Obamas Unveil Official Paintings at National Portrait Gallery

 

Barack and Michelle Obama were on hand at the National Portrait Gallery Monday morning to unveil their official portraits. And, um, here they are:

No, this is not The Onion, but the actual portraits. Barack Obama, apparently being consumed by a hedge, was painted by Kehinde Wiley. Michelle Obama, in the style of a 10th grader in 1984, was painted by Amy Sherald.

What do you think of this … art?

Published in Culture
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 187 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Cow Girl Thatcher
    Cow Girl
    @CowGirl

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Also both of them make them seem removed from reality.

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    A frivolous representation of a frivolous man.

    All of the comments have stated it so much better than I could have. So, I’ll just quote from you all. Both of those people in the paintings have lived lives removed from reality–both of them were surrounded at all times by fawning sycophants so that the Golden Couple could not help but believe that they were, in fact, Totally Awesome.

    And frivolous?? The very embodiment of the term. Thanks Ricochet for helping me to articulate this. (And now I know why Obama’s voice was on my radio today when I started the truck. It was a horrible flashback moment.)

    • #61
  2. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    On Barrack’s painting – the actual portrait is very nice, especially the use of light and color.  I’m not so enthralled with the pose; it makes him look diminished and small.  I would expect something more refined, but the painting itself is very good.  Now, the background and setting; they are both confusing and take away from the portrait.  The idea of portraiture is to capture a person’s essence, not lose them in some kind of distracting background noise.  Portraits are not meant to make some kind of point;  Obama wants to be known as the first green president and not the first “black” president, that is clear.  I think he overplayed that hand big time.  The background distracts and was a poor choice..

    Michelle’s portrait is actually nice, if a bit stylized folk artsy.  It doesn’t fit as a traditional portrait, but it is quite lovely and even flattering.  I really like it as an art piece, but as a portrait meant to definitively capture Michelle Obama in particular, I’m afraid it fails.  I’m not sure you would recognize the figure as her unless you knew beforehand.  Nonetheless, I applaud her for going bold.  It is a very nice figure and a worthy painting.

    • #62
  3. dajoho Member
    dajoho
    @dajoho

    DocJay (View Comment):
    He’s in a marijuana forest. She’s an Escher drawing.

    That’s a disservice to both marijuana and particularly Escher.

    Wow – feel like I am looking at pictures in a propaganda driven children’s book.

    • #63
  4. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    TBA (View Comment):
    This is Michelle’s finished portrait.

    This is actually more interesting.

    • #64
  5. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):
    The idea of portraiture is to capture a person’s essence, not lose them in some kind of distracting background noise.

    I dunno. With the Obamas, losing them in some kind of distracting background noise captures their essence.

    • #65
  6. Autistic License Coolidge
    Autistic License
    @AutisticLicense

    Velllllly interesting….

    (With apologies to Artie Johnson).

    • #66
  7. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Cow Girl (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Also both of them make them seem removed from reality.

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    A frivolous representation of a frivolous man.

    All of the comments have stated it so much better than I could have. So, I’ll just quote from you all. Both of those people in the paintings have lived lives removed from reality–both of them were surrounded at all times by fawning sycophants so that the Golden Couple could not help but believe that they were, in fact, Totally Awesome.

    And frivolous?? The very embodiment of the term. Thanks Ricochet for helping me to articulate this. (And now I know why Obama’s voice was on my radio today when I started the truck. It was a horrible flashback moment.)

    My comment wasn’t meant as a criticism of the Obama’s though I have plenty of those, at least for him. For her I don’t frankly know enough about her to really criticize her earnestly. My comment was about the unreality of the portraits. The way they are done doesn’t make them seem like real people. Imagine you are seeing these paintings in 200 years and you never studied history much. What  would you think of them? Would you think that Obama had once been president of the United States that she had been first lady? Those painting seem devoid of soul. Now maybe I’m being unfair because I am comparing them in my mind to Vermeer, Rembrandt, Frans Hals, and other Dutch masters, but honestly they aren’t very good and I think their not very good for the same reason most modern art isn’t very good. It has no soul that comes across from the canvas.  I am sure though that there is a whole paragraph of text that explains the whole thing elaborately, and how this is a homage or allusion to something or other. Even the portrait of Reagan earlier in the thread seems highly mediocre to me, though since it is more classical in presentation is less abrasive to the eyes.

