obama be sorrowful about: his half million dollar speaking fees or his $60 million dollar book fees? Or the fact that his failed politics gave us Trump?
I am not so sure that the former First Lady would agree with your opinion that she is in "angry, depressed, and defiant mood" and that very flat, amateurish painting, certainly not a portrait.
1
Don't want to insult artists, but no, no, no, these very real amazing people look cartoony in these frames, can't use the word realized, so very unreal...they look like children's book illustrations. maybe that was the affect they wanted? *sigh*
9
We are in a state of decline. The ‘art world’ clearly presents that.
5
Utterly stunning.
7
Well, Michelle Obama deserved so much better an effort than this...
She's ashen, her face is just off enough to make me look twice to be sure it's an image of her, she looks simply uncomfortable, self-conscious and ill=at-ease. The overall light is flat, making her look graphic. Mrs Obama has always displayed a healthy beauty, and always presented as self-confident and comfortable in her own skin. What a missed opportunity. Let's hope it quietly disappears soon, and another artist gets the opportunity of a lifetime to depict the most admired woman in the world.
15
Beautiful and different - just like our former President and first lady.
7
I suggest a lack of judgment evinced by the following statement, which has no basis : "And today we’re seeing more and more evidence that the social gains of the civil rights, and Black Power, and Obama eras are, with a vengeance, being rolled back." Truly absurd!
5
Terrible portraits! Likeness does matter, even now! President Obama looks drawn and worn out, which he managed not to be, and even awkward, which he was incapable of being- and the First Lady looks bland, with none of her distinctive features and personality - more time spent on her dress! We even have better photos of her famous arms!
13
Another thing about Barack Obama's portrait is that when you look at the face he seems to be wearing light socks because of the foliage. The overall facial impression is of an oddball professor. Future generations will have no clue as to how witty and personable he was.
1
Problem with Michelle Obama's is it doesn't look like her. That's got to be the first rule of any portrait.
14
Ya’d think.
1
i can understand the depth and meaning for looking thru
and at a watercolor impersonation thru art.
but why did tradition pass on the presidential portrait?
well, without meandering any opinion.
art tends to do that too!
yes, "too!'
~peace
thomas :)
1
I am disappointed as I was so looking forward to these portraits! President Obama’s I can relate to but I showed Michelle Obama’s to family and colleagues..... (without telling who is was ) none of them recognized it as Mrs. Obama. If this picture is shown to folks you see a lovely dress.... but you cannot identify it as our former First Lady. As our current President would say... Sad!
11
I think both portraits rhyme with Sphinx.
4
I love art’s ability to elicit a wide variety of opinions and provoke thought. The Obama’s were very deliberate in their decision of the contemporary artists they selected to paint their portraits. The greater public seems to not be as familiar with each artist, who both stayed true to their respective artistic styles. Regardless of public opinion, if the artists have captured what the Obama’s desired, they have won the most important opinions. I wish both artists much continued success! I am in awe of both of the artists and their portraits. Well done.
11
So the portrait of Michelle looking nothing like Michelle and Barack with that extra finger on his left hand elicits awe? I wish the artists would have even tried to portray them as they really appear. The Smithsonian is not a place for Picasso wannabees.
2
I cannot praise these portraits as they do not represent the Obama's or their legacy. These portraits are more about the artists impressions and style and not the former president and first lady..
Vincent van Gogh in his day was groundbreaking. But you wouldn't have him do a presidential portrait. If I was Obama I would do what Teddy Roosevelt did to his first Presidential Portrait.
12
We can look at the paintings as art history majors writing a term paper, or as citizens who lived in their time. I choose the latter. Obama's (he lost his first name during his presidency) painting captures the man: He sits in thought, looking directly at you. His expression has the seriousness not drama, and the touch of amusement or skepticism that he often expressed in public Q&A sessions and press conferences. the greenery and color-coded flowers are a stroke of artistic genius. This painting will be the one Americans will look at for centuries.
Michelle's (she lost her last name during her years as First Lady) does not carry the same message: MIA is her radiant beauty, her strong voice, her vibrant personality. The artist created a painting so cool it froze Michelle.
If do-overs are allowed, I vote for hers.
28
Sorry. Neither portrait sufficiently captures nor honors the character and spirit of these two phenomenal individuals. What a missed opportunity.
