Presidential Portrait

I think his portrait is interesting but I don't really like the cool tones and flat look of her portrait. I feel as if the cool skin tone leeches the life and vibrancy of her personality out that should be present. I also think it would have been nice if the two artists had worked together just a little bit to make the portraits look more coordinated if displayed together. I feel like they clash when side by side, although I don't know how the National Portrait Gallery plans to present the works.

i think its weird that he's sort of floating on ivy and how she doesn't match the style of the other one at all.

she's a totally different shade, with a bland background, the scale is different and that dress looks large and strange on her. while barack he just looks weird on that background. its like someone took him from the oval office, and cut him out and glued him into a new background.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I am not crazy about either portrait. Not that they are not good artist because they are both very talented. I looked up both artists work and I really like Amy Sherald's work (Michelle's portrait) but in this case, the painting looks nothing like Michelle Obama and the flesh is almost a dead flesh color.

Baracks portrait is very complex and the likeness is perfect, I just do not like the busy, leafy background. I think that although most times a change is a good thing but in this case, they should have shot for a more traditional form of art because of where they will hang. Just my opinion.

Saw these the other day. Obviously the artist worked from different photos, a photo of Barrack and a photo of foliage. The lighting in both photos is completely different and as a result, it looks like Obama has been copied and pasted on to the background. It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever that he's sitting on a chair in greenery, why not the oval office? The artist failed to create a believable scene in that sense.. Michelle's is ok, looks like a WIP that's about half way finished.

Don't get his portrait at all. Lacks the stately quality that a President, wearing a suit, would conjure. As for Michelle's... it does her justice.

They both selected the artists, so they knew what to expect.

Michele looks nothing like that woman

Clearly, Michelle's is a bomb.....look up the youtube video of Barack thanking the artists...Michelle's look on her face is priceless!!

As long as they are both happy with it - i would not be.

Hard to believe that these will hang in the White House.

I like that the portraits are experimental. We as a nation have thousands of governors' portraits done in a very staid manner. Good to move on a bit.

Michelle's face in the portrait looks more like the artist's face, Amy Sherland. I am speaking to the structure of the face.

Dave

Glenn, they will not hang in the White House. They will hang in The National Portrait Gallery.

I like the one of him (should cannabis plants though) and I don't like the one of her... she has a weird expression on her face and looks like high school skill level, maybe even middle-school level.

I posed same question on my FB page. I was more surprised by the lack of responses from my artist friends than others.

I watched the unveiling live yesterday. I admit to being surprised by both paintings.

The more I studied President Obama’s portrait and heard the Mr. Wiley’s words of symbolism though, I saw it in a different light and awareness.

I thought he aged him too much. I would have preferred the focus on his smile, but I understand the reason for the seriousness.

I am not a fan of Michelle’s. It’s not the gray skin tone that bothers me. It’s the lack of facial recognition. The only way anyone would recognize her is by her well toned arms. She isn’t every woman. I think the artist missed Michelle’s strengths.

It's a No for me!

Thank you Jessica.

Someone was pointing out earlier that it almost looks like he has an extra finger on his left hand. The foliage in that piece is beautiful.

Fail.

Cannot stand either of them. So many fabulous artists out there,shame they picked these two. Sorry...feeling ultra honest today.

I love the style of Michelle's portrait, but something about her eyes is off. If the eyes aren't right, then the entire painting isn't right. I do love that dress though. If people don't know beforehand about the artist using grayscale purposefully, then the skin tone also may look 'wrong'. Even if the artist worked from a photo, somehow Michelle looks almost upset, rather than serene.

Barack's portrait has more life beaming from it, although I agree about over-aging him. Also, the foliage against the pants leg... there's a weirdness that doesn't seem quite right. But it does look like President Obama, and the colors are beautiful. I just don't think the chair out in the garden situation translates fully, in that the artist's reasoning and use of symbolism leaves me with questions.

I do appreciate the choice of the two up and coming artists, and their use of more modern styles.

These are not just portraits, they are art. I didn't expect either of these, they were a surprise. How do artists surprise their audience with something as important as presidential portraits while still hitting lofty, traditional expectations?

I think both artists hit the mark. These take presidential portraits to the next level. I would like Michelle's better if she weren't that chalky, dull color but...it will be fine.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I appreciate that they both went for a more modern feel. I feel both works don't go far enough in that direction. It is kind of like the hold over from previous portraits is preventing either of these works from being successful .

I like them. They aren't just more boring oil paintings that make them look like they ran a Baptist college in the 1950s. They're modern, light, surprising and interesting. I'd call the one of Michelle very flattering.

Google a close up of these portraits.
Technically, Obama has a real problem with his left hand and foot.
Madame Tussaud did great with Michelle and failed with Barack.
Crap shoot.

