I’ve long appreciated the arts, encouraging my students to broaden their horizons and discover the best mankind can produce. Michaelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci, the Dutch masters, people who produced timeless beauty, masterworks for all time. Portraits of our presidents are not, for the most part, in that league, but they have encompassed a kind of dignity befitting the office, a preservation of consequential men for the ages. Until now.
The official portraits of Barack and Michelle Obama have been unveiled in the National Portrait Gallery. The portrait of Mr. Obama, painted by Kehinde Wiley, and the portrait of Michelle Obama, rendered by Amy Sherald are, to say the least, a break from tradition. Let us first view a representative sampling of presidential portraits:
They share certain qualities: dignity, a seriousness of purpose, classic style and execution, and above all, they are technically accomplished. They actually resemble the subjects of the portraits–with one exception:
While it does resemble Barack Obama facially, the perspective is wrong. It resembles a bad photoshop. The greenery is not in correct perspective with the chair, whose back leg is in the wrong place, and its overall proportions are wrong. Nor is it in proper perspective with Obama. His feet appear to be floating in mid air, particularly the left foot, which is cocked at an odd angle. Notice a black line extending from what appears to be a break in the greenery over his left shoulder, across his left cheek, and extending under his lips. The lighting on his face is also not reflected anywhere else in the portrait.
And then there are the hands. They’re ridiculously large, and his left hand appears to have a sixth finger:
Perhaps the artist has a thing for the polydactyl?
And what’s up with the greenery? Is it suggestive of his Choom Gang days? Perhaps it depicts a rebirth, a glorious springtime of Obama? It looks like neophyte poster art. And then there is Mrs. Obama:
Apart from the unmistakable fact the portrait does not resemble her–at all–the hands are also out of proportion, particularly to the head and face. The dress is…its…it’s the focal point of the portrait, and it’s ridiculously ugly and essentially shapeless. I had no idea Mrs. Obama was so gray. This portrait too seems almost two-dimensional.
Neither portrait appears to have been done by a professional, accomplished portrait artist. Of course, gentle readers, I am not a distinguished art critic, but I am capable of recognizing things like actual artistic talent and accomplishment. These portraits don’t qualify.
I suspect the Obamas would be happier with something like this:
These portraits would surely better reflect their self-images. But the unveiling would have been much more lively if it went like this:
And this might be fun too:
I’m sure The New York Times would not agree. Let’s sample some of the comments of their readers:
I love them. They are bold and showcase innovative and brilliant American artists. One legacy of the Obamas is that they push us to think more, see more and learn more. These portraits do that. SALLY DRAKE
I think both portraits are fantastic. I love that they both chose black artists for this. I definitely would have felt a way if they hadn’t. ANGELA KIRKLAND
They certainly push me to think “what could these artists, and the Obamas, have been thinking? I do suspect, however, in years to come, people will gaze upon these portraits and considering the Obama’s time in the White House, find them oddly fitting.
What is it with 48 star American flags? Even though it hasn’t been the US flag since 1959, I see them frequently in a contemporary setting. The last cartoon on this post, the wall of a TV bar, a new one painted on a barn nearby, and even in a government facility in another TV show. Is there some “subversive” reason, or is it just because they are easier to draw and paint?
Simple, to the radical leftist who created this monstrosity, it is all
about symbolism. Obama is a son of a communist Kenyan
Muslim and an anti-imperialist. This suggests that Ovomit
believes the native Hawaiians to be the victims of imperialism.
The green stuff was easy, Obama was a notorious life-long
pot smoker. The various flowers are said to be native to
Kenya and Hawaii and the Ivy represent Chicago. The weird
oversized hands are a dig at President Trump and allude to
penis size. There may be other symbolism on the image
like sperm (a trademark of this artist,) but I have not seen
a hi-res image.
One more thing about Ojugears “Portrait:” There is a compelling
case that this was not painted at all. Several pieces in the background
look like they were cut and paste jobs. This is even weirder than
Hillary Clinton’s Green Room Christmas tree which included roach
clips, condoms, cock rings, etc., created by Avante guard leftist
artists. Evidence of digital manipulation:
Mike,
You really don’t get it do you? The painting is a paean to our American heritage, ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit.
The outline details were constructed using a quality pantograph from a high resolution Shutterstock image. When I was a kid everybody wanted a pantograph for Christmas. It was a thing. I actually got one. I used it twice but the bragging rights? Priceless.
https://www.amazon.com/Rockler-Woodworking-and-Hardware-Pantograph/dp/B001DSXDHA
The artist then personally drew all the squiggly interior lines to guide his assistants. He employed a Jamaican/Chinese lesbian graduate student to carefully number the sections in Mandarin then, ever the entrepeneur, he sub-contracted the work to a Chinese sweatshop – remember that the Chinese built our railroads!
The chair? They think the cat may have jumped up on the work table while he was taking a break but come on, all the famous artists painted in little quirky things, kinda like a signature.
You should be ashamed for jumping to conclusions when you didn’t know the whole spinny thing.
Yours,
Roy
Dear Roy Lofquist:
Well, as long as a Jamaican/Chinese lesbian graduate students was involved…
Pingback: Michells Obama: Changing Things Up | Stately McDaniel Manor