The Obama Portraits: But Is It Art?

American Thinker ^ | February 17, 2018 | Tim Mostert

[knarf]

I agree.

I just wanted to point out the cartoonish crap that now hangs among serious (at a risk) "fine art"

All the other portraits are done in a "master"ful way except these two.

HELL .... DUBYA would'a been a better choice !

[mairdie]

I’ll have you know that one of my 7th great grandmothers is in that museum! Which makes me inordinately fond of the place, even with this sort of stuff in it. One of the curators asked me to post requests for sketches on my website for a painting they were researching, and they sent me a lovely large image of ggm’s painting to thank me.

The part that bothers me about the Obama paintings is that they are made to stop you looking at anyone else’s art that’s displayed in the same room. They stand out like bright red on a cloudy day. Your eye CAN’T not go to them. You HAVE to look. And that’s infuriating because I want to forget they even existed, much less lived in our White House.

[Don W]

When I look at these smeared paint daubs alongside all previous presidential portraits, I get that Sesame Street song in my head:

One of these things
Is not like the others
One of these things
Doesn’t belong.

[mairdie]

Oh, VERY good!

[fatima]

:)

[TalBlack]

None of the presidential portraits of my lifetime seem impressive to me. I personally know people who can paint to that level. Look at Washington’s portrait then look at Clinton’s. I mean. SHEEEESH!

[mairdie]

Clinton’s is trying to emphasize his sexiness. He’s shoving his groin out. So it is a perfect portrait depicting his view of himself.

[Kaslin]

How about this?

You know he always acted as if he was a king.

[Dr.Deth]

I thought Jesse told him "stay out de bushes."

[thecodont]

I keep focusing on the foliage.

It looks like poison ivy.

Remember “Leaflets three, let it be”?

[Lou L]

That's the sad part about these paintings--we generally have an expectation that a Presidential portrait should be...presidential. one that reflects the importance of the office, the dignity that a statesman should have, even if a particular President sometimes fell short of our expectations. Even the portraits of President Carter, and Clinton--though of whom fell short of what many on these boards would consider "presidential," --you could not argue that their portraits capture the dignity of the office.

What shocks you about the Obama portraits is not the actual paintings, which reflect poorly on how the artist sees the Presidency, but the fact that the former President took his acknowledgement for posterity so lightly. He allowed himself to be made into a joke.

But what's even more shocking, is that reflects exactly what his Presidency was--an 8-year joke on the United States. It's actually a brutally honest painting.

[mairdie]

Don’t remember that quote. But the idea of his coming down with large poison ivy boils is rather delicious.

[Hardastarboard]

The 0bama paintings both look like they’re paint by number, but well done paint by number.

[Nifster]

Since the article was talking about the recently unveiled portraits of the obozos that is what I addressed

Random thought much?

[Vaduz]

Looks like the artist used a paint by the number set also he looks like he’s taking a dump.

[Nifster]

Nicely played

[mairdie]

Wondering if you thought the empty suits had to do with their expressions, as the pope’s portrait shows how expression can reveal the inner character. You can make connections, I’m sure.

[Billthedrill]

I don’t know - if the purpose of such portraiture is to show the inner soul then I’d say the artists didn’t do that badly. Superficial, hostile, self-enamored, and shallower than the canvas they’ve been painted on. Run into this stuff in a gallery and you’ll be happy to have it behind you. So yeah, it is appropriate.

[mairdie]

Best comment yet!

[Robert A Cook PE]

The 0bama paintings both look like they’re paint by number, but well done paint by number.

The Obama “portrait” WAS pointed by numbers: The “artist” hires out all of his background painting to people in China who repeat the same patterns all the way across the painting, but he does not go to China, review their work, nor supervise it. It is no more art than wallpaper - even and I have seen wallpaper more well-presented.

Look at the groups of leaves to see the four repeated patterns: Only the flowered parts change. (There are four sets that are repeated.) None have any lighting or shading, any perspective.

His other well-known "paintings" are copies of Renaissance masters' work, redone over wallpaper patterns again, that replace the central figure with a black woman holding the severed heads of white women. In those, the wallpaper pattern is less obnoxious (less overwhelming) than the 3-pointed (sumac ?) leaves and ivy leaves used behind Obama's wooden throne.