Barack Obama’s portrait was painted by artist Kehinde Wiley, and Michelle Obama’s portrait was painted by artist Amy Sherald, both prominent African-American painters.
We asked on Facebook what you thought, and today we present commentary from a gathering of Dayton-area artists, educators, arts administrators, collectors and general art lovers. Your thoughts? Email rrollins@coxohio.com. — Ron Rollins
Sally A. Struthers: I like the new portraits of President and First Lady Obama. Loved the choice of Kehinde Wiley as the artist for our first African-American president's portrait. When Wiley was young, and visiting art museums, he wondered why there were only portraits of white men. Wiley started using black men to model for him in the poses of those old portraits, but with really bright, jazzy backgrounds. Powerful portraits of powerful black men. I will bet that there have been African-American kids who have visited the National Portrait Gallery and wondered, "Why have all the presidents been white men?" That is why I think that Wiley was the perfect choice! Wiley made a striking portrait of President Obama that is hip, colorful, hopeful and different.
Linda Lombard: Thought they were marvelous choices. Wiley's interpretation of Barack Obama is spot on in his usual style of the black hero but without the trappings of majesty. While there has been some criticism of Michele Obama's portrait, it was a bold choice that will resonate in the future. The pieces are standalone contemporary masterpieces, and the President's portrait will really jazz up a gallery of many meh portraits of white males.
Michael Kenwood Lippert: The Obamas continue to challenge the narrative of the United States of America's white elitist government history. The intellect and talent of the chosen artists is exciting. The choice of modern art that elicits strong response from viewers of all opinions is appreciated. Bravo. Brava.
Mary Lou Clemans: I LOVE the tasteful departure from the common portraits. President Obama was chosen as an "outside the box" president and the artwork represents that. The artist as well as the art are well chosen. I would like to have seen the First Lady depicted in a little stronger pose, but I wasn't the artist.
Douglas R Fiely: I find them lacking somehow … but I don't know much about "art." I do think it represents a departure from traditional realism in portraits. So that is good, I think. I don't connect to any emotion that should be paramount. Technique is OK, but OK, I'll say it — they don't engage on any level…
Jean Wilson Hale: Love the President, especially the vibrant background with symbolism in the different flowers. Disappointed in the First Lady — more a portrait of her dress than of her.
Amy Powell: Coincidentally, we have been doing a portrait lesson featuring this artist in my Photo class at Fairmont High Schol — the kids think it's really cool!
Jeff Porter: Not an artist, but I love the Michelle portrait. Not crazy about the President's. I'm good with the pose but would have liked a more traditionalist background.
Amy Stucke Deal: Freaking awesome!!
Rebecca Sargent: I second that, Amy! Love them, powerful and relevant!
Lisa Wolters: Third! LOVE them both.
Pat McClelland: I like the Obamas' contemporary portraits, but doubt that they will stay.
Tess Little: I agree, Pat.
Bob Coates: I made a special effort to see a Kehinde Wiley exhibition two years ago. I had seen one of his paintings at the the Dayton Art Institute, but did not know a lot about his work. After walking through his exhibition for three hours, I found myself liking the vibrant background that played against his figures. I liked how he used people from the street and made them into generals, leaders and heroes. When I left the museum, I saw African-Americans on the street, and I thought, are they the sons and daughters of the heroes I saw? Wiley made me think of African-Americans in a brand new way. This is what artists do. They open your mind, they make you rethink the old. Mrs. Obama's portrait is not real, but it does tell you the truth. She is elegant and monumental. Her dress is reminiscent of the quilts that have been made by African-Americans. The paintings reflect the change that the Obama's brought to the American Landscape. They are the great leap forward.
Pam Frazier Cottrel: Lovely informal portraits, but not right for the official portraits.
Don McKenny: Why is Obama sitting in the wall at Wrigley Field? And the face on Michelle is someone else … must be the Russian version…
Ray Marcano: I think the portrait is perfect. It's different and a first, and matches what he was — different and a first in office. Remember, it's art, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My eye loves it.
Skip Peterson: I was underwhelmed — I'm not sure what I expected, but these certainly weren't it…. Curious if they will stand the test of time…
Rhea Smith: I must admit, I am prejudiced. If Kehinde Wiley painted a phone book, I would love it. I watched the unveiling, which was powerful and emotional. It helped put Michelle's portrait in perspective to hear the artist herself connect us to her work. However, Michelle is so vibrant and "in motion"' to see her depicted in this passive and washed-out way just didn't completely translate for me.
