Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Obama’s Chair
A professor once told me that the secret of truly great visual art is an element of humor that intentionally invites the viewer to smile with the artist. I’d say Michael P. Ramirez achieved that today:
The real Man Who Wasn’t There.
Tell me Michael is working on a cartoon for Michelle’s portrait . . .
Yup, he sure hit the target with that one. The portrait artist gave him some great material to work with. I’d love to see his take on the First Lady’s portrait.
Ramirez is a national treasure.
And a great guy! I had a chance to speak with him (among other notables) on a National Review post-election cruise. Yet another reason to consider going on one.
This is perfection!
@drlorentz – Thanks for that. My wife and I were in hysterics once again.
Wait, is that the real portrait, sans Obama. That will hang in the Whitehouse with Presidential portraits of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al?
Talk about fundamental transformation…
Not even wearing a tie. Not a very good crease in his pantlegs, either.
O.M.G.
Thus us THE presidential portrait, or A presidential portrait?
And, secondly, Someone study that leaf pile and find some Mary Jane…
I thought the very same, and, actually, lots of creases in his pants and jacket.
It is like an anti-portrait.
I can’t decide if the Obama portraits are bad because they’re “modern art”, or if they’re just bad.
I mean, are they intentionally breaking artistic convention in a (failed) attempt at being edgy, or just badly executed but no one wants to say anything because the artists are “celebrated” minorities?
Interesting review on the Washington post.
I found it interesting that the Post article author made a claim that the portraiture tradition since the Renaissance us rife with racism.
The portraits of President Obama and his wife are not my cup if tea for formal portraits. They have a cartoon quality and both certainly broke away from Presidential portraiture tradition. They willingly chose the artists.
I wonder if Obama’s portrait will be like a teenage tattoo, that later is regretted…
In case anyone wants to stroll down memory lane…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portraits_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
And…
The official portraits for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama were painted by artists who were not employed by the federal government at the time. These images are not in the public domain, and as such, are not included in [the wikipedia] gallery
Unrelated, but I like the use of light in Taft’s.
Let’s ask the question: does the portrait represent President Obama? I have to argue it does, but it’s my interpretation. Here he is in the seat of power, surrounded by an illusion. Perhaps he is the one creating the illusion, perhaps it is others. You can go in any number of directions here.
Superficially, it just sort of looks like an image of him stuck on the outfield wall at Wrigley Field. Or something. I’m looking forward to this image showing up in the IU Basketball student section.
Here is an interesting take from the Guardian…
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/feb/12/kehinde-wiley-portrait-barack-obama-amy-sherald-michelle
It is interesting, and my comment went down the same road. As far as the First Lady’s portrait, the muted colors suggest coldness to me, as does the lack of a smile. The Guardian says it’s an introspective pose, but it looks more impatient. Honestly, I kind of like it. It’s a departure, but not as much as the President’s.
When you think of the portrait placed among other presidential portraits, it seems fitting. What Obama wanted more than anything else was to stand out, to go against the course (Cuba, Iran) and create a legacy. This portrait perfectly symbolizes that effort, and the weight of his efforts amount to nothing more than brushstrokes of meaningless paint. Yeah, it looks different and you stand out…to what end? Nothing substantive, at any rate.
I think you’re exactly right. Liberal progressives are very conscious of their place in history and love to have a permanent record of their unique vision and awesomeness. Michigan’s former Governor Jennifer Granholm wanted everyone to remember her for “shovel-ready” jobs, her success in reducing the carbon footprint of Michigan, and apparently, her plans for manly-style world domination:
She is of course remembered by most of us as the woman who buried the economy, destroyed industry, and ushered in business-killing regulations while ushering in an age of thousands of ugly, eagle killing windmills, all subsidized by the government.
Her portrait reminds me of a John Nieto painting. Some of his paintings are of Indian (US) women. They have disproportionately small heads, large bodies, and are done in colors best described as Desert Southwest. One of his is prints is hanging on the wall over my computer desk.
Another artist that comes to mind is RC Gorman. He also has paintings of Indian (again, US) women. Only a handful use the small-head, large body style, but the coloring is similar. We have one of his prints hanging over the fireplace.
Both are signed, of course . . .
Is just me, or does her art remind anyone else of:
Double like.
I was kind of indifferent towards both until hearing something and looking it up. The Obama artist has another past “style” that any decent person should find deeply offensive (since it is false for mythological references and based clearly on modern context). This alone should have disqualified him from consideration. And if those works were supposed to be humor, they still fail. You have to see to believe (and surely Obama knew of it):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/artists/obama-portrait-painterkehinde-wileys-past-work-depicted-black/
So… where are the missing heads that should be hanging from Obama’s hands? Did the artist just “clean up” for this one portrait? Anyway what a veiled insult not just to presidential tradition, but the nation.
p.s. the lack of tie may mean something. Isn’t it the tradition of Iranian politicians like Ahmadinejad (pro regime) not to wear one as it is too representative of “western values”?