I feel like everyone’s agreeing these are amazing portraits merely to signal their distress at our current situation. The praise isn’t not a reflection of the actual portraits. I get they were bucking tradition and trying to challenge norms. What resulted, however, was pretentious and weird.
30
What is a portrait? Why do we consider the white European style of portraiture more valuable than others? Shouldn't a portrait of the president and his/her spouse reflect the times we live in? Shouldn't it reflect who the person is and where they come from? These portraits are very powerful on so many different levels. I absolutely love them. And I love the fact that the Obama's chose to break with "tradition". What a strong statement.
10
These "portraits" are hilariously awful. They are befitting of the worst president in US history. The look on both of their faces when they were unveiled shows that they didn't like them either.
I am incredibly grateful that they are official will be on display at the Smithsonian for the whole world to see, the harlequin portraits juxtaposed against the dignified portraits of other former presidents.
Truly fitting.
1
Disappointing over all. President Obama's portrait is overwhelmed by the greenery in which he is placed, bringing attention to the background and away from him. Mrs. Obama's portrait could have been the work of a young fashion designer/illustrator, with its focus on the gown. Yes, she is an elegant and beautiful woman but that is only one part of her and perhaps the least interesting. A woman of great intelligence, compassion and humor, she also has dignity and class. None of these qualities are apparent in this superficial depiction.
12
This is a case of the emperor having no clothes. Sorry, both of these paintings are on the level of very bad high school art. Terrible, terrible, terrible, if you can’t see why no amount of persuasion will change your mind.
9
I like the ideas behind the Obama portraits but with some critiques.
One of the wonderful things about the Obamas, aside from their wonderful work, is their smiles. There is no need for the big grins we frequently saw, but rather the look of absolute contentment that they expressed to us.
Also Barack's face is too chiselled and stern... perhaps the lighting is too harsh. I like to think of him as a pleasant man of deep thought, not as a man of anger; and I've always admired the beautiful skin tones of the two of them as expressed in his portrait.
1
Though some people think of the paintings as inspiring. The painting of Obama truly reflects the essence of his presidency. It truly reflects how connected to the people when he was president and it shows how he is connected to his background. Overall I definitely enjoyed this painting as Kehinde Wiley captured Obamas views and background.
3
I wonder why Obama chose this type of art for his PRESIDENTIAL portrait. The presidential portrait is supposed to provide a reminder of the president and their presidency.This is not a representation of Obama's presidency. He was a strong, quiet, thoughtful leader and not crazy, radical and out of line like this portrait shows him. I hope that the people will remeber him as the good willed, generous, strong, pensive leader he was. Of course, the portrait is his choice but I do not believe that the portrait is a good representation of his wonderful presidency.
3
Awful...the portrait of Michelle Obama looks nothing like her. Shades of gray..depressing. Barack's is cartoon like..what were they thinking?
10
I think the portraits are horrible. Mr. Obama looks as if he’s sitting in the wall of ivy that surrounds Wrigley Field! Further, the “artist” has made Obama appear as if he’s sitting on a toilet. All he needs is a newspaper! Mrs. Obama’s portrait looks nothing like her & looks like a character in a cartoon. These portraits are a disgrace!
9
Absurd and embarrassing. But, Obama and Michelle chose the artist, and he chose the likeness to represent Obama, forevermore. You make the bed you sleep in...
6
Some of the criticism, particularly of the president's portrait, seems over-wrought. There is a tinge of surreality about it that seems appropriate -- the a vegetal super-abundance reminds me of Henri Rousseau. It's a compliment to Obama that he did not require any of the trappings of office to help establish he gravitas or dignity -- simply his body language and his visage. One critic commented that he is "frowning". I don't see that; he simply seems to be filled with intensity, which helps bring the portrait to life. It's stylistic specificity and conventionality of the chair only add to the surreal contrast with the background and ground plane. Bottom line -- it sure beats the hell out of Chuck Close's portrait of Bill-Clinton-as-bulbous-clown or Nelson Shank's sophomoric rending of Clinton with the Monica Lewinsky wink and grin.
5
People, these are portraits not pictures. They are meant to be symbolic of many things and not meant to be literal representations. Visit the portrait gallery and you will understand.
9
They're good portraits Sopan.
2
The officially commissioned portraits of Michelle Obama and Barack Obama remind me of how much was added to our perception of the Presidency, expanded for eight years by their presences and vision. In two paintings, what had been officially missing in our political landscape—the diversity, creativity, spiritual and intellectual depth of black culture—emerges. We are shown a different narrative of institutional leadership. We see intelligence and concern in faces where nature, imagination, and reflection are expressions of personal identity and their official role. The Obama paintings are liberating portraits of two people who, through the most careful custodianship of our traditions, remind us that art can show us a future. The two artists, interpreting two public and private individuals, suggest historical possibilities and allegorical dreams. Both paintings, in different ways, quietly echo real and mythical black kings and queens who were venerated for their knowledge, wisdom, and beauty.
7
Loved them!!!
For hundreds of years we've had portraits of our leader wearing suits like undertakers, and first ladies dressed in their sunday go-to-meeting clothes.
This is the 21st century. The green leaves of a healthy, unpolluted planet framing a president who tried to make that a reality was refreshing.
Let's have the Trumps portraits done on the command deck of the N.S.E.A. Protector from Galaxy Quest. After all it's pretty clear they're either aliens, or that they are somewhere out in space with the aliens.
7
If the job of a presidential portrait is to summarize the subject's presidency in a work of art, these portraits do it exceedingly well. The choice of a racist, left wing extremist, black artist who likes to paint white women with their heads cut off, and the fact that the portrait was actually painted in a Chinese sweat shop, resulting in a bizarre, hallucinatory and poorly done work, perfectly summarizes what Obama's presidency was about. Jeremiah Wright, the professional outsourcers of Silicon Valley and the drug legalization crowd are undoubtedly thrilled. It perfectly summarizes Obama's personal story, and his effect on the country.
3
I think President Obama’s portrait is perfect. It contains nothing that symbolizes America or its values.
5
I really like the Wiley portrait of President Obama’s. I like his work in general and it is interesting to see how he adapted it for a portrait of a powerful man whose accomplishments are so important to many, rather than his usual subjects. An interesting contemporary portrait that also accomplishes the aims of the National Portrait Gallery. The portrait of Michelle Obama is amateurish and does not look like her. A naive style portrait might be a fun thing to own but it does not belong in the NPG, which is not a museum of art styles but of portraits. People go primarily to see what the presidents and First Ladies looked like, and in this case what you see is a stylized dress on a generic person painted in an “untaught” style. Not successful, which is too bad.
1
I really really wanted to like them. But I don't. The more I look at them, the more they look awful. Shallow, tacky and garish. Ugh. So sorry, I will avoid these portraits which is too bad. The Obamas deserve better!
5
The portrait of President Obama in the garden of Eden belittles his most prominent attribute, his intelligence. It actually hints that procreative attractiveness is his chief claim to fame. The portrait of the equally brilliant first lady with a small head and a huge dress also belittles her brain and, being of a superficial illustrative quality, derides her taste in clothing as art and art in general. I truly cannot understand why the first family accepted these portraits as their legacy images
6
It's bad art - slides forward from lack of depth. Obama has six fingers and is doing a man-spread. Michele doesn't even resemble her. Seems like, IMO, when you insist on an artist based on race, or try to do unorthodox cool guy stuff, it just backfires.
6
Both portraits are stunning. They both remind me of Gustav Klimt's portraits.
https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/neue-galerie-gustav-klimt-adele-bloc...
From a fashion perspective, In encourage Mrs Obama to find a designer who would be willing to make the dress in the portrait for her to wear. How amazing she would look in 3D!
1
Presenting the argument of "a portrait doesn't have to look like sitter" to any art school (especially the academic ones )will get tossed out on the door your ear. You can push the boundaries and escape photorealism but still retain the likeness and character of the subject. Much like Elaine deKooning did with her portrait of JFK. The portrait of Ms. Obama does not look like her at all, at best it is a fashion illustration. Mr Obama's is better done,(love the foliage!) but the likeness is also a bit off. It looks more like a painting from a photoshopped image (harsh lighting, weird shadows, sixth finger) than from life. It does not capture the essence of the president even if he is depicted as "in thought" They should have taken a few lessons from Simmie Knox or just had him paint the faces. A missed opportunity by both artists to do something both daring and exceptional.
5
Most of the negative feedback I’ve heard about these paintings are from African Anericans.. which I don’t get ( although you are entitled to your opinion) this need to look or be like everyone else is so annoying. These paintings are beautiful they were painted by African American Artists for the first time.. and this is what African American Art looks like. Colors that push the envelope. What is your interpretation of these pieces? For Obama’s the first thing I thought of was his policies for the environment.. he wasn’t a sit behind the desk President.. he broke the mold. I love his, I don’t have to prove anything to you attitude, I know who I am. For FL Michelle Obama it was that classy unapologetic yet soulful attitude paired with colors and gorgeous catour.. Sitting strong and owning it. Beautifully Inspiring.
6
I worry that the portrait of this man, our finest sitting president in many years, is portrayed such that he recedes into the woodwork, out of the public eye, and out of sight.
We, a nation of dreamers, will lose track of the notion of his core goodness as we move on to argue the baseness of his replacement.
1
I really like President Obama's portrait. It has a shallow depth and is quite linear but there is substance to it, his figure is well modeled and not distorted. It seems to me to convey who he is. I think it's appropriate for a modern president to be portrayed by a modern artist and I would make similar comments about Michelle Obama's portrait.
Many folks in our culture do not know visual art very well. They still think we are all obligated to remind ourselves that Leonardo da Vinci lived once. I like Leonardo's work and that of his followers but I don't feel that we must endlessly repeat it. Nor do I believe that a portrait by an artist is just a fancy photograph.
These pictures are the result of brave choices by our former First Lady and former President. I'm so happy with what their two portraitists did in response.
7
I absolutely love these portraits! They capture these wonderful leaders in their power and creativity and humanity....so inspiring to me.
5
Both portraits are monumental yet lack institutional trappings. President Obama's chair maybe is the kind of antique furniture found in the White House, but that's a rather vague institutional suggestion.
President Obama's pose is powerful, leaning forward with spread legs and hands in front, but also guarded, in that his arms are crossed. I like the portrayal of President Obama's face. The determination and concentration are exactly right, with a stare that calmly confronts the viewer.
I read the background as a kind of paradise, which is interesting and I like it, although it's odd, possibly disquieting. Altogether, the portrait reflects Mr. Obama's Presidency, its promise and the man's power and restraint.
The First Lady's portrait, also monumental, is also detached from social and institutional context. The monumentality is achieved through clothes, which is traditional in portraits, as any museum-goer can confirm. This monumentality through clothes isn't anything like the real Ms. Obama, but who cares.
The portraits have similar styles, despite the differences between the two artists, making a pleasing match.
3
The one of President Obama made me think of the portrait of Prince Charles by Bryan Organ that's at the National portrait Gallery in London.
https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw07192/Prince-Charle...
2
wasn't familiar with that portrait so i checked out the link than you. Didn't like that one either. I will say at the least Obama himself had better detail.
I think the Obamas should have choosen two artists that were not already established and definitely not an artist whose previous works depict decapitated heads (regardless of race or skin color) It is a total outrage that a man who won the Nobel peace prize finds such a hateful gesture acceptable or artistic. Perhaps it would be different if the artist was white and the decapitated heads were black. I think the Obamas showed their true colors on this one. #sad.
6
The portraits are horrendous. They are undignified and childlike. Painted by an artist who's work includes African American women holding knives and severed heads of Caucasian females. Like Clint Eastwood said Obama's presidency will be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. These portraits are just part of the mess.
8
Who is the woman that sat for Michelle's portrait? Was Michelle too busy to sit for it herself?
11
The portrait of Mr. Obama looks awful. I was uncomfortable for Obama when I watched him explain the sixth finger. It looks like a mass-produced painting. That was my initial reaction when I saw it on C-span. Micheal Obama’s portrait is striking and enjoyable to view.
1
Why did the artist paint Dianah Ross instead of Michelle? And why did they paint a Barry that looks lost in the weeds or marijuana plants? Rubber Soul redux?
4
I love them. Not stuffy nor stale. Each one speaks volumes about the new age that the Obamas brought forth by being in the White House. For those who don't care for them: stick to photographs of the lovely couple.
2
What if Amy Sherald had painted President Obama and Kehinde Wiley had painted Mrs. Obama? That would have worked better, I think!
1
An odd observation, but the President's likeness elicits a bit of Joe Biden in my eye
1
Both portraits are thought provoking. When I saw them earlier this morning I initially felt, “meh!”However, upon further observation I feel differently about both portraits.
