Obama's portraits unveiled

originally posted by: c2oden
You said they were lovely.
I said they suck.
So, yay for you?

accurate. but mine was a general response to the thread topic, whereas you made a specific reply to me.

i thought you wanted my particular attention on the matter, so you got it. i'm obliging like that.

a reply to: Liquesence

I think the Obama one might be better if there was, dare I say it, more of him and less of the background.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

I think the Obama one might be better if there was, dare I say it, more of him and less of the background.

I agree with that. Too much, and too busy of a, background, when he seems to fill so little of the frame compared to the background.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: FamCore

No FamCore, that is more like an expression of the artists particular style. According to the article, the artist who did Mr Obama's portrait is known for putting subjects in amongst crazily colourful, bold backgrounds.

Shouldnt someone have told the artist that they were painting a US President though ? And not something for a backwoods flower show ?

So sad.. look how Obama's official portrait will look hanging in a White House hallway with former U.S. Presidents.
twitter.com...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

I think the Obama one might be better if there was, dare I say it, more of him and less of the background.

So...you are saying you would rather see him naked and not so many leaves.

lol, j/k, oh god I made myself kind of sick typing that.

The artist was painting decapitating pics.

I forget which one.

One really looked like Michelle.

And that is giving great artistic licence.





#in nice eh?

www.aol.com...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Basically, the artist did a decent enough job of painting Obama, but there is too much background, and it's just a wall of leaves. It distracts from the president as it is. If there were less background, it might be more balanced, or if the background weren't such a solid, unrelenting mass of bright green, we might not lose the president in it like we do.

As for the painting of the person they labeled Michelle, it doesn't really look like her, the hands are out of proportion, and it lacks some visual interest for some reason.

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?

This is not the "official" presidential portrait.

The ones in the article YOU linked to are official portraits.

THESE are just..."paintings of the Obama's..."

NOTHING "official" about them. They are not going on display in the WHITE HOUSE.

a reply to: DanteGaland


How do you know President Trump won't hang a replica of this Obama portrait up in the hall with other Presidents? Show visitors how "unique" his predecessor was.

a reply to: ketsuko

I knew what you meant. I was being obnoxious. Sorry.

The Michelle painting lacks depth because of the colors used, IMO. She's gray. I think that's weird because if a photo of her was desaturated to make her skin color gray...I think many would take issue with that.

She's gray!!

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: ketsuko

I knew what you meant. I was being obnoxious. Sorry.

The Michelle painting lacks depth because of the colors used, IMO. She's gray. I think that's weird because if a photo of her was desaturated to make her skin color gray...I think many would take issue with that.

She's gray!!

50 shades at least!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DanteGaland


How do you know President Trump won't hang a replica of this Obama portrait up in the hall with other Presidents? Show visitors how "unique" his predecessor was.

Tell me HOW that is relevant

The FACT is people on ATS discussing false information.

These are NOT official presidential portraits.

Trump probably has stockpiles of gold spray paint to make the WH quote, "Super class, so so classy! The classiest!"

a reply to: DanteGaland

I think you're right. I believe these are going to the Smithsonian. I think I read that somewhere today.

npg.si.edu...

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: ketsuko

I knew what you meant. I was being obnoxious. Sorry.

The Michelle painting lacks depth because of the colors used, IMO. She's gray. I think that's weird because if a photo of her was desaturated to make her skin color gray...I think many would take issue with that.

She's gray!!

50 shades at least!

I just threw up, a little there...

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DanteGaland


How do you know President Trump won't hang a replica of this Obama portrait up in the hall with other Presidents? Show visitors how "unique" his predecessor was.

Tell me HOW that is relevant

The FACT is people on ATS discussing false information.

These are NOT official presidential portraits.

Trump probably has stockpiles of gold spray paint to make the WH quote, "Super class, so so classy! The classiest!"

Yeah sure, whatever you want dude.

Anything you think is true!!

It's all in the mushrooms.

originally posted by: DanteGaland

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?

This is not the "official" presidential portrait.

The ones in the article YOU linked to are official portraits.

THESE are just..."paintings of the Obama's..."

NOTHING "official" about them. They are not going on display in the WHITE HOUSE.

Who cares? They still suck.

Who paid for them?!!

a reply to: burgerbuddy

These paintings demonstrate pretty amazing artistic skills though.

However they also display the thinking of someone who is mean. Juvenile. Outdated. Backward. Sad. Pathetic. Cynical.

Shallow.

They are low hanging fruit in so many ways.

But they are very well rendered.

It's actually kind of tragic that there is so little thought behind such huge artistic talent.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Please stay on topic....that also means NO BICKERING.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DanteGaland


How do you know President Trump won't hang a replica of this Obama portrait up in the hall with other Presidents? Show visitors how "unique" his predecessor was.

Tell me HOW that is relevant

The FACT is people on ATS discussing false information.

These are NOT official presidential portraits.

Trump probably has stockpiles of gold spray paint to make the WH quote, "Super class, so so classy! The classiest!"

Okay. I looked it up. These ARE the official portraits and are displayed in the National Portrait Gallery. Sometimes, portraits are loaned out to be displayed in the Oval Office of the White House.

Beginning with Gilbert Stuart's portrait of George Washington, it has been traditional for the President of the United States to have an official portrait taken during his time in office, most commonly an oil painting. This tradition has continued to modern times, although since the adoption of photography as a widely used and reliable technology, the official portrait may also be a photograph (or at least a photograph may be substituted while a painting is being made). Currently, an official oil portrait is commissioned after the presidential term is finished, and takes one or two years to be finished.[1]

Presidents often display the official portraits of other presidents whom they admire in the Oval Office or elsewhere around the White House, loaned from the National Portrait Gallery.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, yes. They are the official portraits. Like them or not, they will be on display at the National Portrait Gallery in perpetuity.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

It was the guy who did Obama's. I think both are supposed to be an afro-american take on Judith slaying Holofernes by different artists. Here is the one by Caravaggio.