17
So beautifully done of two truly admirable people--who left our nation so much better off than they found it. They had patience, steadiness and fortitude, and grace, and grace and grace. Where has it all gone????
17
Anyone puzzled, or disappointed by these works, as I was, would be well rewarded by another look- with their live subjects in the same frame. My reaction changed immediately. Only then could I grasp just how accomplished the two works are.
Bravo to all involved.
20
The two paintings were not created to be displayed side by side. They were painted by different artists in different studios and it shows. Mr. Obama's painting is palpably vibrant and does not balance the cool and faded mood of Mrs. Obama's painting. Both are wonderful works in their own right, but showing them side by side brings an disequilibrium to both of them. His painting becomes too vivacious, and hers becomes too mellow.
28
I agree very much with you, Emerset Farquharson, about the two paintings not being created to be displayed side by side. In my mind's eye I can see them displayed in separate areas/galleries, and if such were the case, I think people might react differently to the portraits. Both portraits pull me back to viewing them again and again, and each time I find myself liking each of them more. They are not portraits of the last century, but rather show two intelligent and courageous people.
18
Not quite what to make of these two portraits. On the one hand, I applaud the boldness and the unconventional approach to presidential portraiture that these two painting represent. On the other hand, they failed to convey the inner souls and outer beings of Obama and Michelle as we came to know them during their years in the White House. The book of photographs by Pete Souza best captured Obama and is many times better than this one portrait by Mr. Wiley. Michelle has always been a strong, active and vocal woman, to see her striking a bland pose of indifference and aloofness, not to mention the unlikeness of her facial features made the painting failed spectacularly. These two portrait paintings will not stand the test of time. The danger of being political correct in choosing artists based on their ethnicity or country of origin is misguided and wrong. We must pick artists solely based on merits only.
14
What makes you assume these artists were not chosen on merits? Both President & Mrs Obama enjoy modern art, as evidenced by the works they selected for display while living in the WH. Each had the opportunity to choose an artist whose portfolio and style appealed to them. The artists then created portraits that appear to be fairly consistent stylistically with their past work. If the artists delivered portraits that fulfilled their subjects’ hopes and expectations, then they did not fail, spectacularly or otherwise. I expect they will stand the test of time beautifully.
6
I am familiar with Mr. Wiley's work. This portrait of Obama follows a certain formula. It is my opinion that it does not work for a presidential portrait. The painting lacks a and warmth that such portrait warrants. This will fit quite nicely in a contemporary home or the pages of Vogue. The problem with a lot of modern art is that it is more an ego thing for the artist than about the subject. The artist, because of his/her reputation can pretty much do whatever he/she pleases. It is a fashion statement and fashion only lasts a short period of time. For the record I am a big fan of both President Obama and Michelle.
1
President Obama's portrait looks just like him, and the expression brings the portrait to life and captures the culmination of his Presidency; that part is wonderful. The greenery is a bit overpowering, but quite inspired. He is a unique person, and a groundbreaking President, so a portrait that deviates from the norm in such a artistic manner makes sense.
As I stated in my reply to Janice Nelson, I do not think First Lady Michelle Obama's portrait reflects her in a realistic way. If it is meant to be a modern-art abstract then I guess it works. But the face is not the face I recall -- the vibrant, passionate and enthusiastic features and expressions that I saw for eight years. Rather, the portrait looks like a stranger, perhaps a stern school teacher. Michelle's warmth nor her beautiful face are not there. Nor is the colorful attire that she usually wore represented. Future generations that view her portrait will not understand the personality and presence of this amazing woman. So while the artist clearly is talented, in my opinion she did not capture Michelle Obama.
40
Agreed, with a caveat: With so many photographic images of Pres. Barak Obama, and First Lady Michelle Obama available and in the public domain, the need for representative art to reflect an accurate likeness at the moment they were painted has become less and less important. Rather, capturing the 'soul' of the subject becomes, as is only possible through the imagination of the painter, paramount.
bingo, I won’t elaborate, because you seem to have it perfectly. e.g. she has a neutral, or frowning expression
Both of these portraits are just WONDERFUL!
14
The portrait of Mr. Obama by Wiley is odd because of the strange way it plays with perspective. If you look at the sides of the work, the greenery is flat, like a wall, but when you put the chair there in the middle, it seems to be sitting in the greenery. It’s almost medieval in how it deals with perspective. The clash in perspective is unsettling and fits well and emphasizes Obama’s unsettled look.