When people remarked that Gertrude Stein did not look like her portrait, Picasso simply said "She will."

Give these a little time. In a decade or two these will be quintessential and probably much imitated.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I like the idea of going 'modern' for modern portraits, but are they 'modern' enough? Both look like they came from the 'experimental' seventies. Michelle's looks 'unfinished'. Barack's is at least a bit colourful.

Should have had then sit together in a third portrait.

Michelle's does not even look like her and that flat chalky skin tone...ouch. Barack's is also very strange, sitting in a garden of some sort with the light souce on him different from his environment and his left hand is very poorly done. Major Art fail.

Well - he doesn't look the least bit "presidential" and those hands - egads! Neither of these are "portraits" - they may be "art". Too many of you have already pointed out the faults of her picture - that chalky white skin and flat look.

"A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person."

I was totally surprised by both.

Interestingly enough, the video I saw yesterday on the internet, showing clearly how unhappy Michelle was with hers, has disappeared.....I wanted to post it, but alas....

"“How about that? That’s pretty sharp,” the former president remarked once his portrait was unveiled, while the First Lady said she was “a little overwhelmed, to say the least.”

To say the least? ;)

...let me add these are both cringe worthy!

Hands always tell the real story of how talented an artist is.
Take a close look at both portraits.


I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the Obama home....

I read that they will not hang together, and that there is apparently no permanent exhibit for First Ladies like there is for Presidents. I also read that the artist of Michelle's always uses flat gray skin tones for portraits. I like that they are non traditional but the only thing that excites me really is the rendition of Michelle's dress. .

Two thumbs down for me.

If you look at the art over the years that Obama had hanging in the White House, he has a lot of appreciation for really great art; Norman Rockwell, Frederick Childe Hassam just being two of them. Because of this, I was really expecting something spectacular. Very disappointed.

For some reason, I think he is secretly regretting his decision to go with this artist and I bet Michelle is too.

But how can they say anything but great and wonderful things publicly?

Michelle's is not as bad as his but his is really just lacking. Looks like a failed 7th-grade art project to me.

Hey Jessica ... thanks for posting the link to the Vanity Fair article. I got a chance to really study these.

My humble opinion: dreadful.

Gak.

I only have one word...

Yikes!

Both paintings give the word "artist" a bad name. And to display those two paintings of a President and his wife in the historic National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC - really?!!

The resemblance to him is somewhat okay, although what the heck is the greenery all about? But had I not known it was her I would not have realized it was her... ever. Gray skin and no facial similarity whatsoever! There is no way she is happy about it behind closed doors.

The artist who painted Mrs. Obama said she did it grayscale, thus the reason for the flat chalky look but i didn't think grayscale had colors like there are in the skirt.
hmmmm not a real fan of either of these paintings.

I can accept the painting of him, it looks like him and I can understand the symbolism used in the background. But maybe the green should be toned down a bit. There is so much bright green that it over powers him. The foliage seems to be enshrouding and entangling him. If he had been sitting in a garden, some of the green should have been reflected in his face. He looks detached, in that sense.

I can understand that they wanted something more modern and less traditional, but that painting of her is frightening. The gray skin hit me right away. Michelle is a beautiful woman, her skin is lovely, not gray/corpse like. And the arms are extraordinarily long, I don't know what that is supposed to represent. The dress, ok. Although, the color in the skirt draws my eye to that, not to her face. Young girls are supposed to think that looks like them? Not sure it does.

I like the work of the artist who did Michelle Obama's portrait.

Having looked at previous presidential (and partners) portraits in Washington DC, I think they are different and will sit well amongst the collection.

I actually like hers a lot. His looks like the first time I tried to superimpose stuff on an iPad. It didn't end well.

___________
Susan Maxwell Schmidt
So-so Board Moderator and
Artist Extraordinaire

I think highschool students could paint better...His hand is too long, the extra finger on his left hand, background is not something for a Presidential portrait, ...No idea who the woman is in that painting (did do her justice)...anyone thinking these are good better get their eyes checked......

I'm with Jim Hughes on this one. Not the same old stodgy type of portraits - which will likely be what ends up in the white house. Michelle looks young, and I like the surprise of the ivy background with Obama.
This is a good read about presidential portraits at the National Gallery:
http://time.com/5140261/official-presidential-portraits-history/

Well after a good night's sleep, the two portraits actually look better than I thought.

I think these portraits will grow on the public.

Dave

I like both as art, especially his. But her face looks nothing like her! That bugs me.

The one on the left will definitely grow as long as it rains.

Not a fan of either portrait. His looks like a bad cut and paste job. Her portrait seems to be washed out, bland. Having said that they were painted by people they chose and there will be those that like the works and those that don't. I expected something totally different.

Look deeper. Art is about meaning.