Vines, especially, flowering /fruit bearing vine(grapes), have to be pruned hard to get the vine to be very productive. In Barack’s portrait, there are a few flowers but not many and the vine is not trained. To me this symbolized that accomplished some things not not as much as he wanted or could have accomplished.
The vine also made me think of the Bible verse from the book of John 15:5, “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. Jesus said this to the apostles between the last supper and his arrest. They are parting words but also speak to the work that must continue. This is true for Christianity and true for America and Barack’s legacy.
Michelle, was a lightening rod which drew many ugly attacks regarding her physical appearance: the size of her butt, her dark skin color, her sartorial selections, etc. The portrait seems to de-emphasizes the physical. It seems to say to me, I am more than my skin color; I am a daughter, a mother, an aunt, a wife, a lawyer, an orator, an administrator, a First Lady, a descendent of slaves, etc. The white background of the dress is the color of purity and light. It is punctuated with “lashes of color” bringing to mind another biblical verse, “And with his stripes we are healed.”
3
The best ever !
2
I'll admit that the portrait of Mrs Obama is an impressive work of art, but it appears more to be a portrait of a dress.
6
I don't like either portrait. The first lady's is particularly bad and it doesn't even resemble her, plus her skin color is grey! Really? President Obama's looks like a paint by number portrait. C'mon now we certainly have more accomplished artists the world besides these two
11
Sorry but they are absolutely hideous. First - I'm not fan of the Obamas and while I'm laughing at how appropriately bad the portraits are, at the same time it's really sad. I'm all for bucking tradition in different ways but at the same time, some things should be sacred. I think it's really cool that they chose two black painters to do the portraits. Unfortunately the results are terrible. I've honestly seen better high school artists. For BHO, for crying out loud HE HAS SIX FINGERS! and the chair is just floating in a bunch of ivy producing a bunch of random species of flowers? It mostly just looks like a bad paint by numbers. it is in no way stately or presidential. As for Michelle's, it looks nothing like her, which is really too bad, as she was always an attractive woman, regardless of what BHO did as president. I was glad that our nation elected the first half black president and I won't take away from that historic moment. But these portraits are just the worst. If I were them, and as narcissistic as they are, and wanting my legacy to be taken seriously, I'd be out of my mind furious.
2
I heartily agree with your comments!
Great picture but not such a a great president.
2
Garish, amateurish, unbefitting presidential portraits.
4
Looks like some teenagers Instagram...
4
My original comment wasn't printed. I have now read about the background of these protraits. Obviously, this is what the Obamas wanted, and Michelle picked out the dress. Nevertheless, I don't like these paintings. They are more suited to MOMA than the National Gallery. To me, the way the plants seem to be growing around President Obama, like they are eating him, trying obscure him rather rapidly. It's just creepy. And Michelle doesn't even look like Michelle. She looks distant and angry and the facial features don't bear any resemblance to her true self. Ditto the ash gray skin color. What's wrong with beautiful brown?
Obviously, I would have chosen a different dress. Michelle Obama has worn many times, and looks great in, jewel tones and sheath dresses. Vibrant colors suit her, imho, but this is what she wanted, so I have to respect that. So. You asked for what we thought. Here it is. Fwiw, I am a big fan of MOMA and would love to see these paintings hanging there. For the gallery of presidents, I would have preferred something more dignified and respectful of both the office and the couple who gave us 8 wonderul years there. They are sorely missed.
5
Obama's is OK, but he should be smoking a spiff and those should be cannabis plants as the background. Hers on the other hand - egads, people are stuck looking at that art junk forever, how pathetic.
4
These two portraits are not an exercise on resemblance, but rather an exercise on what the Obamas represent: modernity, worldliness, unconventionality.
2
It just doesn't look like Michelle. That's a problem in a portrait.
7
The former first lady's portrait looks vaguely regal, but President Obama's looks like something off a bad album cover.
6
not race but art. wiley is so derivative, he surely did not use his assistants on this portrait, his habit is to only do some of the work. not a real artist.belongs in a mall. it is hard to criticize a woman with the backstory of ms sherald. she is a talented illustrator. michelle obama is a striking woman, in size and mind, strong, forceful, vibrant. this portrait shows none of those qualities. to all portrait painters of color.. .. let’s see what you’ve got. i believe the best is yet to come.
1
Waste of taxpayer money.
1
I thought President Obama was a Chicago White Sox fan.... what's he doing hanging out in the ivy covered outfield wall of Wrigley?
2
If Mr. Trump hired an "artist" who specialized in depicting white people holding severed heads of black people to do his official presidential portrait, I would have considered Trump a racist. When I found out that Obama hired such a person to do his official portrait, it became (to me) one of the most embarrassing days in American history.
4
I am deeply conflicted.
Amy Sherald defaulting to her signature style (that is imbuing her anonymous subjects with grey skin and a bold sense of style making their commoness great) but in this particular instance, giving Mrs. Obama (an iconic and powerful figure) grey skin too-- is quite troubling because she transformed Mrs. Obama to an extraordinarily normal person--an "every-woman-kind-of-archetype"--but I wonder if this sort of radicalism is suggesting to me as a black woman and everyone else that her political feat is not a freak of nature--that she is not this bizarre anomaly--that her greatness is an extension of a communal vocabulary--that is to say "Mrs. Obama is my auntie dem, my grandma dem, my mother dem, my sister dem--she is every woman".
And as for Kehinde Wiley--he abandoning his signature style of pompousness and interjecting Mr. Obama in a garden of ordinariness--brokered the same kind of radicalism as Sherald--these African-American artists are saying to us as a black people and everyone else that to expect--to demand that our greatness is nothing new, it is nothing out of the ordinary--it has always been our normal.
Its a painful lesson that may possibly take centuries to learn.
3
Both portraits are silly. Embarrassing. Attention seeking. Indicative of pomposity.
2
My Obama,
While I'm sure these pictures would look good on a t-shirt or a refrigerator magnet, they just don't look presidential and shouldn't be hung in the White House. Stand beside a fireplace with a pipe in your hand or sit in a chair with your dog at your feet, but don't cheapen the dignity and tradition of the White House with stunts like this.
3
Perfect portrait of Bungle from the Jungle.
1
I don't like either one of these paintings. The one of Barack Obama is just plain silly. More appropriate to MOMA than the National Portrait Gallery. He looks like he is being eaten alive by the plants, sort of like the hedges in the maze in HP and the Goblet of Fire. In a few years you won't be able to see him anymore, the psychedelic plants will have taken over.
As for Michelle Obama, well the beyond obvious flaw is that the portrait doesn't look anything like Michelle. Even if (literally) gray skin color is a hallmark of the artist, it looks horrid. I totally agree that Michelle has a beautiful natural creamy brown skin, and that should be in her protrait. And the face! Who's face is this a protrait of? Michelle has very distinctive features, especially her eyes and eyebrows. Is the artist she selected not talented enough to reproduce that? And what's with 2/3 of the painting being taken up by the dress? Is that what Michelle wants to be remembered for...her clothes? If so, this doesn't come close to reflecting the wonderful sense of style and COLOR that Michelle has. Jewel tones everywhere, not afraid to show off her shape, sheathed silhouettes. This looks more like the Mother Ginger costume in The Nutcracker.
Quit being pretentious and "artistic" in praising these two flops. President and Mrs. Obama deserve way more respect and honor than these "portraits" present. Surely there are black artists who could have done a better job than these two. Jmho
6
I'm curious why the President has six fingers on his left hand.
2
I love Mr Obama's portrait. He touched me as an environmentally conscious president, and I loved him for that. This portrait captures his love of nature. Unfortunately I agree with another writer who said Mrs. Obama's portrait could have been anybody.
1
I love the Obamas, but neither of these paintings do them justice.
5
Mrs. Obama, mom/hugger-in-Chief, as First Lady was an activist on behalf of children, military families and women. For eight years, I marveled at her resilience in the face of a highly unusual resistance to the principles and aspirations of her husband’s agenda; not to mention in any detail the viciousness of the unremitting racism hurled at her husband and family. Her portrait, however—which I find shockingly true—reveals the deep hurt that this woman endured, and the hurt and strength of all women, particularly women of color throughout centuries. Missing are the broad smiles, and the high energy of Mrs. Obama’s confident spontaneity. Her expression tells an accurate story of one side of the Obama Administration, and what her family experienced with such grace and composure. But the hurt was real; it was deep; it was hard. And the artist reresents the complete story, including the glamour.
Mr. Obama sits forward in his chair— a young former President with the vitality, interests & knowledge to remain active as he takes on issues he was thwarted in fulfilling &!building upon his achievements. Placing him in an intricate, beautiful garden speaks more poetry, greater historical truths and magical congruities/incongruities than space & time here allow commentary. Most important, the president’s toughness and strength are evident, a side of him that he didn’t always reveal: his elegance and poise were layered upon that foundational truth.
V Pousette-Dart
2
Clint called, he wants his chair back.
2
I don’t like either. They are both icons who are sorely missed. But the leaves are way too distracting—they draw focus away from the man we should focus on. Michelle’s also cartoonizes her. I thought this was an animated version when I first saw it. She was anything but a cartoon. She deserves a portrait that showed her strength.
3
This is pop art; its message is about today, not posterity. That's what's different here. The subjects chose their artists knowingly, and the result was absolutely predictable. Obviously they decided (together, presumably) that this was a high profile chance to signal how they truly feel about their identity and did this by employing two minority artists recognized for treating their own ethnic group as an iconic class. Further, their artists use consistent, atypical, calculated and deliberately jarring templates to do their thing. All this was completely above board. These are not memorials like the Washington portrait; these two young people who have years of influence ahead of them. They feel the need to announce to their imagined constituency in the next phase of their lives who they feel they are now. Ambiguity about Obama's cultural and intellectual allegiances have dogged him his whole life. Black community leaders openly found this worrisome. He is making an announcement, and Michelle, a high performing Princeton alumna with daughters educated at Sidwell Friends is likewise going on the record. Good for them. How the rest of us may feel about what they've done here aesthetically or otherwise is merely peripheral.
1
Sorry but these are horrible. They look like something you could buy on a side street market painted on black velvet.
4
Ms. Ava DuVernay said it FOR me. It reminds me to hope. Me, too.
These are a joke, it has to be. But decorum was never his forte.
1
I do like them, but am a bit disappointed that Michelle's face doesn't much look like her. I heard a story on NPR and was eager to see their work.
I love art from, Pollock to Basquiat. to Warhol. To the 5th grader stick people.. I do not like this, green mess, or that overpowering white dress. I think the artist is selfish, and was showing off his talent more so than the attributes of former President and first lady. The artist injected his own flamboyancy not the strength, power, dignity, charm, diligence or the triumph of the Power Couple of the decade. I think this artist is self centered, self diluted, self engaged. And does not have the ability to absorb or relate just to project. They deserve better.
2
Unfortunately we don’t know what Obama’s presidency meant, so it’s impossible to represent BHO in a presidential portrait. Unfortunately the last year has dismantled whatever remained of his legacy; it’s already difficult to imagine he was even there. A very traditional portrait of The Black Man Behind The Desk would have been profound symbolism enough - if there was an indisputable wealth of accomplishments to attribute to his administration. Instead we must distract ourselves with abstract sentiment and symbolism to suppress the memory of a great historical opportunity lost.
1
Looks like painting by numbers
4
President Obamas hands are way too big. His body is too small for the big mess around him. Michelles is better but she is grey. They deserve better. I love this couple and I am disappointed.
2
I like the portrait of Mr Obama. Unfortunately, I do not like the artist's interpretation of Mrs Obama. This could be a painting of anybody. The artist was given a wonderful opportunity to do a portrait of our former First Lady and chose to waste it by making her unrecognizable. What a shame. I personally, hope they replace this painting with one in which we all will recognize as Mrs. Obama. She made history being the first "black" FLOTUS and deserves a portrait where she is recognized.
3
I loved the portraits. First, Mr. Obama's portrait leaped off the page and landed right in my heart. It reminded me of my grandfather and the many days that I would visit him sitting in a chair reading his paper or drinking coffee right in the middle of his garden. He said, it felt peaceful and closest to god while sitting out there. And, for the portrait of Mrs. Obama, well.. I couldn't stop looking at it because i think, I felt as though I was seeing her for the very first time. I felt as though I was seeing everything about her at once for the very first time.
1
For me: First Lady Michelle Obama’s portrait is beautiful and reminds me that we are a product of ancestors who have been wronged and ridiculed but yet we rise. President Obama’s reminds me to be proud of every moment in life, be confident, strong but humble. I absolutely love these portraits and am very proud of President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. #HISTORIC-PORTRAITS
Well, they definitely are not the usual presidential portraits. After reading some of the gushing comments, I thought of the story of the Emperor's Clothes. Only these admirers of the portraits are seeing "superb and aesthetic" qualities that I am apparently missing! Oh well. To each their own.