4
Beautiful beautiful portraits!! I love how contemporary and original they are.
12
Thank you Amy Sherald for creating a lasting masterpiece in your portrait of First Lady Michelle Obama. It makes me cry because it is so her. You managed to bring out her brilliance as a successful student and lawyer, as a devoted wife, mother, friend and work colleague. At the same time you give us a glimpse into her caring soul that shows her love of country and her maternal determination that her girls live as normal lives as possible. The look in the First Lady’s eyes is exactly the way I imagine Mrs Obama looking as she resolved to be the best First Lady she can be and also protect her daughters. This is masterpiece portraiture for the 21st century. Brava!
10
Well, I love Barack Obama's portrait. But Michelle Obama's? So colorless and bland. She is so vibrant and this does not reflect that. Plus, it doesn't really look like her. Which is a shame because she is iconic.
47
I agree 100%! Michelle Obama is vibrant, colorful and energetic and her portrait conveys none of that for future generations. And, no, that does not look like Mrs. Obama's beautiful and expressive face.
27
"It's the job of the artist to be an iconoclast."
Picasso
I agree with this critic’s kudos and caveat. But overall the art is filled with such positive affirmation of that singular presidency it’s hard to quibble with it at all.
9
Very good. The artist is a real innovator.
2
I like them. They are stunning in how they do away with the long standard staid portrait style. They are different, modern, iconoclastic while acknowledging history. And excellent renderings of the Obamas. Michelle's is stunning. His is almost regal.
20
“Uninflected dignity was the attitude of choice for well over a century,”
“Uninflected dignity” isn’t a bad way of characterizing the 44th President.
I’d never seen the JFK portrait before. Pretty stunning, in a good way.
4
Looks like a comforter or quilt they may market one day~ for earth day.
6
Quite simply put, I think they’re awful.
49
Does neither of them justice.
27
Michelle's portrait only looks like her on the (viewer's) right-hand side. The left hand side esp. the eye, looks like some generic face.
8
I think the portrait of Michelle looks more like Malia than Michelle. Otherwise they are nice modern portraits. I know some want the official stuffy looking portraits but these are nice, it just doesn't really look like Michelle
15
Unimpressive, but at least not painted on black velvet in day-glow or playing poker with dogs.
17
Everything this power couple do is image based to pander to their fans constantly looking for a slight or a micro aggression to hang their hat on. When will it ever end ?
7
I feel so sorry for you. We had the privilege of having a president and first lady of extraordinary intelligence and integrity. You missed it. They were not perfect, only human. They were models for all of us who realize that our country cannot be great without being good.
5
What on earth are you talking about? It sounds like you are bringing your agenda to this and not really responding to the actual paintings. Or, in other words looking for a slight or a micro aggression to hang [your] hat on.
both portraits are lifeless. george w. bush probably could have produced better likenesses.
32
Probably not.
These portraits exemplify the Obamas' leadership. Outstanding! Thrilling!
8
Mr Obama represents no pastoral President, but a brainy, thoughtful, caring American. If there is any deeper meaning of the leaves of the plants that will elude 99.9 per cent of the people— the 0.01 percent will visit the NPG and read the picture marquee.
2
Love,love,love these portraits.
5
It is my belief, that great art makes people think, discuss and examine the piece before them. Sometimes art is beautiful and sometimes it's bizarre. But I believe great art engages the viewer. Good art looks nice over the sofa.
11
While the liberal arts portion of my STEM-based education has become much more important to me now that I am retired, I was never able to catch the cadences needed to write the course essays that followed the approved lines. However, my reasoning was sound, and my different opinions were treated fairly.
So it is with writers who review these portraits. I have read quite a number of them, and each is wildly different from the others. Just ignore them and see what the background and influences you bring to them allows you to see.
In my unenlightened state, I think the POTUS portrait is wonderful, but the FLOTUS is not portrayed in a way that reflects her own extraordinary qualities. Your mileage may vary.
24
Picasso can rest easy. These portraits are kitschy and pedestrian but they will draw a crowd - half of which will mercilessly deride and criticize them and the other half of which will genuflect. Maybe in that sense the portraits could be considered representative...of their time in office anyway.
27
Obama portrait reminds me of this MOBA masterpiece: http://www.museumofbadart.org/coll1/image01.php
6
That is one unflattering portrait of the former first lady.