Theresa Chaffin: Loved his, hers … not so much. And the explanations of not looking like her, on purpose or for meaning? Please help me here.
Kathy Davis: I was not fond of either portrait.
Richard Nordstrom: I appreciate both the boldness of the art and the boldness of the artistic choices. I, for one, find the portraits to be refreshing in their uniqueness, and beautiful to contemplate.
Eva Buttacavoli: Bigger picture: this is a milestone. The Obamas chose intentionally to present the historical visual imprint of their presidential legacy through the eyes of two important (and relevant for our time) contemporary artists as opposed to traditional portrait painters. They (the Obamas — through the artists) are asking us to face, be reminded of and acknowledge the political and emotional complexity of our time. They are asking us to pay attention to what artists have to say and contribute to our understanding of our world.
Dara Cosby: Beautiful! I love both pieces. The Obamas were trailblazers, they made history and their portraits should be just as interesting and iconic. Well done.
Rachel Botting: I love their portraits!
Christina Pereyma: I think the chair should have been a folding one, for all that implies. And on Michelle, the notion that it could be any woman in grisaille.
Tracy McElfresh: Dang JUST beautiful! I love all the bright color and that dress, gasp. I have always loved Michelle's great style!
Mb Hopkins: I am quite fond of both portraits. Some say they don't have the historically formal (staid?) seriousness of the predecessors — it seems fitting to me that they don't. The Obamas were historically significant by not being like any of their predecessors. Milestones represented by milestones. I love that Wiley is known for portraits of regular, invisible black men by painting them with a sort of majestically powerful air that elevated the subjects, then chose to take a black man who already had the persona of the most powerful man in the world and painted him as the "every man," yet keeping him grounded as someone who connects and cares about every American, without losing his calm demeanor and confidence of a leader. Fresh, modern, approachable, and as trustworthy and capable as the ideal dad. I am not bothered in the least that Michelle's face isn't an incredible likeness — this is typical for the artist, who chooses to make her figures ooze the personality of the sitter by other means, in this instance Michelle's dress. The dress, which is a relatively affordable "Milly" design, elevates Michelle's prominence by the composition while it stays connected to Americans via the designer and the fact that it resembles a quilt. But this quilt is a modern one, and that part is genius. Both steeped in history and forging new frontiers. (As an aside, it makes sense that you see Michelle's awesome shoulders and arms: Reflects Barack's opinion of "hotness" and is a nod to the First Lady's dedication to fitness, and her role model being such.)
Sara Quiñones: I echo ALL of this, spot on MB.
Jean Gaffney: Our family is huge Kehinde fans. We seek out his art wherever we can.
Christine Gaffney: I think that it's very cool that not only did the Obama's select African-American painters to create presidential portraits but Barack also selected an openly gay black man from San Francisco who is known for his flamboyant paintings to create his portrait. I think he knew what he was getting and he was excited about it. I like a man who isn't afraid of flowers! I read that Amy Sherald was over 40 before she started to be successful in the art world. I like that because it inspires me personally. I saw a lot of criticism of the paintings, especially of the painting of Michelle. I think people forget that art is often interpretive and does not have to be an exact representation of the subject. I think these paintings bring out some of my favorite characteristics of the Obamas, especially Michelle Obama's style and grace.
Teri Schoch: There are illustrators and there are artists. Most presidential portraits have been well-executed, but not very artful representations of the people who commissioned the work, done by illustrators. The brouhaha over these incredible works of art speaks more to the lack of art education in this country than anything else. Both Sherald and Wiley are incredibly accomplished artists whose works do so much more than simply stand in for a photograph. They tell us something about the Obamas and importantly they tell us about America.
Peter Wine: Whether I like them or not really isn't important. It is the Obama family that needs to be happy with them, since they will be representing them in the Smithsonian. These are not the same as "official" portraits, so you really can't compare them that way, and I would imagine that Mr. and Mrs. Obama had an idea of what the style was of their chosen artist.
Fran West: Both are significant to me in that the individual portraits develop particular traits of the subjects. Each presents some specific aspects of personality and personal history. The fact that they are quite different than previous White House occupants may require more attention and clarification as to the details. This makes me, as a viewer, even more intrigued by their history and impact on the American vista.
About the Author