Look at the artist's bodies of work, these are very much in line with their style, and they worked closely with the Obamas, so there were no surprises.

The Obamas were far from traditional, and so are these portraits. They feel contemporary too, not the old guard sitting-in-a-library portrait. The foliage in the fmr. President Obama's portrait specifically relates to places and events from his life. the African blue lilies represent Kenya, Barack’s father’s birthplace; jasmine stands for Hawaii, where he was born; and the chrysanthemums, the official flower of Chicago, reference the city where his political career began, and where he met Michelle.

The artist for Michele Obama's portrait is known for her portraits that are not spot on representations, but make a larger statement about personal identity - which I know many will balk at because this is supposed to represent the first lady - but it's what this artist does, and the Obamas knew that going in. The flat tones are a commentary on racial identity, but the dress is the key. It's the true window into her identity. It's a day dress, not a coutoure gown, it was designed by a female American designer. It's affordable, it's cotton, it has pockets, it's approachable but the full skirt says drama and has a regal air. It's a nod to Americana, to folk art in particular. The pattern evokes Gee's Bend quilts, a craft from an isolated African American community in the 1800s. The community and their art was not discovered until the 1960's. The quilts are high art, shown in major museums, and are an important African American contribution to fabric art in this country.

You don't have to like them, but this is thoughtful contemporary portraiture. These are a mirror held up to show who these two ARE, not just what they look like. That's why they look different, and that's why I think they're remarkable.

Not impressed by either.....he's almost reasonable and she's absolutely not Michelle!

Cynthia,

Very poignant and interesting write up, right on the spot.

Thanks,

Dave

I like what you said, Cynthia, and I agree. It's just that her face is off, and if you're going to do a face, either make it wildly different or do it right.

ohhhh, I think Michelle was surprised big time!

re Cynthia - You don't have to like them.....................'

That's good then! LOL

Him, too busy background. Her, someone else’s face.

I wouldn’t want either one of those representing me if I was in their shoes.

FAA should have a contest to replace them and pick winners to forward or get the O family to select the ones they want.

"These are a mirror held up to show who these two ARE"

A mirror held up to show who the artists are..


Adam! Ha! Does someone want to start a new contest here on FAA?

re: Cynthia, I think that they are fine for the Obama personal art collection but for the official presidential portraits maybe there is something to be said for tradition so that they don't stand out in a bad light because not everybody in the general public gets the deeper meaning behind art. JMO

I think it is important that young black girls will have a portrait to look at in a public place and think "she looks like me."
Michelle made this remark....all she needed to add outloud was " cuz it sure doesn't look like me!"

His background and chair looks like a 2 minute cut and paste job using windows paint......his proportions look like a beginner first attempt...
her portrait looks like someone..just not her...and her artists is.... well never mind...

of course some will like it...maybe 1-2 percent...

Wow, tough room!

History repeats itself, albeit on a smaller scale. How many remember the public uproar over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC -- before it was even built?

21-year old architecture student Maya Ying Lin won a blind competition. When the winner was revealed the wall was labeled the "black gash of shame", the Secretary of the Interior refused to issue a building permit, Lin was publicly harassed and eventually had to defend her design in front of the United States Congress.

Opposition was so strong that a *traditional* bronze statue named The Three Servicemen was eventually commissioned and placed near Lin's masterpiece.

The memorial wall has since become one of the most popular tourist attractions in Washington, visited annually by over 5 million people.

Naturally, the presidential portraits will never have that much gravity, but the parallels are uncanny.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I don't like either one but Michelle's is a massive fail.

The more I look at the portraits the more I dislike them, they grow on you like a boil - Obama looks like a cartoon character right out of mad magazine, it would be more accurate if his was slouching in the chair. Hers on the other hand - egads, people are stuck looking at that art junk forever, how pathetic.

The portraits are to be additions to the National Portrait Gallery. I think, if you're creating a commemorative PORTRAIT in a realistic style, the features of the face should resemble the person sitting for the portrait. If you're creating your artistic interpretation of a person, then there really are no rules.

A portrait, above all, should be recognizable. If you didn't know beforehand that the portrait was of Michelle Obama ...if you were looking at it apart from President Obama's portrait... and you weren't the dress designer...would anyone know that was a portrait of Mrs. Obama? No, because her face isn't recognizable.

There is more recognition with Barack's portrait... I don't think anyone would mistake him for someone else. I don't see what people are calling 'an extra finger', but the left hand (his left) seems a tad stretched out. And even if he had that pinky finger tucked under his hand in the reference photos, I think it should have been painted in a more natural position.

It's really hard to leave politics out of this discussion, in light of the fact that these artists were chosen by the couple. I will NOT post a link, but the decapitated heads should be easy to find. Enough said.

Possibly the mistake was labeling these "portraits." People here apparently have inflexible definitions of what a portrait should be and these don't fit their definition.