7
I think this is superb on so many levels. Art is supposed to evoke conversation, emotion, and challenge boundaries. Check. Not only are these works beautiful, but this article posed some great conversation-starting questions, that both art and non-art people can use as a platform to discuss art, and how art relates to everything else.
I lost my lunch when I first saw these portraits. I can't even. I'd expect better from an official portrait. After all, this official presidential portrait will be the sore thumb presidential portrait forever. Yuk! Too bad! Almost as bad as the bad do over from Hillary to Trump at the Disney animatronics for presidents. Just my opinion I know, as is yours, but where is the pride in one's work these days?
7
I agree
Both artists approach their subjects with their own style: Wiley’s hyper-rendered, brightly pigmented aesthetic is complemented by the intelligent, genial personality of a President the American people know so well, while Sherald’s soft, monochromatic palette (she uses a special mix of black and Naples yellow for all her subjects’ skin tones) creates a luminescence throughout Michelle’s entire body, her renowned grace and empathy manifesting as an outward-bound glow stemming from a deep internal well of self-confidence. The same luminescence is captured in Wiley’s portrait in highlights complemented by caramel and chocolate browns, giving us the full range of melanin some wished for in Sherald’s portrait. Perhaps one day, our distant future will not need to distinguish the Obamas as our first African American President and First Lady, but today, we are still striving to give access and equality to people of color in our own country and around the world, and thus it is more important than ever to state, again and again, that these are the first portraits of our first African-American President and First Lady created by African-American artists (and, perhaps, the first presidential portrait by a gay African-American man, no less). I see Sherald’s portrait especially as a progressive bound forward, not denying Michelle’s cultural heritage in her minimal color palette but rather celebrating Michelle in her entirety as an icon, a figure of great change and not so quiet leadership.
2
I thought Barack's portrait made a well crafted image of a strong president look slightly ridiculous suspended in leaves. Michelle's lacked her characteristic vibrancy.
I was disappointed. Perhaps I wanted both to better reflect the dynamism of the couple.
13
Green Ivy partially surrounds and, ever so slightly, has begun to account for a presence. Future growth may engulf or partially obscure yet, it makes no difference, because there Obama sits, aloof and stoic, satisfied his presence changes the enviable.
Not surprising Wiley's work here is so polarizing: love or hate Obama there he sits waiting - taunting his most vocal haters and disappointing his most vocal supporters. Terrific, thought provoking work by Wiley.
1
When was a Presidential Portrait supposed to be "thought provoking?" Just another middle finger directed to traditional America and her values.
They look like paintings that would be in the background of a Wes Anderson movie.
4
I loved President Obama’s portrait. Loved it.
Disappointed in Mrs. Obama’s portrait as it did not look like her nor did it show her heart or strength. Hated it.
3
Michelle is a beautiful woman but her portrait looks like a “high school” project. And, to top it off, one has to wonder who the artist was painting. If you saw this painting without knowing it was Michelle would you actually guessed it was her? Nope. President Obama’s portrait looks like a “cover” for a Beatles album. Fifty years from now when people are looking at all the Presidents’ portraits Obama’s is surely going to cause some major giggles, of course, after a stunned silence.
5
I went to see them with a friend today. They are gorgeous. I did not appreciate from the news photos how powerful and majestic Michelle Obama appears. In the photos the image seems flat, but in person it is imposing, contoured, sculptural. Barack Obama’s portrait is so detailed and alive. I love that neither is smiling. I also loved that so many people were lined up to see them.
The Obama Portraits don't appeal to much to me, their facial expressions don't do them any justice. Mr. Obama's portrait its like a jigsaw puzzle out of 'Grey Gardens' gone green, with a sort of a digital kitschy glow.
Mrs. Obama's portrait has a paint by numbers velvet painting flatness to it all.
Disappointing indeed! Our most graceful and cool headed President portrayed as a worried man in a crouch! Our most distinctive First Lady painted with someone else's face while her dress is portrayed per photorealism! No thanks!
4
Both pieces are bold, and unconventional. Barack, seated on a throne floating above its background like some otherworldly apparition, is aloof, awkward, and authoritarian. His face, and especially his eyes, reveal perhaps . . . a hint of calculating ambition. This is not his popular image. That Wiley picked up on it is brilliant. That President Obama allowed it is surprising. Michelle's portrait is more subtle. She is rendered in almost black and white colors, calmly posed, against a sky blue background, completely in her own space. The bright squares of color on the dress draw the eye at first, then you notice that defiant expression. I cannot doubt that she consented to this and is proud of it. The portrait is at once provocative and accessible, like you might have seen it in a hotel lobby in the Caribbean.
1
the artist did a fine job on Barack but that back ground he might look more presidential sitting in front of Mickey Mouse at Disney world. the chair even looks good. put it inside a library style setting. hers, the detail is fine but let the artist buy some paint that has the pigment returned to it. It looks like a cross between gray scale and pastels. following only added at request in article for race data. i am white i did vote for president Obama twice would have a third time if it was possible he did a good job.
1
Michelle Obama is so much more than this flat, colorless portrait, which barely resembles the incredible woman we were blessed to have as our First Lady.
Looking at President Obama’s portrait, my first thought is ... Why the ‘70s powder room wallpaper?
Second thought, why the extra finger?
The problem is probably just me, though, missing
some kind of meaningful interpretation.
1
I think Obama's picture is different but truly shows him; I think the artist missed Michelle. If it was a somewhat unattractive picture but showed an aspect of her that would be ok but this picture to me doesn't show her at all and isn't a likeness that is truly her.
2
Possibly some of the worst "art" ever. I think people are afraid to say exactly how bad they are. I can understand wanting a more contemporary work but these are laughable. Mr. Obama's portrait does nothing to dignify the position he held. Mrs. Obama's is just embarrassing. All in all, the portraits suit them.
To me, the profusion of tropical greenery surrounding the President distracts from the gravitas of the office and his service. A spray of tropical greenery on a table in the background might have been more appropriate. In Mrs. Obama's portrait, the gown appears to overwhelm the subject, who was anything but receding in her personality. I love and respect them both and am probably hyper-sensitive to anything that might detract from the seriousness of the task they faced leading our nation in the face of such ugly and unnecessary opposition.
4
Love the portraits
As the mother of a transgender teenager, I am struck by the rainbow of colors so gracefully displayed encircling President Obama. To me it will always be a reminder of how- for the first time in our nation's history the gay, lesbian, trans & binary citizens, youth and their families finally felt loved, accepted and protected by our nation's leader.
Like the picture of the night white house was lit up like a rainbow... this presidential portrait brings tears to my eyes.
I'm sure the portrait will mean differect things to different people.... as it should be... because he was, and is- loved by SO many because he touched so many.... in so many different ways.
Thank you again Barrack.
Best. President. Ever. And most beloved
1
I love both the portraits. They express to me how fresh and innovative and forward looking the Obamas were and are for us.
I had read about the artists the Obama's had selected for their portraits, so I knew they would not be the traditional paintings. I very much like both portraits. I like the symbolism in the President's, his hands and face and I like the black & white photo look of Michelle. Perhaps the artist, who lives in Baltimore close to where I live, didn't want to focus solely on Michele's striking beauty and continue age old customs for First Ladies. Michele is a total woman not one dimensional . I love the flowing dress w/abstract designs. It's interesting.
I think the portraits are hideous. As an African American I find them to be offensive in that they reduced the President and First Lady to caricatures, almost like comic book characters. The artist who painted Mrs. Obama could have at least painted her face, not someone else's face. The loud green background totally overwhelms the President. When people go to look at the portraits of the 44th president and his wife they won't be able to find them. A do over is definitely needed.
6
I agree. Mr. Obama's likeness was captured,very well. It is cool that symbolic flowers were in the portrait, but all the greenery!!!! OMG yuk! Mrs. Obama: the dress shows her style; but whose face is that and what is with the extra long arm across her lap?
His looks like a rushed Photoshop job, hers like a junior high project. Utterly inferior work that reminds a normal person of nothing so much as The Emperor's New Clothes. And while I'm hardly a supporter of either of these people - whatever that means - I'll give them credit for acting as if they liked the results.
I'd prefer to believe that about them then the only alternative.
The Barack portrait = hit. The Michelle Obama portrait = miss. While I can appreciate having a contemporary spin as a counterpoint against the typical stodgy portraits of past presidents and first ladies, Ms. Sherald totally missed capturing Michelle's likeness and personality. The gray ashy skin in the portrait looked like bad foundation makeup had been applied. Maybe the Obamas could get Annie Leibovitz to take another stab at it. She seems to be able to get the right setting for her subjects.
2
Not crazy about these paintings. Mrs O’s portrait is flat and graphic, more a pop art cartoon and a reflection of the artist than it is a representation of a woman who is so alive and authentic in real life. An artist friend suggested that Mr O’s portrait lacks depth and an inner life because it was painted from a photo rather than from life. Many contemporary artists rely on photographs but modern technology tends to confer an artificial quality to their work that is really the opposite of what a portrait should be. The Obamas seem to appreciate art but, like many collectors, have only a superficial understanding of art history. I can’t help but think that their decorator was not the best person to assist in their choice of portraitist.
1
When President Barack Obama's portrait was unveiled I was very pleased seeing a man being shown in a much softer light. Even tho there were pinks and reds of flowers, showing the understanding leader. It still showed him as the dominant leader surrounded by the strong tones of green leaves. The portrait of the President himself beautifully resembles him!!
The portrait of the former first lady does not do her justice. The gown is a gorgeous style! Unfortunately the First Lady's portrait lack facial tones or features. It does not show any strength or beauty in her arms. All the colors are very dull, nothing there showing the world that she is a very strong woman! In my opinion.
1
I don't care for them, frankly. The overall look of Mr. Obama's seems cartoony and amateurish, with the subject floating in a sea of leafy green. The face is certainly recognizable as a likeness, but the giant hands that appear to have six fingers seem creepy. Mrs. Obama's portrait did not have the element of creepiness, but it left me wondering who sat for it as it looks nothing like her. It seems a little like the story of the Emperor with no clothes.....I'm wondering if people are too afraid to say they really don't like them. Perhaps that is the idea - to pretend one loves them and try to find wonderful things to say.
3
I appreciate the paintings from an artistic point of view but I do not think they are the appropriate choice be the official portraits of the Obama's.
Mr. Obama does not look" Presidential " way too casual and Mrs. Obama portrait does not even look like her.
2
I like both portraits very much. Two good looking, intelligent people leading the country by example, words and deeds. In contrast to the schlubs in power right now.
I miss the Obamas a lot.
-- John G
Notes on the Obama Portraits by Vincent J. Tomeo
Former President Obama’s portrait painting, like Henri Rousseau’s The Dream 1910, has both the quality of a private fantasy in isolation in a dreamlike setting and surprisingly is enchanting and stunning in color in modern day context in a garden. I don’t feel any emotion, but I am curious what’s on his mind.
Michelle Obama’s painting, on the other hand, evokes a strong feeling of a powerful woman in striking high fashion. Colors play a significant role in this portrait just as it does in Barack’s. She is poised, confident and seems to be pondering I don’t know what. I can’t entirely read what’s on her mind, which makes me more curious. She is stunning against the blue background in her quilt multicolor gown. The white of her dress enhances her portrait making it very modern and appealing. She is simply gorgeous.
Both portraits will set a precedent for future portraits of Presidents and First Ladies, I am sure.
Vincent J. Tomeo
I just don't think that the former first lady's portrait looks like her. A little more like a Diana Ross album cover from the '70s.
3
Still trying to decode the significance of that particular chair amidst those particular plants for Mr. Obama who is so noble and compelling and cool.
Cannot fathom the dress- the size, shape focus of it. Michelle Obama is one of the most incredible and significant women in contemporary social and political history, and in this painting is represented by a molecularly disappearing face and a voluminous dress.
I realize I must trust the Obamas judgement in the artists they chose to represent them for posterity, but...but...but...I'd hoped for more.
President Obama's portrait looks like him, but I wish the background was a little abstract as it distracts from his face.
Michelle Obama's looks like an idealized, much younger woman, with her hair obviously looking that that of a white woman. Not exactly breaking any expectations there.
Refreshingly authentic! Both portraits speak to how The O’Bama Presidency and The O’Bamas are and forever will be, ORIGINAL. Instead of looking stiff and unapproachable like the portraits of previous Presidents and First Ladies, their portraits look amazingly down-to-Earth and friendly but without appearing cheesy. Their poise, character and strength shines in each of their portraits. I love how they ALWAYS have such futuristic ideas and great taste!! They are both excellent role models for my 5yo granddaughter to look up too.