59
I didn't find it so much unflattering as incomplete and unfocused. The grey skin color was reportedly an intentional political choice by the artist.
13
That is how the artist portrays African American skin tones. It is typical of her style.
Michelle Obama’s portrait will inspire all children of color: black, brown and gray.
12
I love Michelle but do not think this painting does her regal bearing and intelligence any justice.
12
Art for the ages. The first African American President and First Lady in the Smithsonian. They should consider starting a section for First Ladies and let it start with Mrs. Obama, Flotus, in all her glory.
9
Making a president a prop to an artsy statement of any sort in his official portrait is juvenile.
25
Neither enthuses.
10
Does Mr. Obama really have an extra finger on his left hand?
20
knuckle shadow
For Trump's official portrait, I nominate Norman Mingo - the artist commissioned by Mad Magazine publisher William M. Gaines and editor Al Feldstein to create Alfred E, Neuman.
10
Dear President and First Lady Obama
I miss you so much
82
Glad they are out , whew
1
I am mostly OK with the Michelle picture, even if it doesn't mostly look like her but the Barack picture is a cartoon. Not at all dignified.
Let's get some dignified looking pictures painted that can stand with the pictures of all past presidents and first ladies.
6
These are for the portrait gallery, not the more formal White House portraits.
3
Why not just take photographs instead?
Now we know the Obama's have no artistic taste.
15
His portrait shows a dour, angry, disagreeable man. Hers shows some black woman, certainly not the former president's wife, Michelle.
13
I don't see dour, angry, or disagreeable. I see serious and thoughtful. I can see hints of the First Lady but it is a diffuse portrait.
14
3
We have here a portrait of Michelle Obama, painted by a woman who is known for her portraits of black women holding the severed heads of white women. And yet, no one can see an issue with that here. I haven't even noticed it being mentioned.
I've known 12 year old art students that failed out of class who did much better work. Was this woman chosen for her anti-white woman fervor? Why did Michelle choose her at all?
President Obama's portrait is more to his likeness, you can actually tell it's him rather than some out of the lines paint by number 'artist' who can't count. It looks like he's sitting in a chair pulled from a meeting table and stuck into a patch of kudzu on a hillside. Yet people are calling both portraits 'works of art'. Great, now I know why Obama was cool with blow and MJ and pardoned loads of drug dealers. And people wonder about the drug problem in this country.
15
My bad. Swap that. It's BHO, not Michelle who had the head removing portrait 'artist'.
You know 12 year olds (many of them?) who take a graded art class (hmmm?) and fail that art class (hmmmm?). Sit down dude.
Portraits, always gives to talk about ...
Good work. Elegant
3
If I think these portraits are awful am I subconsciously a racist?
13
I don't know about that but on internet one can find photos of Mr. Wiley's hallmark production, i.e. the entire background of a portrait covered with leaves showing black women holding a chopped off heads of white women or men.
Then there is a quote from President Obama stating that what's attractive on Mr. Wiley's production that it generate strong awareness of power and privilege. So, go, figure.
2
Where could one purchase a poster of these portraits?
4
Wait awhile - the originals will probably be available cheap.
6
I'm going directly to Michelle's portrait since that seems to be where all the haters are gathering. I absolutely, with all 4 chambers of my heart, love that portrait. I think, if Mrs Obama wanted someone to churn out a cookie cutter portrait of her she would have chosen another artist. She chose ms sherard, knowing her style and her intent. That portrait captures who Michelle is, which is more than just her likeness, while allowing the artist to express herself as well. Wonderful!
45
It looks absolutely nothing like her. It is a stretch to call it a portrait.
15
All I know is that to see President Obama and his wife on stage , speaking to US, with their genuine humor, grace , humility, and intelligence , made me want to cheer and cry at the same time .... I think , yes , it did happen ?! Not a dream ! We had it ! We had it good ! Now how to get is out of this living nightmare .......
22
You might want to check out portrait painting from the last 100 years or so.
I always thought Michelle was a great dresser. I never understood why she always straightened her hair and never let in grow into an Afro on occasion.
5
When I look at President Obama's portrait, it seems that everything below his waist, including his hands is somehow at a larger scale than the rest of him, they just don't quite seem to "match up".