    • #67
  8. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Okay so now I’ve sunk an hour of my day looking a presidential portraits and portraits in general on google. And I have come to a more coherent and focused criticism. Not just of these portraits of the Obamas but even of the ones of George and Laura Bush. Most classical portraits have dark backgrounds or very simple neutral background with highlighting around the head. The effect of this is to  draw attention to the face (which naturally is the whole point of a portrait). Modern portraits seem ignore this and make the background too bright and often filled with too much stuff or just be a flat unnatural blue. The effect of this is to blur the focus from the face of the subject. It makes the painting of then look like a cheap magazine spread or in the case of Mrs Obama like some one pasted a drawing of her onto blue craft paper. This is also not helped by the fact that the detail on the faces seems insufficient. This is especially the case for Michele. It is just sad.

     

    • #68
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I couldn’t dislike either portrait more than I do: I want to pluck him out of the greenery like a weed–and her dress is awful and is that supposed to be a modern art depiction of her–it doesn’t even look like her. I plan on this being the first and last times I will have to look at them.

    • #69
  10. ShawnB Inactive
    ShawnB
    @ShawnB

    My God, these are horrid.  But, garbage in, garbage out.  I hope these pieces of  . . . art, will remind all of us why we should never let a man such as Obama near the White House again.  He continues to demean the office.

    • #70
  11. ShawnB Inactive
    ShawnB
    @ShawnB

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Pretty sure we paid for those.

    Have the Obamas ever done anything that we didn’t pay for?

    • #71
  12. ShawnB Inactive
    ShawnB
    @ShawnB

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Now if you want to look at a portrait which embodies something enduring, lively and hopeful about our country:

    Not a big fan of this Reagan painting either.  It is amateurish and it does not capture the man well.

    • #72
  13. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Could have been worse.

    Image result for OBama Unicorn Painting

    Much worse . . .

    Image result for OBama Unicorn Dan LAcey

    Image result for Dan LAcey Obama with unicorn

    • #73
  14. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I couldn’t dislike either portrait more than I do: I want to pluck him out of the greenery like a weed–and her dress is awful and is that supposed to be a modern art depiction of her–it doesn’t even look like her. I plan on this being the first and last times I will have to look at them.

    I guess its a reason not to go to the national gallery. Not so much because the Obama portraits are there – but because all of the presidents are. What would be really interesting – if there could be an exhibit of presidential caricatures, how contemporary cartoonists drew the presidents of their days. That could be quite interesting. Especially for the more obscure presidents like Peirce and Buchanan.

    • #74
  15. ShawnB Inactive
    ShawnB
    @ShawnB

    thelonious (View Comment):
    Couldn’t Barack be portrayed in a more masculine setting? The other painting doesn’t even look like Michelle.

    I think Barack is the one in the chair.

    • #75
  16. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    Could have been worse.

    Image result for OBama Unicorn Painting

    Much worse . . .

    Image result for OBama Unicorn Dan LAcey

    Image result for Dan LAcey Obama with unicorn

    No NO… DONT! The Trumps havent done theirs yet! Dont give’em any ideas…

    “They’ve told me for the last 8 years the Emperor has no clothes … So now behold! I told you there was no problem in that department!”

     

    • #76
  17. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The stark difference in style between these paintings and all the other “official portraits” once again communicates how he’s not like the rest of us and doesn’t want to be associated with us.

    • #77
  18. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I couldn’t dislike either portrait more than I do: I want to pluck him out of the greenery like a weed–and her dress is awful and is that supposed to be a modern art depiction of her–it doesn’t even look like her. I plan on this being the first and last times I will have to look at them.

    I looked at the other paintings by . . . whosit . . . and so yeah, it looks like his style is to paint people against busy, patterned backgrounds. And if you put this portrait of Obama against all those others, this is one of his substandard efforts.

    • #78
  19. Jeffery Shepherd Inactive
    Jeffery Shepherd
    @JefferyShepherd

    I would have expected nothing less

    • #79
  20. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    The stark difference in style between these paintings and all the other “official portraits” once again communicates how he’s not like the rest of us and doesn’t want to be associated with us.

    You took the words right out of my mouth keyboard.

    Especially because, for all his aesthetic faults, I really don’t see Trump doing something nearly as tacky as this. Out-tacky-ing Donald Trump is not an easy thing to do.

    • #80
  21. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I couldn’t dislike either portrait more than I do: I want to pluck him out of the greenery like a weed–and her dress is awful and is that supposed to be a modern art depiction of her–it doesn’t even look like her. I plan on this being the first and last times I will have to look at them.