2
Disappointed. The President's painting looks like a magazine cover; on top of that, the perspective of the chair is wrong and his hands are poorly done. Mrs. Obama's painting is a total misfire. There is no likeness; this unknown figure is cold and distant and overwhelmed by a dress that can only be called hideous.
I had a hoped for so much more for this beloved and admired presidential couple.
16
These are perfectly fine portraits to be placed in Obama's home, wherever they want to place them....but the Presidential portraits aren't about the Obama's personal interest in avant garde art...they have an historical context, even more so for them as the very first African-Americans for whom such portraits have ever been made. These portraits are out of step with American Presidential history and the millions of African-Americans who toiled away with dignity so that being an African-American President of the United States could be something that was simply "normal" and not disconcerting and off putting like these paintings. My children will see these paintings, and, naturally compare them to the paintings of people who came before and who will come after the Obamas...and within that context, the Obama portraits will simply seem...weird. As proud as I am of the Obamas, I want to be proud, as an African-American, of these portraits...and I find that I just simply cannot. Amongst a stable of well-bred horses, here these artists have placed strange looking unicorns. How will anyone from a red state ever believe they can relate to the Obama legacy? These paintings are out of step with America, an America where I would just like to be a normal person each and every day...and not viewed as a unicorn.
13
Both portraits are wonderful works of art. But I prefer President Obama's portrait, because it is a wonderful likeness, too, whereas Mrs. Obama's is wonderful art and design, but not such a good likeness. It may capture her spirit, but she doesn't really look like that. Whereas Mr. Obama's portrait captures him perfectly and then captures his intensity, his thoughtfulness, and (I think) how many of us feel about him.
2
I love the portraits of both President Obama and Michelle Obama, which evoke a sense of hope, naturalism, and respect. The use of nature and striking green color in the background of President Obama's background illustrate that environment determines character. His relaxed pose shows his comfort and respect of people. Mrs. Obama's portrait represents every woman's strength and elegance. The flowing gown and its isolated striking patches create a quilt of differences and uniqueness. I'm thoroughly impressed with the artists' vision of the President and Mrs. Obama--very different than traditional portraits, but quite evocative.
I was attending a conference in Washington D.C. within walking distance of the National Potrait Gallery when the portraits of former President Obama and Michelle Obama were being unveiled to the public. My stepson Johnny, who had accompanied me on this trip, was just as excited about viewing these portraits on the first day of their exhibit. The portrait of America's first African-American president did not disappoint. The artist's unconventional and unorthodox approach for capturing Mr. Obama's style and grace in this rendering seemed to capture the surreal qualities that characterized what we all experienced knowing that our country had elected a person of color to the highest position of the land. Enchanted by the artist's bold use of color and dream-like images, it almost made question whether his ascension to the presidency had come to fruition.
Yes, I remember clearly how surreal it felt for so many. Everyone seemed to be floating 3 inches off the ground as the were walking. A black president! And on inauguration day, many looked on in wonder on as he ascended the steps to take his place among the gods, surrounded by giant Roman columns. Yep, I remember.
I love Mr. Wiley's portrait of President Obama. By painting him in that posture, arms folded in a way that shows groundedness, stability, thoughtfulness, body leaning forward to connect with the viewer, a facial expression conveying how he seriously and intelligently he approached concerns of the US and concerns beyond the country he led, Mr. Wiley captured what I admired in the president. The lush greenery, every leaf detailed, suggests to me the multitude of issues he had to contend with, and the blossoms symbolic of victories he won. The chair is not on a completely different plane from the garden; President Obama was in touch with people. The vivid colours depict the hope and renewed energy that came when he was first elected. He is a person of colour and the explosion of colour in the painting brings a liveliness and positivity, traits that are all too often missing when we read about persons of colour in the news.
I love the modernity of the first lady's portrait because she was very much the ideal of what a modern woman could be when she puts her previous job on hold and puts her intelligence and charisma and new-found privilege to good use. The juxtaposition of various colours and patterns, all bold, some contrasting depict the complexities of her role. That voluminous skirt reminds me of her grace and generosity. The only thing I did not like was the greyness of her skin tone.
I hope to one day see these paintings where they hang.
3
To me, the background of President Obama's portrait overflows with love of life, growth, interconnectedness, and heritage; his chair projects historical significance and strength of character wrought by experience, patience, and wisdom; and his likeness's expression, size, and posture highlight his unique combination of confidence, humility, and readiness to take action. In the background of the First Lady's portrait, I see unwavering hope; her face and posture show her striking balance of intelligence, depth, and concern; and her exuberant outfit conveys pure joy with what I can't help but interpret as symbols of equality, variety, and synergy. I'm blown away by both portraits' colors and patterns. I also note that both images scale very well both up and down in size, and — wanting their beauty to regularly remind Americans of what is truly great about America — I personally hope they will someday appear on U.S. postage stamps, so that everyone can enjoy these pioneering portraits of the two most important Americans of my generation.
3
I absolutely love Mr. O's portrait. It's striking, interesting and playful at the same time. It's not sterile. I am a multi ethnic person, a human being. I just really am intrigued by the contrast of semi wild vibrant vegetation and the posed presidential Barack.
7
I will admit that I did not like them at first. Barack Obama has always been so dignified and intellectual, Michelle Obama has always been so proud and fierce. I was surprised and caught off-guard by both portraits. Having read more about them, I am growing to like them more. They chose artists they identified with, whose work they loved. The portraits aren't a national decision -- we have plenty of official pictures of the Obamas as our first family. These were personal decisions and I'm glad they chose with their hearts. Being different and being bold are signs of power. My greatest wish for our former first family is that they go from strength to strength.
9
Fabulous.
Portraiture as Art.
Creative
Exciting
Breathtaking
Paintings that
make a statement
and will be noticed,
remembered
and are worthy
of their inspirations.
3
Portraits are not meant to be exact likenesses; we have photographs for that. Portraits— particularly portraits of the President and First Lady—are meant to convey the character of the sitter and these portraits do just that. The President is deep in thought, his gray hair (maturity) a contrast to the leafy background (youth). The First Lady is the height of elegance, stylish but not stiff or walled off by her clothes.
2
Some have commented on the proportions of Mrs. Obama’s portrait. Remember that it is painted to be viewed large-scale and in person, not on a five-inch phone. The effect is probably entirely different!
It might be like seeing a cubist painting in a book and thinking, I just don’t get this, but then seeing it in person and briefly having vertigo because at a large scale you truly experience seeing one scene from different perspectives at once!
I hope to see these in person soon.
2
I want to like them, but don't. His hands are too large, and her beauty is missing. There is something about painting presidential portraits with dignity, pomp and circumstance etc. that appeals to me, though I concede that perhaps I need to be willing to see a different perspective.
6
I love these. I especially love Michelle Obama's. There is something about the flat, blue background and the shadowing of the arms and face that reminds me of a Picaso that's here at the Art Institute (of Chicago). In the Picaso (I want to say it's called "Mother and Child") a woman serenely holds a baby in the folds of her skirt and looks down it with a calm, almost wistful expression. Mrs. Obama's portrait has that same comforting strength and dignity---a rock to cling to during the storm. The pyrimadal composition does all the more to ground her in the space, and the drapery (which is beautifully done) adds that touch of movement. I could admire this all day.
7
I like the painting, but..... But it doesn't seem to resemble Michelle Obama...
I like them - I like that they break with the traditional. I like that they chose artists that have distinctive voices, I like looking at them compared to the last 20 Presidents...
I like them a lot...
6
I like the portraits but I do not think Mrs. Obama's portrait looks like her.
5
I suppose the question is « Should their paintings fit in with those of their predecessors? On that issue I remain indifferent; however on the issue of interpretation I suggest the following:
Both artists’ portraits attempt to capture on canvas a pensive mood for the
iconic couple. Two of W.H. Auden’s poems best describe for me their renderings. For Obama in « Lauds, » ... green world temporal / In solitude, for company; and for Michele, in the abstract, « Sext » ... that one may be worthy of their mystery.
1
Finally! Two Portraits that perfectly present the President and Mrs.Obama in a modern, beautiful, stunning way that captures their youth, spirit, and forward thinking! Winners as always! How I miss them.
2
Wonderful, beautiful, as they should be. Not those old portraits of the past that were all so stuffy and boring to look at.
These are truly magnificent. I love them.
4
Both are absolutely beautiful and modern! Typical painted portraits are often quite boring. These are fresh, expressive, lovely. I hope they have started a new trend for formal portraits in our National Portrait Gallery! The Obamas are alive, feeling, expressive people---- their portraits are the same! Bravo to the artists! Thank you!
9
I was excited when the artists were announced as I was already familiar with them. Both artists have brought one of my favorite genres of painting into modern conversation. They are museum quality artists and their work will be valued for generations. Of course it’s important that they are people of color and also that a woman has received such a prestigious commission but it’s the work that is so much more important. They stunned me with their beauty and their emotional impact.
5
I'm really of two minds here. I'm joyful that the Obamas sought out fresh eyes and fresh styles and important artistic voices to express who they are, and the paintings are certainly worth spending time looking at and thinking about. But I wish these weren't the "official" portraits--because years from now (if this nation survives the current regime) young people will look at the presidential portraits (not just the Obamas), and I wish first of all that they would see the same intelligent, joyful, committed, accessible GOOD faces most of us have loved beholding, and second of all that in the line of portraits of presidents and first ladies there would be a sense of normalcy, of belonging--really, it should NOT have been so extraordinary that we had such excellence in the White House, and looking back we should not have as our first thought "Wow, THOSE are different!' My hope is that we will have other leaders of color, and we will distinguish among all the presidents in our history not by skin tone but by the quality of their leadership. All of that said, I am looking forward now to turning back to the actual Obama portraits and enjoying them for what they are.
6
The portraits are superficial, disappointing and of little permanent impact. In many ways that means they are frustratingly appropriate.
6
Well said.
They are unique and creative, but I also find them strange and somewhat undignified, to casual somehow. I don't think Michelle's portrait resembles her as much as the former President's resembles him. The dress def. dominates the frame; rather than conveying a sense of who she is as a person, it obscures her. It's odd to see such an astute man sitting among "leaves", as if he is on a gentleman's gardening magazine cover. Think a more classical approach to a portrait is best for leaders of this stature.
12
Wonderful and so refreshing. The originality of these portraits was a delight to see. Both artists capturing the individuality and personalities of President Obama and the First Lady. Love them
1
I just adore these portraits. It helps to adore the subjects but there is more. The portraits and beautiful and thought provoking like all great art. Not everyone will be as enthralled as I am but I don't care. They are just great. They make me so happy.
2
I am a big art fan. I was terribly disappointed in them because I don't think either serves the dignity of either as people or the office. They are very interesting as art for sure. But a Presidential portrait is about the subject, not the artist or the execution of the piece. I think these two pieces are more about the artists. Self-indulgent perhaps.
The vines, which are wonderful as art, are overtaking the President literally and figuratively. He seems bound by them. Mrs. Obama's portrait is about her dress, not her. A woman is more than her fashion. What message does this send to tomorrow's young girls who view this piece?
Presidential portraits can be bold and individualistic artistically. They can certainly break out of the mold. That is what TR's and JFK's do. I think JFK's is stunningly beautiful, bolting and famously distinct from any other president. I sadly think neither portrait portrays the dignity and "largeness" Mr. or Mrs. Obama. I could not imagine portraying Dr. Martin Luther King for the ages this way.
28
Amen!
The President's portrait compellingly evokes the Unicorn in Captivity Tapestry - though his posture presents more as "outhouse" than "White House".
The First Lady's disproportionate portrait drains her of color and spirit, stifles her in leisurely discomfort, elbow on forearm (ouch), head propped on hand, the negative space of her arms cradling, what is it, a black/white silouette of her husband? These are not words that go together well - Dour Michelle.
Though at their unveiling we were given yet another opportunity to witness (and be grateful for) the remarkably clearsighted and cheerful grace, intelligence and generosity of the Obamas, I ultimately see these portraits as much more revealing of the artists than their subjects.
Perhaps that's always the case and so be it - no single depiction could ever really capture the former (and forevermore!) First Couple and if they're truly happy with the canvasses, that means considerably more than my, or anyone else's opinion.
10
I think these portraits are beautiful and eye opening. In fact, they portray the former first family in a light that reflects their leadership. Mr. President did not lead from behind a desk nor was he hands off during his presidency. Instead, he showed America he was just like all of us. The greenery of the garden reflects the world as a whole and how he was not on top of it but instead, a part of it. These portraits show the humble mindedness of these two wonderful people. They broke tradition to show everyone that they can change their stars with a lot of hard work and steadfast mentality.
