What do you think of the Obamas’ portraits?

[KolinskyRed]

When I first viewed these portraits, I was taken a back. But then I considered them for a time, and they became very interesting, and for me, much appreciated. Are these not figurative art? Should they not take the viewer on a journey? For me, yes indeed. Should a painting stand entirely on its own when viewed? Or should we learn/seek out the context? When I was young I thought the former, and as life progresses I think the latter.

I’ve come to this conclusion after reading up on the artists themselves and their vision in their body of work ~ they were chosen for it, so it’s significant ~ and also reading up on the symbols within each portrait proved to be facinating.

A quick synopsis of what I took on board:

NYT Article: Ms. Sherald, who was born in Columbus, Ga., in 1973 and lives in Baltimore, is just beginning to move into the national spotlight after putting her career on hold for some years to deal with a family health crisis, and one of her own. (She had a heart transplant at 39.) Ms. Sherald .. []… starts with realism, but softens and abstracts it. She gives all her figures gray-toned skin — a color with ambiguous racial associations — and reduces bodies to geometric forms silhouetted against single-color fields.

Amy Sheradin’s gallery of her work.

http://www.amysherald.com/

“My approach to portraiture is conceptual,” explains Sherald. “Once my paintings are complete, the models no longer exist as themselves. I see something bigger, more symbolic.”

The dress is significant:

Quartz article: Obama’s voluminous dress bears additional symbolic weight: The gown from the Milly spring 2017 collection in fact, comes with a sewn-in political agenda. Milly’s designer, Michelle Smith, told the Washington Post that the dress is designed to evoke a populist spirit. “People have been describing the dress as couture, but the fabric is a stretch cotton poplin,” she says. “It could be called a worker’s fabric.” The beauty of the dress, she tells the Post, is that it looks “like couture but it’s made out of something spartan.”
Sherald saw yet another level of symbolism, explaining that she chose the floor-length dress printed with bold, geometric patterns in part as a nod to the legendary group of black quilters from Alabama collective known Gee’s
Bend Quiltmakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Qu…f_Gee%27s_Bend

And here I’ve learned something about the history of fabric art!

Someone, somewhere pointed to the paintings of past presidents, and used the word “anodyne” ~ had to look that one up ~ to describe the last 5 POTUS portraits. Spot on. I had a real chuckle when I saw the Washington portrait – what is he doing to himself … on a serious note, I see a very strong linkage in style from Washington’s portrait to Barack Obama’s portrait in terms of the respective era’s figurative design.

Art… a wonderful thing.

[p_nathan]

I don’t like Wiley’s ouvre. It’s sort of the same couple ideas reprised.

Mr. Obama’s portrait is an excellent Wiley, however. There are aspects of the figure that are misproportional, and I would like to understand why.

Sherald’s ouvre is more original. Not a personal fan, but I think the ideas are better. Iwould also like to have see Mrs Obama’s face better rendered, with less color attention to the dress. But I think as a work, it’s better than Mr. Obama’s.

I do like the sharp break from stuffed shirt poses that are the typical presidential portrait. That is very pleasant. I also recognize that the Obama’s are art consumers. They knew what they were doing and chose these artists mindful of their work.

There are, I expect, a number of subtle political points that are being made with these portraits (a POTUS never is not political).

Mr Obama has large hands. Symbol of power? Comment on his successor?

Why is he sitting, not standing? Very few Presidents are portrayed sitting. He was considered a thoughtful president, preferring waiting over taking action. I wonder if that’s the point here.

Does the selection of the background motif have meaning? One commentator said it was the leaves of his hometown baseball team wall.

Mrs Obama shows off her arms in this pose- I remember the insults given to her over her arms- I am sure this is related.

She also is largely just a head and arms. Is this a representation of FLOTUS role?

The dress is so central- and frankly is not interesting – is the dress a symbol? I gather it is, sort of.

All in all, I do like paintings being national news!

hobbyist in oil.

[Rastermon]

I am listening to an interview as to why she paints black people in greyscale, not brown. She thought greyscale looked good against colors. Also that making them brown is a political statement, which she struggled with. She had only painted anonymous black people and this is her biggest commission.

I love that they are both breaking the box of traditional presidential portraits.

Comments and criticism always welcome!

[contumacious]

It would have been outstanding to have a competition open to any US citizen artists. The president and first lady would then get to choose which portrait they wanted out of hundreds, maybe thousands of offerings.

With half of the $500,000 prize for each of the winning artists, (what was paid for the two portraits) I am guessing we would have seen some really amazing work as well as some rather strange stuff!

Though it isn’t exactly clear from what I read, it appears that the $500,000 did not come from tax dollars, though the Smithsonian was involved and did spend money on the event. The Smithsonian does receive tax dollars through congressional appropriations, but the bulk of the cost of the event and the portrait was paid for by donations. Though their portraits weren’t paid for by tax dollars, during Obama’s administration they did spend over $400,000 in tax dollars on various portraits of Cabinet members in 2011 and 2012, but a 2013 law stopped any further tax dollar spending for portrait work of politicians.