12
People, ask yourselves this: If these paintings were NOT of Barack and Michelle would you swoon over them? Yes or no? I say decidedly NO. They are too one dimensional and slightly bizarre. Why IS Barack sitting in bushes? Why IS Michelle looking so, well, UNlike Michelle? And finally, for the first time a FLOTUS has her own painting done...but as mentioned it will only hang temporarily and in November it disappears because there is no room for it. Better idea to have Michelle permanently represented at the museum would have been to paint the two of them together. Finally, these two painters should have watched Bob Ross on television on the PBS show The Joy of Painting because these paintings were MUCH less than powerful. Again, I ask you, would people have been expressing awe and approval if these paintings had NOT been the Obamas being unveiled by the Obamas? I think, decidedly, NO.
18
Ah, is it irrational hatred or complete ignorance of the diversity of artistic style?
I remember when a person's skill decided what job they got.
10
President Obama is quoted on internet that he likes on Mr. Wiley's production the fact that it generates a strong awareness of power and privilege. But he certainly got the craft skills and imagination, not only in messages sent through the specific floral motives in the back of an expressive portrait of the President.
Concerning selection of Ms. Sherold, it looks like that it was rather her ideological slant not her artistic talent of arts craftsmanship skills what got her this prestigious assignment. Thus I see why some, even "Socrates" in their comments here suggest that the First Lady my request full refund.
@W. Gaff - Do you not remember the not-so-distant past when a person's skin color determined what job she or he got?
1
Really? When was "skill" ever the first, or second, of third or ... qualification in any across-the-color-line sense in the "old" USA?
1
My how we miss these quality people.
Imagine a time, hopefully someday soon, when our country again has a thoughtful, intelligent, hardworking public servant truly worthy of holding our highest political office. Where have you gone Barack Obama? - a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
72
Very well done, I want to get copies Of each ASAP!
4
I just followed up this article with one about Amy Sherald from October past that NYT had cued up off to the side in case you're interested and have not read it yet . . . And Ms. Sherald's paintings are incredible. I can see why the first lady was keen to have her do the portrait.
7
I prefer portrait paintings that don't look like photographs in stroke or composition, so I like these. However, I don't see the intrigue in Mrs. Obama's portrait that Ms. Sherald applied in her other paintings. It seems unfinished - but maybe Michelle is not finished yet either...
4
Graphically beautiful but not a reasonable representation of either one of them.
6
I agree that the portraits of first ladies should be brought together from where ever they are and displayed together in the same museum as the presidents. They are an important part of American history and should be treated as such. It's a typical artifact of patriarchal culture that they're still an artistic afterthought and not important enough to already have a dedicated gallery within the institution. You'd think that in the 21st Century, plans would have already been underway to create a first ladies gallery with the completion of Mrs. Obama's portrait, instead of leaving its future in such limbo.
6
I think these portraits are beautiful, provocative, and with much to say about their subjects, these two exceptional Americans. I also applaud the Obamas' bold and substantive choices of their artists.
Portraits of living people, especially people whom we think we know, are complex to view and judge. All the more that I look forward to seeing these paintings in person.
23
As you talk about the portraits being "provocative" I believe that such characteristic certainly belongs to Mr. Wileys hallmark portraits of black women holding a chopped of heads of white women or men that can be found on internet.
They're both fantastic portraits -- it's about time presidential art became a little more contemporary!
And I won't lie, my eyes started watering a little bit, looking at these images and thinking how far our country has fallen since the Obama administration. I didn't agree with every single thing Obama did, but I truly miss having someone with dignity and basic human decency in the White House, instead of a mad king.
45
Me too! I didn’t agree with President Obama on many points. But, boy do I miss his intellect, elegance, kindness, decency. Boohoo.
12
Marge:
While the article and the debate here are primarily about artistic merit it is hard - for some of us, at least - not to have emotions taking over. So I too, starter watering a little bit, not only in my eyes.
His face is so individualized and finely etched, and hers is so generic and bland. I don't think the portrait captures her at all. I like that it seems monumental; I like the angle and the arms, but she could be a super model in Vogue.
24
I believe that Michelle Obama would not be well served being "supermodel in Vogue" as she would be objectified for patriarchal culture benefits/
Michelle Obama is one of the most important women in the history of this country and given the opportunity, I felt the artist missed the mark. The work felt more about her dress than her, and it did not elevate her importance or stature at all. I felt that it was a huge missed opportunity. She got lucky she got the gig, but didn't rise to the occasion at all. Do over please.