5
Both artworks are beyond fabulous. The stories behind the art and the artists are worth reading. I'm so glad they didn't do something anodyne.
5
Beautiful, insightful, meaningful portraits sharing both the intricacy of their lives and the strength of their legacy. One thing though, where is their joy? It was always so motivating to see their joy, enthusiasm and positive energy. I did not feel that looking at those portraits.
5
The joy is in the leafy background!
Barak Obama is my contemporary and therefore feels like "my" president. His presidency meant everything to me. It was thrilling to see the portraits. To me they are, each in their own way, iconic. Michelle is lifted to an iconic status that is above, elevated, elegant, and powerful....perfection. The portrait of the president is powerful, thoughtful, intense, beautiful...I love it. I am thrilled that the artists are African-American and that they brought their own interpretation to the task. Anything less would have been a disappointment.
10
My primary reaction is sadness, because I miss them both so much. But after watching a replay of the entire unveiling ceremony and listening to President Obama and Michelle as well as their chosen artists, I then turn to reflecting on the art and how these two important people have been portrayed.
It seems especially fitting for Barack Obama’s background to be green, as though he were floating in a garden or in nature, since he was and is a champion of our planet. He attempted to address climate change, he was an advocate for nature. The flowers fittingly portrayed refer to Africa and his father, Hawaii, his birthplace, and Chicago, where he began community activism and also met Michelle. He is shown as still in the game (and we desperately still need him), a concerned and engaged expression on his face. His gaze is direct, he’s leaning forward, ready to listen. The message is one of reassurance that although he’s no longer in the Oval Office, he’s not done. His influence will continue to be felt around the world.
As for Michelle, perhaps the billowing dress represents the wide range of her influence, both in the White House and now as well. Her status as First Lady lasted only eight years, but her lessons of compassion, reason and strength live on. No doubt the colors and shapes within the dress are symbolic as well. The expression on her face seems neutral and yet strong simultaneously, and the lack of ‘photographic’ likeness does not distract but is instead intriguing.
11
The garden is good. The gardener cares for the garden. President Obama cared.
The glare and harsh judgement focused hard on the First Lady, her countanence always made me proud.
These portraits capture a feeling I already had. They reflect my praise and gratitude.
They also make me sad of how I long for decent people to work in the White House.
12
My ancestors came originally from Africa; I am an African-American.
I also paint.
The portraits are not at all to my taste (but we all know there is no accounting for taste; it takes all kinds of vegetables to make a salad).
It doesn't appear to me that either of the Obamas is very interested in art.
Instead, it seems they wanted to make a political/cultural statement by their choices of painters.
Frankly, I find the paintings slightly ridiculous. As paintings, they are not at all interesting to me. I wonder if the painters were not dark-skinned, would they be famous?
I deplore the emphasis on skin color or any other aspect of appearance. Do people know there is no such biological thing as race?
Art does not have a skin color.
Think for yourself?
18
There's no accounting for taste.
6
The Obamas reside in my heart forever. In a way I feel treasonous in my thoughts of Mrs Obamas portrait. In the purposeful grey skin she disappears. The portrait does not resemble her. The essences of this incredible woman is lost in in a gown which speaks more about the gown than the woman. Im not sure that the people who view these portraits will catch the intended symbolic nature. Yet... they are imaginative. Provocative.
8
I immediately thought Ivy League when I saw the leafy background - the erudite President.
7
Leaves look like it’s poison sumac. And why does he have six fingers oh his left hand? Paging Inigo Montoya.
The portraits reflect contemporary America's choice as well as Barack and Michelle's choices. Power, strength, grace. Courage in art.
7
Michelle Obama’s portrait was a disappointment to me when I first saw it. I wanted to see the lovely brown tones of her skin and the reassurance of her smile. I wanted to understand why her skin was gray and her gaze so stern, so did a google search of Amy Sherald’s work and discovered that all of her subjects have gray skin and no smiles. I also found an article that spoke of the difficulties Mrs. Obama faced in the White House - how difficult it was to send her two girls to school their first day surrounded by secret police, for example. I imagine it was difficult for her to watch her husband struggle with complicated national and world issues, and they both had their own struggles with prejudice against them, the full extent of which we may never know. I now understand better the gray tone of her skin and the solemn face, but I still yearn for her brown complexion and beautiful smile, her true essence.
18
I’m disappointed. The portraits are lovely but do not capture the grace and integrity the Obamas brought to the White House.
13
Both portraits are remarkable and no traditional. However, The Michelle Obama portrait does not do her justice! Watching her speak at the ceremony, I was struck by how vibrant and beautiful she was with her eyes so full of life and intelligence, her clothes elegant and flattering! Quite a contrast to the grayish very still lady emerging out of a voluminous randomly decorated dress, which took up most of the foreground in the portrait! His portrait was more true to his appearance. Love the casual look of a man full of grace, wit,and a trace of a smile, not wearing a tie! The foliage looked less like a garden setting than a painted backdrop! A little overdone but at least he did not disappear into it!
a trace of a smile! mage, tho
5
I agree - very underwhelmed- and sad. I can see and appreciate the artistry and talent of his portrait. The attention to detail and his ability to recreate 3-D with such clarity and depth is beautiful I think the background overtakes the portrait and the vines growing over him- bit much.
Michelle's is another story entirely- When I think of the pictures of her standing with him, in the pink dress, the black dress and the light that comes from her then. The joy that comes from her smile and this depiction is completely devoid of all of that - its flat washed out, doesn't even honor her curves which are distinctively black. This is the face of a young girl, not a woman and if she didn't stand by it on stage you would be hard pressed to recognize it as being her. You asked for the opinions of AA and as one, I know I'm supposed to be proud of the historical significance of the portraits and the artists selected to create them. This was a chance to showcase the light, the joy, the strength, beauty and splendor of the subjects- and she fell as flat as that washed out, flat and curveless woman in that picture- whoever she may be.
18
Thank you- well said!
I absolutely love these portraits. This President and First Lady were unique to the white house in so many ways. Both were lawyers, strong marriage, dedicated to family, highly intelligent, actively engaged with the public in a positive way. Together they lived in front of the United States with class, dignity, no scandal, no lies to retract or coverup. The portraits show a love of life and pride in self that is so true to both of them. The contemporary styles are gorgeous and show how diverse they are and their love of life.
3
It is hard for me to know what I feel about the portraits because they are large and the photos in the paper are small. I do appreciate from the photos that they aren't stuffy portraits, that's good. I need to really see them. I want to, and that must mean something. I feel like I already like Barack O's, but I can't really see Michelle's face clearly and I wonder about the colors. She is a person who is bursting with warmth, she is a smart and colorful woman, like who is more grounded and articulate than this woman?, so it is fascinating that the artist chose to portray her so mysteriously muted. Sure am curious! I have a feeling I will like these portraits a lot.
2
These portraits brought tears to my eyes. I was overwhelmed with joy that these gorgeous paintings are now a part of our historical record.
Meanwhile, I am a fan of KW and admit that the President’s portrait was more subdued than I anticipated; in that way I was disappointed, but I’m letting the work grow on me as it is.
2
Both artists have done better work. But both pieces are much more interesting than the typical portrait.
4
I love the portraits!! As fresh and exhilarating as they were as President and First Lady, the portraits ask us to think and reflect on our ideas about appreciation and service to our country and the entire world.
I see the grace, strength, dignity and generosity of the First Lady who was beloved the world over yet thoughtlessly maligned by so many in her own country. I see the private pain and resolve. I see the brilliance of her legacy as it spills outward to the viewer in the bold yet refined opulence of her dress. This is a portrait for today and for the future. It is a mystery, a delight, a meditation.
4
Both portraits are appropriatly grand yet original compositions. The elegance and intellectual intensity of President is made pragmatic and accessible becausnhenisnnot wearing a tie. The foliage and antique chair and seated position all engaging . Mrs. Obama’s pairing is likewise beautiful original. The whole image is perhaps more expressive of her than the facial likeness. Each are unique and beautiful and so too the sitters.
I have the greatest respect for President and Mrs Obama.
I applaud their right to select two noteworthy African American artists to do their portraits . Having said that , I am dismayed by the results .
President Obama looks like the sullen Director of the Chicago Botanical Gardens rather than the Commander in Chief . Michelle Obama as others have said looks like a portrait of a dress with her in it as a afterthought .
Less like the welcoming First Lady than a associate editor at Vogue .
Disconcertingly , the President , known for his "cool " is pictured in a very uncharacteristic " hot " setting due to the colors and unpresidential setting . In turn , the First Lady , known for her exuberant " warmth " is depicted with uncharacteristic iciness . All in all , a missed opportunity to capture the true essence but more importantly , the stature of these great Americans.
14
I think Mrs. Obama's portrait is a perfect illustration of her symbol as a First Lady. It's about the dress, the occasion and the commitment to protocol in all it's requirements while she held her position. I particularly like the symbols on the dress, the heart, the rainbow colors, and the choice of primarily being black and white--while Mrs. O is grey. It's a reminder to me of how seriously they both took and still take the responsibility of representing all of us. It's not about them as individuals but the country of us. Heavy sigh while reflecting on missing those practiced ideals of public service.
3
These are the first, truly modern presidential and first lady portraits, ever. They convey a true accurate image of the person but set against untradtional backgrounds. Love them. Kehinde Wiley is one of my favorite contemporary artists.
11
Amazing. Stunning. Beautiful. Thought-provoking. These are art.
11
Both paintings took my breath away. Modern and layered with meaning, but most essentially, very beautiful...I could not stop looking at them. But, of course this is a celebration of the Obama presidency and it is fittingly visually iconoclastic. Bravo to the painters!
You went deep and light at the same time. I feel grateful.
9
I too would love to hear more from people of African descent on this topic. I am white and I think both of the paintings are wonderful. I am mostly troubled by the "judgement" by people who seem to think that a portrait is supposed to fulfill some viewers' expectation for a photorealistic likeness. The subjects selected the artists and knew the work would reflect those artists sensibilities. Hooray! We got some Americans looking at art and thinking about it when art is under appreciated in this country.
28
Love the concepts of both. I think the depiction of MO is not as accurate as the depiction of BO but perhaps that is what was intended. As a person who understands art as something I respond positively to or not, I respond positively to both.
7
I rather like B. Obama’s portrait. The poetic ambiguities are intriguing. And no tie. Spiffy well fitting suit. Contradiction. Formal chair, formal blooms in an unstructured garden? Inconsistent source of light? His wedding band hand is front and center (publicly solid marriage) and a sliver view of his wristwatch (generational passing). He’s leaning forward, assertive and confident, but his feet are floaty, not ready to leap up and confront anyone. He’s staying put. You’ve got to approach him on his terms. Photographic, yes, but then…How could he be painted with broad strokes? He was a realist all the way. Thoughtful about all the pros and cons. Detail guy. With lots of warmth. Warm palette.
Michelle does not create anything recognizable as Michelle. I mean if I hadn’t known, I wouldn’t know. Though I like the color bleed, like the wizard of Oz! I’m just get nothing from Michelle’s painting. I don’t even think her arms are muscly enough... I mean her arms are a signature thing. Maybe what this painting says about Michelle is she would never micromanage her portrait or an artist. She instills confidence in others. She gave this artist free rein. But I think this portrait makes her look so standoffish and a bit hostile. The real Michelle is forceful and warm and speaks her mind. This pretty woman is just any woman. And it is disappointing. It’s like those Breck ads that don’t look like real people.
21
Underwhelmed.
12
Disappointed. I felt completely disappointed. I wanted to see
our first black Presidential couple looking gloriously dark AND presidential in a timeless portrait. Instead I see a gray first lady, leaving me wondering WHY not the beautiful rich skin tone that Michelle has? What’s so wrong with being black that her color can’t be depicted in the Presidential Portrait? And her features... those are just the features of any random white woman... one with gray skin. Nothing here a black woman can identify with. Michelle Obama is a a strinkingly beautiful and stately woman. This painting is art, but not a portrait of my beautiful first lady.
As for President Obama, it is different. At least it looks like him, well,
except that alien hand. I’m not a
fan of the realistic/cartoon-like
interplay going on with the foliage or perpective. I suppose I was looking for something more Presidential than jungle, but if it is the symbolism that he wanted, I can respect that.
I support the choosing of black artists to paint the portraits. I guess that I was expecting Presidential Portraits that conveyed my own pride in the Obama Presidency as a “black is no different, except for our beautiful skin tone” type of style and what I see sends a different message entirely. And in Michelle’s case, there is no personal identity or black pride, just a fashion icon. Perhaps my expectations were askew. Maybe if I take a few days and try to see them through a new lens.
