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.
originally posted by: Liquesence
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.
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: notsure1
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.
Obamas portrait is ridiculous than all the rest because he is the only black man in the group.
The critics all admit that it is the background that creates the most dismay about this official portraiture. It diminishes his leadership stature and is insulting. It is difficult to focus on Obama due to the chaos surrounding him. I agree.
originally posted by: notsure1
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: notsure1
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.
Obamas portrait is ridiculous than all the rest because he is the only black man in the group.
No Obamas portrait is ridiculous because it is effing ridiculous. I swear to god if that were a whit guy I would fee the exact same.
originally posted by: StoutBroux
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Bluntone22
I thought Michelle's picture was okay, but Obama's portrait looks feminine.
Interesting look for him. He is man spreading but then has his arms crossed over the spread area like he's hiding his crotch. Just weird.
I expected something more spectacular and strong I guess, not something one could find painted on the side of a small town building or fence.
Nothing to write home about....but yeah, whatever.
originally posted by: CynConcepts
Though to be fair, President GW Bush portrait had everyone shocked. It was said it was not presidential too. I wish I could embed some pics but alas, This 2010 article basically gives one another perspective on why Obama's portrait is even more shocking then the previous president's.
I can't wait to see the shocking masterpiece that will surely be Trump's portrait!
Edit add: taking into consideration on what the reviewer in my link says about the last 4 portraits meanings and how they reflect on the Presidents...what is Obama's portrait telling us? What is the artistic story being told here about who he was as a president?
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: WeDemBoyz
Pretty good, but what they really should do is him on a gold-plated toilet, with his cell phone in the middle of a tweet. That would be quintessential Trump.
originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero
Luckily it’s not an official presidential portrait then, huh?
So it doesn’t matter.
originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: WeDemBoyz
Pretty good, but what they really should do is him on a gold-plated toilet, with his cell phone in the middle of a tweet. That would be quintessential Trump.
I can 110% guarantee you that Trump doesn't hire someone just because of the color of their skin, but instead by merit and quality of work.