Fox News thread of fine journalism

That’s my issue with it. The background is a cartoon wall of leaves.

The artist who painted Clinton’s portrait later said a shadow in the picture represented Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress.

No, but the fact is the group is there.

There is an assumption that somehow being politically correct is an offensive action, like trying to set the world straight or something when some people asking for a littler more consideration, would just like to be treated well… well.

They are both bad. In my opinion. I personally would have liked both to be more realistic. Michele’s portrait, looks like it was done by an amateur. I’m sorry if it bothers anyone here, but they honestly suck. Not my choice though.

Yeah well…
hqdefault%20(1)

I wonder though. Given that we have utterly ubiquitous photography of our presidents now, actually capturing a likeness isn’t actually that important any more. One could argue that a presidential portrait therefore should be more about capturing the aesthetic zeitgeist, or making a statement, more than simply capturing likeness.

I haven’t thought that through. But there’s probably an argument to be made there.

I don’t much rate Chuck Close either. Fun fact I nearly got into a fist fight over that opinion with a friend of mine who also loves painting. As I discovered, he thinks Chuck Close is one of the greatest living painters. I, (and I choose my words carefully after my run in) do not :)

And I will disagree here. A photograph is not a portrait done for posterity by an artist. In this particular case, that is. We have photography, sure. So then why don’t we have presidential photos done and leave it at that? Gravitas. That’s why. The portrait is a thing done to enshrine the President and the First Lady in a way that a photo does not. It gives them a certain presence. It is a painting that will fit in with the rest of the paintings in the White House. It should be part of a long line of portraits.

I guess I just don’t get it. So I’ll agree to disagree. Now and forever.

But why? Just because we’ve always done things that way? It may be that as a young, insecure nation, notably one in the Victorian tradition, gravitas seemed important. But as a modern nation with modern status and modern mores, maybe that shouldn’t be important anymore. Clearly, as Trump’s behavior demonstrates, the office itself is not held in such vaulted tones. Maybe it should be, or maybe we should pretend it is, or maybe the office is just something different now.

I really don’t have much of an opinion here, I’m just thinking out loud.

IMHO. Yes.

I mean if he wanted it for himself or whatever, I wouldn’t care, but it looks terrible for something you’d hang up in the White House.

This is truly a great leap forward.

TIL there are two entirely different sets of Presidential portraits - the ones in the National Portrait Gallery (which is the ones that were unveiled on Monday) and the ones in the White House collection (Obama doesn’t have one of those yet.)

On the one hand, I’m firmly in the “there’s no need for traditional representational portraits in the modern age” camp. On the other hand, my reaction to the Obamas’ portraits is just, “eh.”

What do I want? Damned if I know - but once you get away from representationalism, a whole universe of possibilities opens up. So it’s not surprising I don’t like every possibility.

In that case I care even less. It’s still fucking hideous though. Maybe if the leaves looked realistic, but they don’t. At all. They look like they escaped from a cartoon. And not even like a good one.

Bill’s is worse. It looks like a few in that one collection had some creative liberties. Art is fairly subjective so… I guess there are worse things out there. I still think Michelle’s is better though.

I like them both and think they reflect well on both subjects. The artists weren’t chosen by accident and the work isn’t outside the range of what both are well known for. I have to believe that the Obamas both had some level of input on how they would be represented. I think her’s is absolutely stunning.

If they’re happy, I am too.

I hated both when I saw press photos of the unveiling, but after seeing high res scans and thinking on them for awhile I think I actually like both.

I don’t think President Obama’s is all that bad. It’s jarring at first, but I think the symbolism can work on a lot of different levels - his focus on environmental issues, the idea that he’s being supported by many small leafs rather than a single trunk, etc. It’s one of those things that grows on you the longer you look at it. Not much pun intended.

Ms. Obama’s on the other hand I don’t care for. I like the colors and the large, bold patterns… but it simply doesn’t LOOK like the FLOTUS I remember. Beyond the features not being too accurate, the woman in the portrait seems sour, grumpy and petulant. Michelle Obama was typically upbeat, wryly droll, and proudly defiant

My issue, precisely. But if they like it, I guess who am I to judge?