6
I am white and I understand why they chose 2 black artists to paint their portraits.Oprah would do it. Jayzee would do it. Shonda Rhimes would do it. These prortraits represent how the first couple want their legacy to be viewed-as modern, non-traditional, courageous, and challenging.As with any modern art it is up to you, the viewer, to decipher what the artist was trying to communicate..Obama looks quite striking as he sits in a lush,fantasy garden.His pose,his expression, his clothing his open top button make him look intense and serious but confident and secure.. Mrs. Obama looks so magnificent in her gown. It is flowing with abstract but geometric blocks of white and yellow, black and grey. These portraits will shake up the portrait gallery for sure. But will remain in your mind's eye way after you leave.Because now we know a little more about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. They were filled with the wit, intelligence, conviction, courage and security that enabled our democracy to thrive and progress for eight years.
4
PS She was the gardener, not him.
10
PS, the flowers aren't about gardening.
It is unflattering to Barack to stick him in a jungle. He looks small, joyless, and out of place.
The portrait of Michelle fails to capture and even fights against her most captivating characteristic: a genuine and unpretentious authenticity. Obviously, very little effort was made to depict Michelle's facial characteristics; aside from the physicality of the arms, the woman in the portrait does not look like Michelle. The artist, I suspect, suffers from an inferiority complex. Flattery can often be unflattering, and I think this is what we see here.
9
I honestly do not understand that someone would think or assume that Obama in a floral garden setting has to speak to some huge, macro racial / gender dynamic of black masculinity. That's a construct they are buying into as much as anyone else....The entire media, art and journalistic medium is being ruined by these notions and paradigms. Appreciate it for what it is. Stop reporting on people who simply project their agendas onto everything that exists or is made... its become culturally destructive and diminishes the act.
1
There are 5 fingers on his left hand.
2
OMG. Not that's all I will ever see. Hilarious.
I love that they are both shown wearing their wedding rings.
2
Even it i was a fan of the Obama's whihc I am definately not, these are a couple of the worst presidential portraits I have ever seen. The one of ex presidenti Obama looks like him, but why the leaves n the background? Makes no sense at all. Michelle looks like she s the top of a mountain and it isnt a good depction of her at all. it looks very flat looking. But the selection of a black artist instead of one who atually had some talent is just a reflection of Mr Obama being the benefictionary of preferential treatment through Affirmtive action policies. If I wa the Obama's, I'd ask for a do over.
2
Golly. This is one heckuva comment: " But the selection of a black artist instead of one who atually had some talent ..."
The leaves reflect Hawaii, Kenya and Chicago. These artists are clearly talented. Your comments are unnecessarily hostile, reflect your own biases and have nothing to do with the artist. Curious how you know Obama was the "beneficiary" of affirmative action policies? Also, do you have a problem with the fact that Jared Kushner got accepted to Harvard in spite of poor grades because his father provided a multi-million-dollar donation to the school? And are you okay that Ivanka and Jared are top advisors to the president, though they have no qualifications for the positions?
I don't like either one of them. Barrack looks like a stagnate little man being taken over by vines. And Michelle's portrait doesn't even look like her. Her skin tone is way off and she resembles an amazon, her leg under the dress comes out too far, her arms and hands are too long. She looks huge and her husband looks tiny.
8
More space to leaves than to Obama - Why? The subject is perhaps leaving. Leaving Africa and Indonesia and Kansa and Hawaii and California and New York and Chicago, Obama arrived at the White House. Who is this man, we asked? Where is he from? What can he teach us? Where will he lead us? Some of us left behind the comforts of convention behind to join in his adventure, others did not. At the journey's end we are faced with Obama at rest, in front of nature. His peace can now be ours.
1
Iconic cool.
1
I LOVE IT for being different. You don't see a powerful man; on the contrary, you see a man embraces his life with public services and honesty. His portrat has a deep meaning if you admired the kind of people were the Obamas in the White House.
Lovely but Michelle Obama's face barely resembles the face in her portrait. Hard to pin it down but portrait appears to be of a much younger woman?
2
Looks more like daughter, Sasha to me.
Tacky, should be on black velvet selling on street corners.
11
Kehinde's Obama is not Velasquez's Juan de Pareja.
Portrait painting is a thankless task today and a dead art. They are both painted from photoshopped images, de riguer in today's portrait painting industry. There is no frisson like Velaquez's Pope Innocent X powerful glance, a picture done with an economy of means. The Pope's power and personality was portrayed by his face and posture, not drowned in greenery, by a painter of unsubtle means.
Michelle's portrait is a fashion illustration.
Removed in time they will be what they are- simply mediocre, important only for whom they portray.
9
Sharon, you are obviously not fly.
About the paintings, Mrs. Obama has terrible skin tone as if it was painting from a favorite black and white photo of her younger day in a new dress, and she looks stressful and sad. Mr. Obama's arms are insecure and out of norm, as he has never sit that way. Although try to convey a powerful message, but Mr. Obama doesn't seem comfortable in his seat and did not know what to do with his hands (notice his posture, because his back is holding high not relax and low, and his arm folded in odd way, that is the most uncomfortable way to sit). Look as if he's bowing down or being time out. I hope the paintings didn't have to travel to China for a special touch up, although, some blossoms do look like the Chinese's chrysanthemums, don't they?
4
The only modern presidential portraits I've wanted to see in person.
2
Michelle looks so much like Sasha here it looks like a portrait of their second daughter. Otherwise? Well done all around
Loved his portrait, but didn't like Michelle's. Why the grayish skin tone? Her skin is a beautiful warm brown. Also the dress was so prominent. She was fashionable but she was so much more.
6
wonderful pictures of wonderful people.......simple
I love the representation of both, especially President Obama. His exoticism is captured so well in this portrait. Michelle's pose is a 21st century representation of the regal poses found in centuries-old portraits of European royalty.
1
I am a lifelong Democrat. I have read many comments that appear to confuse artistry and politics. I am very disappointed when the two are melted together. That being said, I liked Mrs. Obama’s picture but hated the Presidents. The background looks like busy wallpaper. Very distracting.
1
Excellent both!!! They radiate what human kind needs all the time. Light and wisdom. Those backgrounds are unique, they have a great message of love!. What about Michelle's dress, it could no be one better. WOW!
I wish Michelle had been painted looking as she is today: More beautiful!!! Everyone in the world would identify her at first glance.
1
I think having President Obama right in the middle of Nature is an homage to all he did for that very Nature--conserving enormous areas of the sea, for example. That he understands, is concerned about the natural world, is made real by the intelligence and comfort he exudes in that sea of leaves, a clear reflection of President Obama's commitment to saving Nature from Us.
I think Michelle Obama's portrait shows her to be the modern, feminine and strong woman she is. It suggests Michelle is all for cutting edges-in science, art and design, all in a dignified yet impassioned way that we all need at this terrible time in our history.
The Obamas are, to me, the most intelligent, dignified, thoroughly classy people ever in office. It makes the drop to the crude, ignorant, greedy, thoroughly nonintellectual-and-proud-of-it current White House (or"that dump" as our leader calls it) vertiginous in the extreme.
The portraits of the Obamas will become that beacon of sanity and class and competence that we currently are sentenced to endure life without. May the vision of these portraits serve to keep us going, knowing that one day we'll have people like the Obamas leading us again.
Well, I guess he did have the "Bushes" behind him. And many times he governed like them too, hens the growth around him into his administration.
Let's be honest here and not play the 'Emperors new Clothes'. The portraits are both terrible. Look, I voted for him twice, but I'm not going to lie about how bad they are.
2
Much more than capturing their images...captured their essences
The praise of these portraits is not a reflection of the actual paintings. Most likely the praise stems from the affection felt towards Obama. It’s ok to say these paintings are awful. I get they were bucking tradition and trying to challenge norms. What resulted, however, was pretentious and weird, no matter where you fall on Obama’s presidency.
8
I absolutely love the portraits. Barack Obama's, as a previous NYTimes piece said, shows him actively engaged, listening, as he leans forward in his chair. One thing I love about the piece is the optical illusion created by its curious perspective: his head, hands, and knees almost seem disproportionately large until you realize that they are meant to be in the foreground. But the leaves seem to be a flat plane, adjacent at once to his head, his shoulders, his knees, and yet also the back of the chair he sits in. This creates a dissonance for me where it's challenging to determine depth or, more relevant perhaps to the work's concept, the degree to which the leaves are growing over him. Is he still relevant? Is his engagement with the viewer in vain? Has he faded into obscurity? Do the leaves and flowers as, literally and figuratively, his background, show how him as one part of a larger whole, a tradition or journey, or is he entirely alone and unique? Lastly, the pose speaks to a sense of restraint (willing or unwilling?—visually, his hands seem almost tied).
A black man amongst flowers and a black woman in a magnificent gown, both staring at the viewer, necessarily interact with concepts of race and gender performance. It's regrettable that they are shown together since they each work so wonderfully alone too. But there's one thing they have in common: this quantum state of bold uncertainty. Perfect for a president and first lady whose legacies have yet to be determined.
1
My heart aches for the missed opportunity to portray these two phenomenal individuals as the titans of class and dignity that they deserve. The artists were too focused on leaving their personal marks on history by being the disrupters of presidential portraits than doing justice to our former President and First Lady. Future generations will be left wondering why these two portraits look like cartoon caricatures compared to all the other leaders of our great nation. How sad that unbridled artist expression will reign over legacy and leadership.
9
The Obama portrait I found utterly striking and beautiful, but for reasons deeply personal. In 2002 I had cancer, and survived two major surgeries and three months of chemo. As a visual artist I was compelled to somehow translate this experience into art, and what I came up with (in 2003) was a photographic self-portrait of me lying deep in a bed of flowers, with the green leaves overlapping my body in several places, and the flowers in various colors.
This artwork has been exhibited once, in a group show at Galería Circulo Art Exchange, an art gallery in Tijuana. The show was in 2013.
I'm fully confident that Mr. Wiley conceived his portrait independently of my own work. But I also recognize that with the media coverage and institutional support for Mr. Wiley's portrait, my artwork will from now on be viewed as derivative, despite its pre-existing status as an original work of art, simply because it now exists in relation to a work of such cultural importance.
Above President Obamas portrait are the words “American Presidents,” the name of the gallery. Yesterday I waited on line with what America actually looks like. Young and old, former homes spanning the globe. The energy and optimism is still there. They words above should say “America’s President.” That’s how I felt.
As an artist myself, I had an immediate reaction to the president's picture. To me, the message conveyed was that of Obama "rising from the Bushes" so to speak. After all, that is basically what he did....he delivered the country from a Bush legacy stronghold, and brought us into a brighter and lighter future. I have no idea if that was the concept that the artist was intending to convey, but that is what I took from it. I think it's also telling that even a portrait is enough to inflame the right. Nothing Obama ever did was okay, not even when he was doing exactly what they asked him to do. Once he would comply, they changed their minds and no longer wanted what they demanded a minute prior. So to see the meltdown over a painting is almost amusing to me. So predictable, but also so pathetic. What America has become is nothing to be proud of.
1
I think they’re beautiful, fresh and modern. I love the President’s image. I love the likeness, the color and most of all I love the feeling of “pow!” I’m slower to appreciate Mrs. Obama’s, it is a lovely likeness. I love Mrs. Obama so much, emotionally maybe I wanted to see her in full super hero mode, running toward us to save the Day.
1
These portraits are striking, masterfullly conceived, except for one shortcoming in each. The faces of President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama do not capture the youthfulness of each. The President is charismatic partially because of the spark in his eye and the wry upward tilt of his mouth. The FIrst Lady's skin glistens and her intelligence shows in her gaze. In the portraits each of them seems to have the weight of the world on their shoulders. Their gazes are not an honest representation of who they are. The FLOTUS gaze is almost accusatory, while that of POTUS is a bit sad. Yet, visually, the portraits are dazling and daring.
1
It would be more respectful if Mrs Obama's portrait resembled her. Mr Obama's strikes me as flippant and making light of him. If people could be honest they would see the portraits should be redone. But the portraits reflect the Obama's fanciful view of themselves.
2
Bright background for Obama to emerge from, artist releasing him from the wall paper of his symbolic, but vivid mix of flowers that don’t grow together naturally, but entwine to make new patterns possible. The image of Obama, collage like, photograph realism, flat iconic image, shining brightly.
For me, it does not enough evoke the reality, distinction, determination, and unrelenting work of his presidency. I imagine a real person released from this chair, from vines winding around his feet. He did emerge.
Although the pose and dress are lovely, I want to imagine Michelle in a White House Victory Garden as a companion portrait
Personally, I liked them both and especially Michelle's which will be a beacon to young black girls. Barack's image was excellent, however, I am not sure about the flowered background.
