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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

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 paid for them?!!



Clinton Foundation? Hillary/Bill are probably having a good laugh over a glass of Scotch tonight.




posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Hey....did you happen to count his 'fingers'...LOL...it looks like he has an extra digit under his hand...these paintings would not rate in a high school contest.



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

The real question you should ask is, why did Obama and Michele seek out this painter who has painted black women holding the heads of white women?... in one such painting you can even see a Muslim curved dagger in the other hand as another black woman holds the beheaded head of a white woman.

This painter is known for those type of portrays.





mobile.wnd.com...


edit on 12-2-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yay, your like the fourth person to bring it up. Guess you don't even get the bronze for it.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yay, your like the fourth person to bring it up. Guess you don't even get the bronze for it.


Yay, and instead of responding as to why would they hired someone who obviously hates white people, instead you try to make this about "how many times people bring it up"...

I do wonder, would you have done the same thing if former President Bush, or even President Trump and Melania had hired a white painter who has painted white women with the beheaded heads of black women in their hands and a medieval dagger in the other showing that the heads were decapitated?...
edit on 13-2-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


This is the type of artist that someone who likes Reverend Jerimiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, would chose. Very predictable.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I looked up what those paintings where about and posted it here and I would have done the same for anyone.

Sorry that your loaded question misfired.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313
i think they're both lovely portraits, actually.


Yes. To hang in a house of ill-repute.
Not in the White House.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

which has now been pushed into the balkans ! out of africa is losing support as the origin of homo sapiens !

as for the paintings they are meh!

I think the artist that painted them is the same woman who paints black women dressed in colonial era style trappings posing cutting off the heads of white women!
edit on 13-2-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
The problem is there is more of him and more of the background. It's not fine art.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Imagine the stink it would make if the woman holding the sword was white and the heads of the decapitated corps' were black.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I looked up what those paintings where about and posted it here and I would have done the same for anyone.

Sorry that your loaded question misfired.


Reverse the racial composition and I don't think anyone would care what the artist was "about" with his symbolism. All they would care about is the racial composition and you know it.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: ketsuko
The problem is there is more of him and more of the background. It's not fine art.



No, it's not fine art. I already mentioned that. It's modern art. Modern art, IMO, merely exists as a kind of catharsis for the artist and the rest of us are supposed to pretend it provokes "feels" for us like it did the artist. That's how you get cardboard boxes in art galleries with thousands of dollars when any 5-year-old could do as much - the artist had feels when they did it and now they have a cool story bro.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
I agree with you. I believe you should like an artwork without having to think about it. Modern art I feel you need to think about it too much to "get it"
Art should be pleasurable to the eyes without intellectual thought.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: ketsuko
The problem is there is more of him and more of the background. It's not fine art.



No, it's not fine art. I already mentioned that. It's modern art. Modern art, IMO, merely exists as a kind of catharsis for the artist and the rest of us are supposed to pretend it provokes "feels" for us like it did the artist. That's how you get cardboard boxes in art galleries with thousands of dollars when any 5-year-old could do as much - the artist had feels when they did it and now they have a cool story bro.

This is the difference between modern art and classic art. Artistic skill doesn't count for anything in modern art. You can literally toss some paint on a canvas randomly, and as long as you can concoct a good story for what it "means" people will call it art.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: ketsuko
I agree with you. I believe you should like an artwork without having to think about it. Modern art I feel you need to think about it too much to "get it"
Art should be pleasurable to the eyes without intellectual thought.



Yes and no. The very best art was able to tell the artist's story without you having to be told what it was. The story was "told" by the work and evoked deep emotion by virtue of the work itself and its technical merit was part of what enabled that.

I recall going to the local gallery and seeing a particular European portrait that had such evocative eyes that no matter where you were in the room, it was like they were watching you. It was a downright creepy painting.

A cardboard box or a tangled mass of roughly dyed yarn that someone calls deconstructed crochet (yes, I've seen that) doesn't work the same way.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I don't really see the big deal here.

This is how the Obamas want to be remembered.

Doesn't that say enough about them?




posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
In this youtube , count dankula ( a scotsman) basically comments on the "young fathers" project from the national portrait gallery of Scotland

remember this was publicly funded !



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
I wouldn't say anyone, that is a rather broad brush.

Besides, that post included a question directed at me in particular about people repeating the same bit of info as if they didn't even bother to read the thread and instead found something shocking and just have to post to try and be the first to bring it up instead of reading the thread and commenting on it the first 3 times it was brought up. That is why I mentioned medals.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   
So I learned that aside from the general perspective and focus on the face of the subject, there aren't really any rules for a portrait. I actually like the Michelle one because the subject doesn't get lost in the background like in the former PotUS' one, his is just entirely too busy in the background for my taste. Do I think his fits what should be a presidential portrait? Not particularly, but then again neither did dubya's.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join