Posted on 02/17/2018 6:52:01 AM PST by mairdie
The official portrait is part of an old tradition perfected by Renaissance painters more than 500 years ago. The artists were generally painting powerful old men, who tended to be a bit ugly. To make up for what lacked in the sitter's physical beauty, the artist would emphasize the internal. A great painting of a king or pope tells you something about the subject's inner thoughts, his psyche. The image is more about what's going on inside his head rather than the outer trappings of his position or status.
...
The Obama portraits are kind of shocking - not only because the paintings are so cliched and amateurish, but because Barack and Michelle would choose artists primarily by virtue of their skin color and radical views instead of whether they could actually pull off an official portrait. With no budget limitations, you choose these two? These substandard paintings will hang in the National Gallery for all time. I assume that the Obamas wanted to prove a point. With the Obamas, everything comes down to race and retribution, and here was one last chance to rub someone's nose in something.
The Obama portraits are a sad reflection on how bad a choice someone can make when given the opportunity to do something great.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Mr. Natural! Bill Ding! 5 tube AC-DC radios! Is that Angelfood McSpade in the thought bubble? All the good old days stuff.
But where’s Flakey Foont? Dopin’ Dan the Army Man?
I think what we have here is the presidential equivalent of embarrassing photos of parents from the 1970’s.
“...but because Barack and Michelle would choose artists primarily by virtue of their skin color and radical views instead of whether they could actually pull off an official portrait.”
And just who, exactly, is surprised by this? It’s how they’ve made EVERY decision that I can see.
Also, those portraits are absolutely ridiculous. A final FU to We The People!
Was the artist conveying Obama in poison ivy? Obama in kudzu (an foreign entity that makes like a living hell through its invasive growth and a japanese plant).
Just a pair of ugly people
The paintings remind me of those on display at Rod Serling’s “Night Gallery.”
Art....?
Art of the insult.
Obamaturd has spunk of his face. So called artist likes interject swimming sperm in his artwork. Very appropriate for the first GAY presider.
"Dreck", for example. Or "Schlock". Garbage. Rubbish. Pictorial drivel. Incompetence. Mediocrity. Stupidity. Filth. They might earn a "C" in a high-school art class.
I chuckle every time I see them. “The Emperor’s New Clothes” was never so apt - and best of all they did it to themselves!
These photos need captions:
Obama saying: I need my teleprompter so I can say something about the photo.
Michelle saying: Does my ass look big in this tablecloth.
R. Crumb was far more of an artist than the two vile buffoons that painted the 0bama portraits. I wouldn’t recommend hiring R. Crumb (or anyone like him) to do a formal portrait, but in his own context he was very good. Those two buffoons can’t do formal portraiture; they also wouldn’t be able to do what R. Crumb did.
No captions culd be as good as yours....ROTFLOL.
No captions culd be as good as yours....ROTFLOL.
Those are both wonderful!
I don’t mind Obama’s portrait if he had hired the guy to paint him and then to hang it in his private home. It’s ok for that, same for the Mooch. To hang these alongside all the others, though, is another matter entirely.
There is a naughty marked-up version going around that makes your second point abundantly clear.
Pop art at it’s best. Ranks right up there with the Campbell’s soup can. Captured the true people. Phonies!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.