As signifigant leaders, they are missed
Marina Heidman, PhD
Toronto, Canada
I want to, but I don't like the portraits. The President is a cool, relaxed guy and I would have liked to see that reflected. His portrait looks like something out of a video game. But at least it looks like the President. Michelle's portrait doesn't look like her, which would seem to be a major requirement.
3
They represent the unique ideas that both the former President and First Lady are.
I think the portraits are beautiful but President Obama looks quite a bit older than he is. Michelle ‘s portrait is spectacular but looks nothing like her. Judging from her reaction, I’ll bet she thinks the same.
1
Let's do away with " art speak ". If a portrait does not look like the person it intends to represent then it is not a portrait it is a picture. The picture of Michelle is very nice. It is not a portrait.
7
These fabulous portraits represent the essence of the transformation through which our country continually struggles. “The World Only Spins Forward” and yet many Americans resist change with a vengeance. Are these portraits extremely different from those past? Yes, and this is a good and necessary thing.
“Change is both a necessary and inevitable - it’s fundamental to being alive. In the face of this necessity & inevitability, we have a choice: we can try to resist change with all our might but the consequences of that would be catastrophic. Or we can engage in the difficult and painful work of trying to change for the better, hoping that change for the better is possible.” Isaac Butler
1
Their portraits brought back recent memories of each of their dignity, intelligence, humanity and deep goodness, their compassionate sense of family and community.
It brought back the wonder and awe of that Election Day in 2008 when we elected a young, vibrant African-American to the highest office in the land, and then the world. I cried tears of joy, as I did again in 2012. I have lived thought many presidents during my 70 plus years of life. But of all those presidents, I am most proud of Barack Obama. For me, he is the 21st Century as I want it to be...
I want him to be part of my life still. I think I speak for thousands of Americans when I say our nation needs him now more than ever before.
2
I find These portraits so inspiring and not merely trying to capture a person in a moment of time. While presenting Mr. & Mrs. Obama as distinguished, it also creates a feeling of approachability, welcome, & power extended to the viewer. These two individuals represent progressivism, individualism, tolerance, community, hope. When looking at them, reflecting on that, can you not also see a reflection of yourself and the potential for those same qualities?
2
I like both portraits a lot. The symbolism in each is exceptional. Additionally, both of these paintings, taken on their own as paintings, are important contributions to art history as well.
The only criticism I have is that Mrs. Obama's face doesn't seem particularly accurately portrayed. Perhaps it is better in person. Even the smoothest of paint still has a third dimension, variations of opacity, and other subtleties that cannot be reproduced.
I am 72, white, and an artist.
1
I find both artists have chosen to focus on colorful backgrounds to the detriment of the subjects. Having said that, does anyone really care that much about these paintings? Both the gushing and despair are beyond my capacity to relate to. Get a life!
2
I love both of the portraits as they both convey their subjects’ deep thoughtfulness. At first Michelle’s portrait struck me as too cool and distant, but then I remembered her saying “when they go low, we go high,” and it certainly captures that aspect of her personality, that ability to rise above meanness and pettiness.
I was so looking forward to the portrait of Michelle Obama because I really admire Amy Sherald's work. But this piece left me a little disappointed. I'm not getting any sense of Michelle's personality, nor her strength and vivacity. It seems more about the dress than the person. Interesting to compare it with the portrait of Adele Bloch Bauer by Gustav Klimt.
21
Obama's portrait makes his critics loathe it for the same reasons his supporters admire it.
Its casualness can be perceived as either unpresidential or progressive. The floral backdrop can be seen as either authentic or un-American. His pose is either one of a man deeply in thought or someone reluctant to take action.
This piece, perhaps unintentionally, encapsulates a prominent feature of his presidency: he was a man of compromise; and while his message was admirable he ultimately failed to leave a legacy that could be considered remarkable.
9
Art should make people “feel” it. And these portraits convey the warmth, intelligence and decency of these two fine people.
2
Their both dramatic and elegant all at the same time. The essence of the gardening. He's just sitting there ,looking like a strong man.
And those colors on her. Make her whole body POP...Just beauty, smart, intelligent, all rolled in one. I love them both....
3
I am White and an artist. These portraits are outstanding both in execution and message. I am so proud of these two people and pleasured to share their honest elegance with my countrymen and the world.
14
I think they are both brilliant in different ways and the essence of portraiture.
Portraits are not always meant to be exact likenesses but how the subject wishes to be perceived.
3
Art is such a powerful and deeply personal affair. It (and the NY TImes) just allowed me to spend 15 minutes alone with the Obamas in my kitchen this morning. We didn't speak a word to each other. Yet we said so much.
These portraits are all about freedom, and the potential of the United States. They say to me "let's build upon and strengthen what we have, not squander it."
6
The portraits do what great art does by raising so many confounding questions. How do we interpret them? What biases do we bring along? The portraits will be debated for years. Like all great art, these portraits will lean upon every citizen who looks at them. These portraits demand active minds and serious thought; their existence will create endless interpretations. They require us to think and measure our beliefs. As such, the portraits ask us, every time we look at them, to do what the Obamas have asked of all of us.
6
I like both portraits as paintings, but I worry about them as portraits of a President and first lady. The background of greenery and the design of the dress overwhelm the two important individuals portrayed, almost turning them into Invisible Man and Woman. I think I understand the artists ' intentions, but I don't like the way some viewers may put the subjects in the background. I'm fact, they both belong at the front of contemporary history and whatever follows into the future.
5
Yes agreed - the background of greenery and Michelle's dress completely dominate the subjects. The concept of the greenery is innovative and interesting but the detail is overwhelming - when you look at anything the background is always blurred - the eye anatomically only sees what it's actually looking at in sharp focus. Obama looks severe, old and grave, not the warm, sophisticated dignified and witty man we know. Michelle's portrait looks nothing like her, her essential gravitas, and vivacity are completely missing, she looks like a ghost in greyscale instead of the vibrant and punchy woman she is - it looks like rather like a modern take on a pre-Raphaelite. The icy background aqua does nothing for the picture - completely inappropriate to the subject and dress. These are not presidential portraits, they are frivolous and quirky.
1
These portraits convey dignity and respect .......these qualities are shown in a fresh and vibrant format .I think this approach will effect for the better how our public figures ( if worthy)are portrayed in the future ! Congratulations to these two formidable artists to take the path less trodden in memorializing two groundbreaking American leaders.
7
I loved his, but not hers. The coolness of her background would've been more befitting his in that he often had that cool demeanor. Her face was too bland and expressionless. I did like the dress, but she is so much more than a dress! His face had warmth of color and great detail, as if every plane was a labor of love. His background was a bold choice. It would be interesting to switch the figures and backgrounds. His face is so well-delineated and would probably really be enhanced by her icy background.
12
I agree with you on both portraits. She looks too distant, uninvolved, not the strong, clear image I have of her face.
I love them. The portraits and their subjects. The Obamas broke so many molds when they offered themselves up in public service to us. They have been such a breath of fresh air since I first heard of him at a small coffee house in Bernardsville, NJ in 2007, from one of his early supporters. Patriotic, confident, hard-working, courageous, smart, thoughtful and dedicated. I'm so pleased that they chose artists who took risks, put themselves out there and worked hard to bring something different, genuine, colorful and smart to us, representing these two wonderful Americans. Who needs another boring same old, same old piece? These are not same old, same old people. I'll traverse the turnpike and beltway to see these.
4
Both portraits are surprising and moving and in keeping with the extraordinary way the Obama's entered all of our lives. While I love the presidents smile his seriousness and complexity come through in his portrait, Her strength and beauty are well captured and the graphic quality of the painting is arresting.
In a strange and sad way these paintings feel like goodbye,
Bravo
11
First, I'm white. Second, artistic portraits lend themselves to interpretation and one naturally projects one's own feelings - particularly now in our bipolar environment. Therefore, it's almost unfair to elicit judgment at this point in time. That said, I think both portraits are statements. I see a challenge to the viewer from both. And that may make some viewers uncomfortable because it leaves less room for the viewer's projection of feelings.
I see justifiable pride in both. I see a huge difference in style and expression from the past and, heck, why not. The leafy greens will speak volumes for future generations. Michelle challenges us even more by the occupied space, the colors, and most importantly looking straight at the viewer, which they both do and, again, it sort of puts you on the spot. That's good!
18
To me, they are period icons, and it remains to be seen if they are documents of a fleeting moment or a new century. The milles fleurs tapestry approach by Kehinde Wiley reflects the all encompassing symbolism and garden metaphors of a new American tapestry - from plantation to governing class, a luxuriant and vibrant wall hanging in the manner of palace wall statements that are environmental and exquisite backdrops for serious endeavors and people.
The Sherald portrait is elegant, combing the portrait of a sitter and the beautiful dress itself as a frame. Parallels range from Mannerist court portraits such as Bronzino's depictions of the Medici duchess to Klimt's sweeping portrayals with Byzantine and Egyptian motifs leafing the eye to face and hands and even the Beardsley peacock cloak with its gorgeous line work.
Personally I think these are beautiful portraits that contribute to the artistic American classics of the 21st century. Congratulations to both artists.
39
Both portraits are perfect. The artists have captured the essence of the sitters conveying President Obama and Michelle poignantly. Over time and looking more will be revealed. These paintings will stand the test of time. I can't wait to see them in person.
2
I love these portraits because they are arresting and enigmatic artistic expressions, not intended as replications of the original, but broader in their abstraction and embodiment of ideals.
4
Both took their responsibilities as role models seriously throughout their time in the White House and that's reflected in these lovely portraits - steadfastness, beauty, thoughtfulness, intelligence, grace, dignity, maturity and tranquility.
The look on President Obama's face is one of commitment and faithfulness, so unlike what's missing from today's occupant.
Both have such beautiful long-fingered and powerful yet gentle hands. I always felt safe with them. I miss that.
5
I can't quite get to a rational, critical thought. The beautiful portraits of President and Mrs. Obama for the National Portrait Gallery just make me so happy. I only wish my sour, cynical self hadn't projected to a future portrait for the Gallery of...can't write it!
5
They both look very bad in the portraits. They look better than that.
12
He looks tired, she looks conceited. Neither represents their vitality, enthusiasm, and hope. Really missed the mark on this one. If Trump and #3 were depicted this way, people would be much more critical. People are tripping over themselves to admire the emperor's new clothes. Just because you like them doesn't mean you have to like these portraits.
46
I love the portrait of President Barack Obama. Kehinde Wiley was a great choice, and i wish that he had been asked to do the Former First Lady Michelle Obama's Portrait too. I find that Michele's portrait is flat and does not capture her spirit.
21
In Barack's portrait I feel the garden is allegorical referencing of the seeds the president planted & nurtured during his tenure in office which subsequently flourished in the future spring of America & the world. He looks older in the portrait then I recall him in office which I think is to further enhance the message. I would be interested to know the origins and significance of the chair. His level of comfort at starting to be absorbed and enveloped by the foliage signifies his acknowledgement of history and his place in it reminding me of one of his favorite quotes; “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” (which he credits to MLK whom he accurately credits Theodore Parker). I think it is spectacular and will make a special trip to DC to view it in person.
Likewise with Michelle's portrait which is the perfect contrast to Barack's portrait. I like how it paints Michelle in her own way and not as a compliment to her husband, the president. I think the message of female empowerment and equality is powerful. It's is and will be inspiring for young girls and women.
5
I am not such a fan of President Obama's as a I feel should have been more of a commanding statement as being the first non-white President. I maybe think should have been a portrait in the Oval Office--"Yes We made It" with prior racist presidents portraits in the background. As for Michelle--she as always I felt was making a statement as her speech said. I think--feel--She was not portrayed in a certain skin color or real definable ethnic facial features for a purpose.. as in her speech she said any girl of color can see the portrait and feel she can attain to that. Was speaking to Latino, Arabic, Asian, and African, and Caucasian--if we mix all the colors together it would be gray. She wanted a portrait who any girl could see something in herself in.
3
I like the portrait of President Obama. The background is a bit "busy" and can be distracting, but it's a nice portrait of him. I can't say I like the portrait of Michelle. In the first place, it doesn't look like her. And why is she almost grey? Why couldn't the artist paint her that lovely, caramel-chocolate skin that is so beautiful?
39
I'm not wild about either one of them. I prefer the more traditional look for presidential portraits. These seem like they would be great hanging up in the Obama's Presidential Library or in a gallery, but they lack the dignity of White House portraiture. Barack Obama was a great President and Michelle was a great First Lady. As such, they should be accorded the respect due to any great presidential duo, and to me, sorry, but this doesn't cut it.
27
These striking portraits are another artful expression of the Obamas' admiration and deep understanding of American painters. Just as it was incredibly refreshing for the Obamas to celebrate modern American art by decorating their White House with Rothko, Rauschenberg, Thomas, and Hopper (to name a few), Wiley and Sherald's portraits capture an era of unprecedented freedom in our country. These portraits remind me of what it feels like to be a proud American again.