Washington’s portrait, the first presidential portrait for the new country was paid for by Congress at $700. In today’s money that would be about $20,000. I would enjoy seeing a list of what was paid for every presidential portrait from Washington forward, and who paid for them.

The most interesting story I read on presidential portrait’s was that of Teddy Roosevelt who destroyed his first portrait, then chose Sargent to paint the one we have today. Apparently the 2nd portrait sitting did not go smoothly.

[KolinskyRed]

Apparently the 2nd portrait sitting did not go smoothly.

To say the least! Poor guy! He quit painting commissioned portraits after this, did he not? I wonder if it was a factor. I think I read somewhere that Sargent’s commission was on the order of $300,000 in general. I hope he tripled it for that ‘sitting’!

Today there’s a non-profit that oversees the pres portraits, raising the money privately that’s been in place for a number of decades.

Interesting about the Washington portraitist being paid the equivalent of today’s ~ $12,000. Commissioned years after his death. Would this have been an honorarium? What, I wonder was the broad view of portraits amongst the elites in that society back then? Was it the done thing?

Cheers!

[Dana Design]

Saw this critique on Wiley’s work and found it revealing and interesting.
http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/804576/kehinde-wileys-dilemma-how-the-artist-painted-himself-into-a-corner-with-his-new-works

And this in the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386961/Obama-artist-painted-black-women-decapitating-white-women.html

Needless to say, the beheading portraits are not my favorite!

When life hands you lemons, add some tequila, a sprinkle of salt and call me!

[Dana Design]

Today there’s a non-profit that oversees the pres portraits, raising the money privately that’s been in place for a number of decades.

Cheers!

Read somewhere that Steven Spielberg paid for the portraits.

When life hands you lemons, add some tequila, a sprinkle of salt and call me!

[KolinskyRed]

Saw this critique on Wiley’s work and found it revealing and interesting.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

So, after taking a lot on board, I have to say, not a fan of Wiley’s work. I get what he’s doing ~ but there’s something about the process that, artistically, doesn’t ring true. In part, its the lack of care for developing the colour scheme, and also the digitally cloned backgrounds. One-off, maybe, but they’re all like that.

It’s a bit like a clever first-timer making a big hit with something, then is trapped within their limited skill application into reproducing it again and again and again. Never developing any nuance within the style. It’s a form of hell for an artist, I think, and he’s stuck in that loop.

The psychological “punch” of just the visual motif (not the symbolism) is candy-saccharine , and like too much candy, doesn’t sit well, tooth ache/stomach sick, brain nausea. I deeply regret eating them all – should have just had one.

I feel that Wiley needs to learn more about paint, and its colour possibilities. Even in his lush, vibrant style there can be more variation/association. At the same time, those patterned backgrounds are too rigid in their cloning style. My eyes don’t want to travel about, involuntarily, due to subtle nuance which is often present in great paintings with strong visual impact.

Just look – take the visual punch – then sigh and look away. Enter shouting with the colour scheme of a painting – it wears off pretty quick. Tuck the paint daub shouts within cleverly designed contextual subtleties, and the viewer’s brain will come back for more, perhaps not even knowing why they’re compelled to keep looking.

I think in part the visual brain seeks “order” and his style is so “ordered” at an instant, that I don’t feel compelled at all to keep looking – my brain goes “yep, got it, nothing to see here” with regards to the paint application choices.

Carrivagio’s may stand the test of time, but I don’t think Wiley’s will, other than as a foot note.

Food for thought…

Cheers!

[asdo]

POTUS looks like he’s taking a potty break while out camping. The repetitive pattern of the foliage behind him seems very lazy. It’s the same block of leaves cut-and-pasted over and over until it covered the entire canvas, and the leaves are over-simplified and look like paint-by-numbers. He also appears to be floating, and his face isn’t painted all that well either, as it looks a little cartoonish, especially the right side with the weird yellow highlight.

FLOTUS looks like an advertisement from a 70’s fashion mag. Not bad for an illustration, bad for a portrait…

Someone posted this earlier:
Ms. Sherald .. []… starts with realism, but softens and abstracts it. She gives all her figures gray-toned skin — a color with ambiguous racial associations — and reduces bodies to geometric forms silhouetted against single-color fields.

To me, this say’s “This whole painting thing is hard, so I’m gonna simplify it and then say there’s deeper meaning.”

After looking at more work of both artists, neither seems worthy of painting the portraits of a former first couple.

Wiley’s a hack, and Sherald just isn’t that great. Choice of artist seems to have come down to style over substance.

C&C Welcome

Instagram > DarkGlobeStudio

[Olaf]

. . . . . bad, both of them . .

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]"God is dead." —Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead." —God

[Author]

Posts