[conservative98]

I don’t see the problem.

[utahagen]

The main problem is that the woman in the portrait does not resemble Michelle Obama. I would not have recognized her as the former First Lady had I not read the article. The second problem — which is not a real “problem”, just something that I am rolling my eyes about — is that the portrait is informal, impressionistic, and amateurish. It is of dramatically lower quality than all the other portraits of Presidents and First Ladies. In fact, it looks just good enough to have won second prize in a public high school art contest.

[robroys woman]

The Michelle painting actually isn’t bad, for what it is. The obama painting looks ridiculous with that background. It looks like a bad Photoshop picture committed to the painted canvas.

[JudgemAll]

Liberals are racist and this portrait is anatomically too exact, so to speak. It does not have the media glitzy fake glamoring around it

So liberals will attack the artist to look PC

[HollyB]

The portraits at post #140 are much better and suitable for an official presidential portrait. As for these paintints, I think Michelle’s portrait is just awful; it’s flat, nor does it look like her. Obama’s portrait is really odd. If he was a lover of flowers or that sort of thing, ok. But,how does sitting among flowers capture his personality, unless it’s referring to the effeminate side of him.

Anyway, the paintings at 140 are much better.