7
Classy. Handsome. Beautiful. Not afraid to be themselves. The depiction in these portraits has captured them so well. Congratulations to both artists.
10
These portraits are a bit troubling to me because they do not present the passionate, captivating character of either Michelle or Barak Obama. I think both artists utilized some rather strange methods to complete their paintings and not in a flattering way to the Obamas. Perhaps there is hidden symbolism or something - I just do not get good vibes from these portraits.
23
Amazing to me that, after a hundred years of modernism, no one seems to acknowledge in the criticisms and appraisals of these paintings that we are looking at approximately 5-inch digital replicas (maybe 1-inch on mobile?) of what I gather are life-sized, real paintings. To assess this art based on these published images over the internet does a disservice to the artists and to art.
That said, from a strictly graphic point of view, I really like these. They feel very youthful and progressive, a reflection of an American ideal not currently reaching its expression in the Trump White House.
5
This is a welcome change from the stuffy academic portraits that have been traditionally commissioned for this and it reminds us how forward thinking the Obamas are. I find Mr. Wiley's to be a bit more successful. Ms. Sherald's piece works more for me on an abstract level than as a portrait. Love the dress. I am a white artist, BTW.
1
To me the background of each portrait hints at a meaning that becomes clearer when I consider each portrait in relation to the other: he is earth ascending; she is heaven descending.
8
Nice! True. The poetry of those two estimable people was captured.
3
Both are beautiful and striking portraits. A joy to behold, and a fitting tribute to a president that, whether you love him or hate him (there is sadly no in-between in present day America) is a historical figure. There is a serenity and easy confidence in the president's portrait that perfectly captures his essence. Mrs Obama's portrait oozes style and dignity. Kudos to the artists for contributing such original pieces.
2
At first, I recoiled from both portraits.
Then, I studied them and will continue to do so (in itself a statement that something worth understanding is still there). So far:
Obama's portrait shows him as both an intellectual and a humanist; engaged, always thinking, alertly listening and quietly purposeful against a background of natural vitality and energy. He is at ease with not being at ease.
Michelle's portrait shows her as an icon of woman. Forward-thinking with a history (I, too, thought her dress reminded me of both modern abstract and of patchwork quilting). Strong body and presence, at ease with herself and her purpose.
The portraits break the mold of presidential portraiture, just as the Obamas did as Presidential couple.
3
Perfection! Expanding minds and boundaries. Sophistication.
Ground breaking. Spot on !
4
I think Mr. Wiley's portrait of President Obama will become one of the iconic images of the man. Surprisingly, I cannot think of many others. I was so taken with the portrait, I searched in vain for a print. Mr. Wiley has very adeptly mixed a true, almost hyper-real representation of the former President with a sly, surreal background. The background deserves special mention, as it is both glorious and fraught. Using ordinary leaves and a few flowers, Mr. Wiley has somehow captured the combination of beauty, dignity, danger, and uncertainty of President Obama's two terms in office. What lies beyond? Will the man and what he represents be overtaken by the wild? Though maybe too on-the-nose, to me the scene also implies a hedgerow, which makes it especially meaningful to see Mr. Obama on the "right" side of that barrier.
The more I consider the portrait of Mrs. Obama, the more I like it. Mrs. Obama is such an icon already. I can easily recall dozens of images of the former First Lady. I feel as though I know her face, her arms, her hands, her demeanor. Perhaps there was no need for another iconic image. Instead of iconography, Ms. Sherald has given us complexity and layers of meaning and has upended our notions of the political portrait. Ms. Sherald has abstracted the former First Lady into more than herself: beauty, glamour, grace, and, above all, DIGNITY. Mr. Wiley's portrait is excellent, a show-stopper, but I suspect Ms. Sherald's is the better work.
8
Mrs. Obama brought such a focused, high-energy presence to the White House and to her role. This portrait seems to portray some kind of dreamy cartoon-y character. Not only doesn't it resemble her physically, it doesn't seem to capture her spirit. Plus, especially since she has such beautiful skin, I hate that her skin tone is literally gray.
54
I was introduced to Wiley’s work last year in a course on Baroque Art and was ecstatic when he was announced as Obama’s portraitist. I was curious how Wiley would pose his subject, assuming he would stick to his usual style of referencing Old Masters, but I ran into the same issue Obama himself brought up at the unveiling: Wiley couldn’t exactly paint him like Napoleon. I then speculated the portrait might resemble Washington’s or Lincoln’s especially when Smithsonian Secretary David Skorton described how President Obama, “provided steady leadership that so many Americans were seeking,” during a time of upheaval, not unlike Lincoln. When the portrait was revealed the pose struck me. I was hoping for something grand and heroic, but the more I look at it, the more apt it feels. Obama doesn’t stand idly in a dingy study or passively posture like subjects in many presidential portraits. Instead, he is active, sitting forward in his chair and directing an almost challenging gaze towards us. It’s as if he’s just turned to us and is listening intently to what we have to say; he expects something of us at this turning point in history while at the same time ruminating on the matter himself. His posture, leaning on his knees with his feet planted firm and wide, is one of solidity, but also recalls that of Rodin’s "The Thinker" from his magnum opus "The Gates of Hell"; he is contemplating a troubled country, but this thinker challenges us to do better.
5
I'm captured by the Obama portrait both for its incongruity -- what's he doing in that formal chair stuck in the middle of a hedge?!? -- and the way it captures his spirit. Obama is a man who is both serious and light. This painting brilliantly portrays that paradox...as well as gives us a sense of the real man shining through. Michelle's portrait, on the other hand, leaves me cold. It's not just the icy blue background, but that's a good place to start. Michelle is engaging, radiant, powerful! In this portrait, I see none of that. I don't recognize her face. And the pose is anything but Michelle-like. Michelle's portrait leaves me sad. The artist missed an opportunity to capture her warmth and vibrancy. In this portrait she just looks bored.
18
Bold, fearless, and imaginative!
This is what I see in the picture. In the beginning, I thought traditional should have been the approach, and as I studied the picture, I realized they he was not a traditional President, and she was not a traditional First Lady.
Great job! I know future generations that appreciate this couple and art will draw a lot from these photos as they study them, and the artist that masterfully created these works of art.
3
I love both of these paintings. The surprise in the painting of the President is definitely the foliage and its bright colors that speak to me of his work to protect this planet. As for Mrs. Obama's portrait, she seems to emerge from that enormous dress with its abstract quilt-like pattern which seems to symbolize modern America. I can't wait to see these at the gallery.
3
Yes, it’s different, but I don’t think the portrait of Obama looks Presidential in any manner. It appears as if he’s relieving himself in the woods. I’m sure his motive was to use the green to draw attention to himself against the rest of the Presidential portraits. I find it distasteful and distracting.
Michelle’s portrait looks nothing like her. The background is odd and the body is out of proportion. It also looks as if she has an extra finger on one hand.
22
The technical incompetence of Mr. Obama's portrait painter, who normally outsources the painting part to cheap Chinese artists, is a distraction. For example, how much of the picture is Photoshopped? Why does it look like the President is only semi-successfully trying to hide a here-to-for unknown sixth finger on his left hand? What are Mr. Obama's feet resting upon? Why does one of the back legs of the chair appear to be broken? Where is the chair's left armrest?
13
Aw, jeez. We have an art critic in our midst!
Since you asked, I'm white (or off-white; I'm Italian). Not that it matters. The portraits are brilliant. In one hundred years, visitors to the National Portrait Gallery will see in these paintings the humanity, intelligence, and compassion of the Obamas, and they will strive to elect leaders who will serve their generation, their country, and the world as well as the Obamas did ours. I'm full of admiration for the work of Kehinde Wiley and Amy Sherald, and grateful to the Obamas for bringing them to our attention.
37
The one of Michelle doesn't even look like her. I dont know why they would not paint her as she looks. she is a beautiful woman. why give her someone elses face. I do not care for the president with leaves all around him either. and the placement of his hands. . I am not impressed
29
I think the portrait of Barack Obama is wonderful - filled with emotion & meaning. I'm disappointed it the one of Michelle Obama - for me it's shallow & doesn't portray her many depths nor her beauty.
I am not African-American but am devoted to both of them.
11
I want you not to think of the subjects nor the artists. Not even what your own mind's eye sees. Rather close your eyes and imagine your children's children have gone into that space and are looking at those portraits.
What will the climate, literally, politically and culturally, be when they walk, teleport or augment themselves into that space? Then consider this, whatever it is, whatever the conditions are -they will be determined by us.
Will there be fresh air, fresh water, good soil and a just and democratic society or will we have betrayed them and ourselves leaving nothing of what we profess to love.. merely a vast wasteland of indifference and greed.
What will we have done with the time that is ours here in the now. Will the arc that bends towards justice reach its goal or will the shards of it be hidden along with our pristine jpegs and locks of hair. Will they look at these portraits as reminders of a time when these two were our country's last best thing or will they say these are the leaders of the resistance and my great grandmother led the chapter in her community.
That is what these portaits mean to me.
8
Frankly I am underimpressed by the portraits. I admire the Obamas immensely, but I think the portraits didn’t do them justice.
Barack Obama looks older in the portrait than he does in real life. And the portrait conveys none of the charm and sincerity of the man. Although the dense foliage background is a tour de force, it is distracting to say the least.
Michelle Obama is a woman of great presence and vitality. This is not communicated in her image. The woman in the painting looks a bit wan and lackluster: the cheerful dynamism of Michelle Obama is sadly missing.
32
The portraits don't mean anything at all....Michelle 's looks nothing like her...it could be anyone.
The pictures are not presidential at all.
34
I don't think the painting did either of them any justice. The portraits both made them look much older than they are. The dress is nice for a Vogue magazine.
24
Not much. I don't see the need for paintings in our day and age. Photographs, digital reproductions, whatever, would be better.
1
The portrait of Barack Obama captures his signature trait--thoughtfulness. The portrait of Michelle says nothing about her to me.
Love, love, love these portraits. Miss them so much.
2
I think what we are seeing here is a visionary 3000AD leader who empowers the nature again by supporting tech, knowledge, sustainability and more... Amazing portrait
2
Both portraits portray a vision, though not intimate, they convey intimacy
through artistry. That is real and authentic and I feel very innovative in
style and vision. The artist were chosen for their style. Who cares what we think but rather go deeper into the portraits again and again to find and explore
something we all have missed.
3
There are many things I like about the Barack Obama portrait, but I love the expression on his face most. "Could you do better, reach higher?" it says to the viewer.
2
It's just plain weird. People can yap on and grasp for straws about how "powerful" it is. Yeah right. What a delusion. The Obama painting is plain confusing. Weird leaves partially covering him up. Looks like he's uncomfortably sitting next to a wall of leaves. It's just bad. Michelle's is OK. You want a nice garden scene for Obama? There are far better ways to show it! My 2 year old can do better with watercolors.
21
Change is difficult. Scary sometime. Conventional vision is fading. Change is upon us, and this represents that. To view this President in front of a shelf full of legal tomes may fit with his intellect and strength as a constitutional scholar, but it is not the measure of this man, for he is so much more. Let your mind think about the man as you view this. And by the way, please do show us your child's artistic handiwork. We can compare and contrast.
3
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Symbolism, my friend, symbolism. The plants represent growth, progress, change.
I have always admired the class the Obama family brought to the White House and the Office of President of the United States.These are two educated, intelligent, decent people who are a credit to their race -- the human race. I don't like these portraits. I don't think they convey the dignity of the subjects. The President looks rather tired and unhappy floating in a sea of green and the likeness of the very attractive and stylish Mrs Obama comes across more like a bizarre caricature than a portrait. I respect that these works are meant to be some kind of statement, but is this really the way President and Mrs. Obama want to appear to future generations who were not even born during the Obama's tenure in office. I am very disappointed. I wish the Obamas could/would get a more traditional do-over and perhaps save these for a place of honor in the future Presidential Library.
10
The class they brought to the White House includes an appreciation of contemporary art. As you said, the Obamas are educated, intelligent, decent people - that's why they chose these artists to do their portraits.
The portrait exemplifies a change in our perception of the President. It's more than just an expressionless photo-like rendition. This drastically new portraiture compliments the kind of President that Obama was. Being the first Black president in history, he represents a positive change. Some may even see it as a turning point in American history. And, this portrait captures this wonderfully. But, it does more than that by showing Obama as being troubled by something. Given a presidents job, there could be many things that would be troubling him. And this allows me to empathize with him in a way that it's difficult to do with most other portraits. With the sharp contrast of light and dark colours and the expressive rendition of the President, this Portrait is one of a kind.
38
"A turning point in history"? Have you seen president 45?