    I looked at the other paintings by . . . whosit . . . and so yeah, it looks like his style is to paint people against busy, patterned backgrounds. And if you put this portrait of Obama against all those others, this is one of his substandard efforts.

    That actually seemed odd to me: that there were other paintings that were pretty much the same thing. The subject on a background of aspidistra, or whatever all that vegetation is meant to be. And the painter says something about representing Kenya and Hawaii, but if you very often frame your subjects in salad, it doesn’t signify anything at all.

    And I agree with whoever said that Michelle looks like a 10th grade art project. She doesn’t have quite enough top to her head, and she’s gray. Also, shouldn’t they sort of go together?

    Maybe in real life, these are better paintings than they are when reproduced? But Ben Shapiro tweeted out a satirical Kandinsky and I saw it and thought: Oh, if only! 

     

    • #81
  22. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    And the painter says something about representing Kenya and Hawaii, but if you very often frame your subjects in salad, it doesn’t signify anything at all.

     

    • #82
  23. Eridemus Coolidge
    Eridemus
    @Eridemus

    I don’t think she ever had hair quite that long, but the main thing is, she is more like a poster treatment than a portrait…too “flat” and lacking depth, highlights, shadows etc. His bothers the long-ago botany student in me in having a mismash of flowers that would never occur in nature together…not at least on the same sea of foliage.

    But what really strikes me when they are side by side (although from different artists) is that they have such different skin colors….making kind of a weird effect. Surely that wasn’t intentional but I would have expected them to be compared before final approval, if to be hung adjacent to each other….

    • #83
  24. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Lois Lane (View Comment):
    I say whatever floats their boat, though I also wondered if that was the first time they had seen the paintings… during the “unveil.”

    I don’t really mind the garden wall, though it will look out of place next to more traditional styles of portraiture. I dislike Michelle’s portrait because I really would not recognize her. At all.

    I don’t know a lot about art, but I think Hans Holbein was going for heroic “spirit animals,” too, when he captured the Tudor Court. He surely painted Henry VIII in the best possible light so as not to lose his head. However, by all accounts, the images still resembled their subjects, yes? Even if forever young and virile.

    I don’t think it sends a great message to young girls when the painting itself looks like it’s… I don’t know… abstractly airbrushed?

    Even if I’m not a huge fan, I do think the former first lady is an attractive woman without purposely rearranging her face.

    Sorry…I lost my head…

    • #84
  25. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Here, courtesy of Wikipedia, are all the “official portraits” together in one table.

    Prior to Obama’s, Kennedy’s stands out as being quite different than the others. Somber, downcast.

    Now, of course, Obama’s really stands out. Way out.

    Nestled into a tossed salad (thanks, Kate), stooped over on a floating chair with creepy, elongated hands.

    • #85
  26. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Eridemus (View Comment):
    I would have expected them to be compared before final approval, if to be hung adjacent to each other….

    They’ll be hung in separate galleries.  He goes in with the Presidents, she goes …elsewhere.  (It wasn’t clear in the story I read if there’s an actual “first ladies” gallery.

    • #86
  27. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Eridemus (View Comment):
    I would have expected them to be compared before final approval, if to be hung adjacent to each other….

    They’ll be hung in separate galleries. He goes in with the Presidents, she goes …elsewhere. (It wasn’t clear in the story I read if there’s an actual “first ladies” gallery.

    I believe that the first ladies are on rotation.  The presidents are permanent.

    • #87
  28. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):
    More of their work:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Kehinde+Wiley&source=lnms&tbm=isch

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Amy+Sherald&source=lnms&tbm=isch

    The way these pictures turned out can’t be too much of a surprise to anyone who’s looked at their oeuvres.

    Apparently neither has ever painted a person looking happy.

    Or white. Does that make me a racist to notice?

    Sherald doesn’t paint black people either, though. She paints ashen people. I mean, really? Michelle comes off as cold and condescending, but she has warmer hues in her skin tone than that! Yikes!

    • #88
  29. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Wait.     These are for real?!?!?      I saw this and another post earlier today and passed over them thinking they were somehow just jokes.     As opposed to actual, for real portraiture.    Who approved these things?

    • #89
  30. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Kevin Creighton (View Comment):
    The NY Times explained to we plebes that the portraits are meant to express more than just what the Obamas look like (because that would be too ‘normal’) but rather express the vision and the purpose of their time in the White House.

    So to recap, the Obama portrait appeals to the elites among us, and no one else.

    Just like his Presidency did.

    Q: Why is a portrait like a joke?

    A:  Because if you have to explain it, it has failed.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.