43
I agree. The artist didn’t capture any of Michelle Obama’s depth. So what that she liked fashion? She was far more than her dresses.
12
These are beautiful portraits--both representative as well as interpretative of the subjects in a very captivating way. They are fresh, and compelling; yet have the gravitas you would expect to find with natural leaders. I find myself looking deep into the subjects' eyes, communicating on a personal level. Both of these artists should be proud of their efforts in capturing the essence of President Obama and First Lady MIchelle Obama, and their importance to your country's history.
10
I much prefer the portrait of Barack. The employment of botanical imagery symbols tracing the president’s life journey, is inspired—and also clearly references Renaissance art, in which flowers added specific secondary meanings to devotional paintings. Furthermore, the likeness is much stronger than that of Michelle. In my opinion, the Kehinde Wiley painting is a more consequential artwork, and it is a pity that Amy Sherald missed an opportunity, with this rather flat and emotionally devoid image. I wish she had captured the First Lady’s features and expression more accurately.
36
It's art. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and they commissioned these artists themselves. While not exactly my taste, it's art nonetheless. If they had wanted a picture of themselves, they would have hired a photographer.
9
I find myself liking both of these portraits very much. The President's is so colorful and interesting! I like the setting. Michelle's is strong and purposeful. I love seeing her arms, they symbolized strength throughout her time as our First Lady. I imagine these two paintings will help boost the National Portrait Gallery patrons substantially. Bravo to the Obamas and these artists, they're still making us think deeply more deeply.
16
Both these portraits reflect intelligent and thoughtful choices by the subjects and the artists.
I shudder to think how tasteless the next portrait will be. Perhaps Donald will pose in the imperial get up he is now selecting for his role as grand marshal of his parade. The hands will be small.
20
Based on all the comments, these portraits are causing a lot of different views to emerge. Some good, some less so. My POV: both paintings are simply fabulous.
I love how art gets people thinking!
23
With respect, both portraits are less than artistic masterpieces
25
I love Michelle Obama's portrait. I'm untrained in art, but I could see that the dress and its cultural symbolism was the main focus -- Michelle is being positioned in light of the history of both traditional portraits of "white people in power" and of the slavery tradition and culture she often talks about. She's rising out of the dress like she rises out of the tradition which kept black people enslaved, and black women particularly erasable.
I loved that her face wasn't intended to be photographically realistic or identifiable ONLY as herself, but as a kind of cross between her individually and a template -- she and the artist both mentioned how important it was that young girls, particularly young black girls, could look at the portrait and see "something that looks like them." This is easier if the portrait isn't too exclusively identifiable as one specific woman. The lack of specific identifiability also relates back to the issue of black women in particular being erased historically, seen as a category.
This is my untutored response, but if it's anything like what the artist intended, how gracious of Michelle Obama to allow and encourage the representation of the cultural and historical position of ALL black women in her own portrait, and not insist on the simple glorification of herself as an individual.
39
I think when it's the portrait of a person it should show a strong resemblance.That's the point of a portrait. I like the portrait overall, and it has some aspects of her, but it doesn't look like her.
7
Great portrait pf Shows his intelligence, rather ruthless political cunning, yet leaning forward because he is eager to please and do right, but a bit vulnerable skinny and frail somehow. Huge congrats to Kehinde Wiley.
Amy Sheralds Michelle, however, doesnt even look like her. It does not show her toughness, her relentlessness, nor her pragmatism. Yes she is a great dresser, but to engulf her in a dress is....well not my favorite.
10
This portrait does not look like Michelle Obama at all. I find this portrait disappointing.
38
Does not look like Michelle Obama. The combination of strength and warmth, which are her best traits as a public persona are missing from this portrait.
There plenty of other representations of her that I prefer.
5
Two portraits - Obama lost in the weeds and Michelle in the background while the artist draws our eye to her dress and jacked arms. That's how they want to be presented?
20
Agreed. The arms look large and masculine and her head looks too small in proportion to her large body. She must be mortified.
6
These portraits are not fitting of a President and his lovely wife and will not stand the test of time, so bad.
10
Mrs Obama is such a beautiful lady, I wish the artist gave her warmer color. Unfortunately, in this painting her skin looks gray.
8
it will drive Trump into new rage. Class and style.
16
Hadn't thought about that. Certainly a point in their favor.