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: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

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

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.

We'll just have to wait and see what Miley Cyrus's presidential portrait looks like.




posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 08:01 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Seriously? That is rediculous! 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.

Edit add: Then, toss in the grey portrait of Michelle! Egad, completely delimited the burnished bronze beauty of her! What real message is that sending to young girls of color?
edit on 2 14 2018 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)

edit on 2 14 2018 by CynConcepts because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts


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.

I agree. The crazy background to diminish him is because he's black.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   

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.

Look at all the other 'Guys' portraits. They are all white. His is the only one stands out. Whats that, a jungle tree he is sitting in?

Get it?

Edit: If he was white they would have made it look like all the rest.
edit on 14-2-2018 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

They chose the artist, could have chosen an artist who was a master of his/ her craft a like Eddie Filer instead of Kihindle Whiley (who I’m sure was chosen for a reason). Not saying Kihindle is bad but let’s just say, he’s not someone who’s work id study if looking to improve . He’s better known for stirring # than his talent.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 07:20 AM
link   

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.


I didn't even know each president and first lady had a picture painted. It was never important enough to make the news until this time I guess, and the way they presented it was most definitely racial. The anchor at CBS Evening News showed a few of the first presidents and said they're all the same, old and white (this is why the majority of Americans don't like or trust the news anymore). Had I not seen this beforehand, I would have thought that he'd be standing proudly in his office like most of the other presidents. I never in a million years would have guessed that he'd be seated, with 6 fingers, in a feminine setting.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 07:27 AM
link   

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?


That's not Bush's official portrait (I apologize if someone already beat me to this). It's possible that he didn't like it and had it redone though.




posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 07:38 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

This is typical of liberal thought. You're the same people who claimed people voted against him because he was black, never mind that we didn't like his ideals and policies. Now people think his painting is ridiculous because he's black even though if you compare his to the other 43 presidents, he's the only one sitting down in a background full of feminine shrubbery.

Honestly, unless you're just trolling, how do you NOT see the ridiculousness of that portrait? That kind of background belongs to someone like Martha Stewart.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero

Luckily it’s not an official presidential portrait then, huh?

So it doesn’t matter.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

No, if it's not an official portrait then it doesn't matter. This is all based off of the fact that this is, or began as, an official portrait. When was it determined that it wasn't?



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero

Luckily it’s not an official presidential portrait then, huh?

So it doesn’t matter.


Snopes says it is the official portrait. Why do you say it isnt?



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   

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.


Okay, you're on. Prove it.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero

The Bushes had Bronze statues made after their likeness. Bronze White People, chuckle... 9 foot tall too, lulz...

search result



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   
As bad as Obama's is, Michelle's is absolutely horrible.

The plain background and the dress choice are bad enough, but the fact that it doesn't look like her is probably the worst affront of all....

On Obama's, at least he (and the chair) are painted very well. But, that busy wallpaper looking background is too busy, and drowns out the paint job on the figure.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

And Wikipedia says it’s not.

So here we are...



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 02:57 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

They look downright weird, both of them. Hadn't seen these before today, as I haven't had the news on much lately, and somehow missed a lot of the chatter online.

Michelle's just does not look right at all. Noticed that the artist played down the broader shoulders, and bulky arms, and the face is way off. Odd design for the clothing, too, but no surprise there, all considered.

His is just strange. Sperm on the left temple, which that artist is known for, freakishly large hands, and the left one seems to have an extra finger. The chair is floating, and has no left arm (so he can lean more that way?), and the background is just strange. Why all of that foliage? Snake in a garden? I am sure there are some oddities I have missed. Nothing presidential about it, at all. Funny he'd choose that sort of background.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join