It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's portraits unveiled

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I don't see two right hands? Actually, no thumbs at all are depicted. I only see that it appears his wedding band is on his right hand and not his left.

Look at the hand that's on top in the picture. It's supposed to be his left hand. Try to put your own hand in that position; your thumb will be facing towards you. However, you can see what looks like Obama's thumb tucking under his fingers on the outside. It's on the wrong side of his hand!

edit on 13-2-2018 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: ketsuko
We're watching the presidential portraits morph into modern art, and it's as ugly as modern art often is.


Official Presidential portraits should be presidential and accurate depictions, imo. These are absolutely inappropriate, but what did we expect. They would be fine to display outside "official portrait" status.

They look like Velvet Elvis style. But, I have laughed so hard tonight at the memes that have been created out of BHO's depiction especially. Comedy relief for sure.


I don't know why people aren't getting this; These are not the OFFICIAL presidential portraits, just art installments for the Smithsonian.

The OFFICIAL portrait hasn't been painted yet.


I believe you are wrong.

These ARE the official portraits. Earlier in this thread, it was explained. It will hang in the National Portrait Gallery of Presidents located at the Smithsonian Institute. Periodically, a president will "borrow" from the gallery and display a president's portrait in the Oval Office. But, the portraits are themselves not at the WH. They are displayed in the National Portrait Gallery.

You can read more HERE, but unless you can post information disputing this, THESE ARE THE OFFICIAL PORTRAITS that will hang in the Gallery.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
the amount of vitriol surrounding these paintings is indicative of the perpetual hate which will never end in America.

a few new words and Photoshop plugins created just for the Michelle Obama portrait alone...



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I am an artist myself, although I don't consider myself all that great I have been doing it for quite a while, and I do more portraits than anything. When commissioned to paint or draw something particular it has resemble that object or it's a failure. There is no eye of the beholder, has to be an accurate representation. With that said, Michelle's is horrible, without being prompted I doubt anyone would guess that was a portrait of the First lady. Barack's is a good portrait though, but Kihendre Wiley is a good painter ( this is not amongst his best work ) there's no doubt who the painting represents so it's a good "portrait".
edit on 13-2-2018 by swimmer15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Yes. To hang in a house of ill-repute.
Not in the White House.


i'm always delighted to see your name in my my reply box. i wonder to myself, will it make sense this time? or will it just be more word salad with emotes and aspersions?

you never fail to disappoint!



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: Gothmog
Yes. To hang in a house of ill-repute.
Not in the White House.


i'm always delighted to see your name in my my reply box. i wonder to myself, will it make sense this time? or will it just be more word salad with emotes and aspersions?

you never fail to disappoint!

Yep , a Poison Ivy President (that sounds familiar. Batman , perhaps ?) and a Cell-Shaded First Lady. Nothing undignified with that at all . Speaks volumes about em.
Yes , there are folks that have problems understanding English when formed into logical , informative statements.
Denying ignorance is sometimes a seemingly impossible task....
Glad you appreciate my efforts.

edit on 2/13/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/13/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: dragonridr

One more thing if I was Michelle I'd be mad. I don't know who that artist painted but it wasn't her. I was looking at obama starring at it and you could tell he was thinking the same thing.

I definitely noticed that. Even leaving aside everything I just posted about Michele, the picture just plain does not look anything like her. The woman in the picture is much younger than Michele, and her hair is like no hairstyle we've ever seen on Michele.

If I was asked I would say it is a painting of Malia



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 02:46 AM
link   
twitter.com... ecomes-internet-meme-as-people-poke-fun-at-national-gallery-portrait%2F



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Those are ugly as sh!t! Is this some sort of joke?



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheGOAT
Those are ugly as sh!t! Is this some sort of joke?

More like litotes.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Well the painting of Reggie ... er, I mean Micheal ... *cough* ... I mean Michelle, yeah that is pretty bad. I would be mad if I was him.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: amazing

Well the painting of Reggie ... er, I mean Micheal ... *cough* ... I mean Michelle, yeah that is pretty bad. I would be mad if I was him.





Who's Reggie? I don't get it.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:20 PM
link   
A little perspective on how utterly ridiculous this portrait is.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

The paintings were absolutely terrible. Michelle's doesn't look anything like her and Obama looks like he's tucking an extra pinky under his hand. I don't understand why they couldn't have normal photos like everyone else. Why be painted in a bed of flowers to be placed in a hallway of extraordinary men with manly backgrounds? Being different is one thing, but the photo of obama went to the extreme, in the wrong direction.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


Who approved that nasty painting?

Probably the White Establishment. What, is he pictured surrounded by Jungle there?

Get it?



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

All those other faces are white.

Theres your sign.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Don't mind me ... I am just being an idiot. I don't know who Reggie is ... just babbling *blush*



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Oh but hey, on a more serious note: I wonder if the plant in the background of Barack's photo is green dragon? (Arisaema dracontium)

It is a uncommon wildflower, closely related to jack - in - the pulpit.




edit on 14-2-2018 by Fowlerstoad because: added the latin name



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Yeah, in the larger historical context of things, including potentially the portraits after Obama, (and which is something that crossed my mind when I first saw them), one could argue it was done on purpose to mock Obama by making the portraits, instead of realistic, presidential portraits.

If I were conspiracy oriented.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: notsure1

All those other faces are white.

Theres your sign.


Not sure what that was supposed to mean. Did they name it Uniqua?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join