Mere technical skills have never been the dividing line between artists and great artists. Bold concepts and thinking are what elevates art beyond something nice to look at.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan, duh..they are going in the national PORTRAIT gallery....

Marlene, you crack me up :) Your comments in this thread are a riot.

I know. That's a lot of expectation to see "portraits!"


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Let's fast-forward. I bet the next presidential portrait will be more traditional and more suitable for the National Portrait Gallery. It is certain to please everyone :-)


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Thx Joy, I'm having more fun in the precaution thread by Ronald.
and speaking of having fun....anyone seeing the knock offs of these portraits that have been....er....adjusted?
Barack is sitting, same position, like a king on his (porcelain) throne...

I never heard of the National Portrait Gallery until these two paintings! I guess there is a positive in all of this. But these may be some of those you might have to view in person and study for an hour or two. Not sure if all the details can be viewed via photograph. I am sure someone will write a couple of books analyzing both of them.

I'm not thrilled with either of them, but for reference, here's the portrait of JFK by Elaine de Kooning in the same gallery

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/07/3e/94/46/national-portrait-gallery.jpg

Added

BTW the National Gallery Portrait isn't the same thing as the Official White House Portrait.

As far as I can tell President Obama's official White House portrait is a digitally captured photo by Pete Sousa.

Thx for the link David. Love that portrait and the artist!

I think much more should be expected for a president and first lady paintings, even in a modern portrayal, as per the artistic problems already discussed in the thread.

Marlene, links to the knock offs please!

Sorry Shelli. I’m not getting banned by posting inappropriate links. Just google!

Why does this thread seem like art shaming?

Every day I wake up more enthralled by these portraits. But I would.

Dan, We are on the same page.

Dave

Mary,
Art shaming is about people undervaluing art as a profession.
The OP opened a thread, posting portraits of the Obamas and asked a group of artists what we think of the art.

Opinions, reviews, thoughts on art outside of the FAA artists needs to be allowed. Right down to the nasty.

We can not just say, 'oh I love Rembrandt' all day long.

Dave

PS disallowing political or religious comments and not using swear words. Just genuine opinions and facts.

The phrase "art shaming" makes me cringe.

Art is subjective by definition. I don't want to live in a world where we all just blindly praise all artwork because someone put some effort into it. Let's PLEASE not co-opt that term here, or anywhere, ever. Art should be something some people love and some people hate. It simply should evoke a reaction, and the idea that it should only be a pleasant one is silly.

Anyone see the Barrack artist's other works? Whoa!!

If the 2 of them are happy with their portraits, who am I to say anything different?

Imagine how boring the National Portrait Gallery would be if all the portraits looked the same. Nice to see a modern take. My guess is the next one will be traditional.

"Art Shaming"?

I thought that FAA is all about art and participation in art. This unveiling is a public event about a very public couple.

This is a very healthy public discourse about the subject of art. And a healthy compliment to everyone for tip-toeing the line successfully.

John, Oh, yes, saw them yesterday!!

Marlene, yes there are multiple versions of that "imagery". It puts every decision to use this artist into question now doesn't it.

and VERY political

John the artists other works are a shame!...
Now imagine the shoe on the other foot.....

These works make me feel like I might actually want to visit a place called the "National Portrait Gallery".

Here are all the official Presidential portraits, starting with Washington. Click through a few and see how long you can stay awake...

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/galleries/presidential-portraits

So is Obama's portrait the only photograph? I love Kennedy's portrait!

Two thumbs up.

Unlike most of you, I like them.

So there.

:-)

Jim,
thanks for that link...I loved them! What mastery! The studies in light and shadow were exciting. I loved Teddy's and JFK's particularly...and check out how well the hands were painted in all of them!

Jessica, it's a painting, not a photograph.

Breaks with tradition too ...

:-)

Joy, Jessica is talking about the presidential link....the last image of Obama is a photograph

Jim thanks for the link but why do you think people will fall asleep? There's nothing I enjoy more than realistic work. I like to absorb in all the little details and try to envision the process the artist must go through from a technical viewpoint. I really enjoyed them all. The look on Lincoln's face was clever, must have been hard to paint the expressive look.

Yes I liked the Kennedy portrait the best. And it got quite a bit of criticism when it was released. Here's a bit of the story.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-story-behind-JFKs-official-presidential-portrait

The same artist did Jacqueline Kennedy's official portrait. It too took a lot of flak, especially the hands.

It's quite unusual, check it out here:

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/photos/jacqueline-kennedy

Glad I'm not the only one who stayed awake through the portrait gallery!

I thought it was interesting to see what some of the lesser known presidents looked like and I thought all of them were pretty well done, some more than others of course. But all of them had the standard of quality you expect for presidential portraits. I especially loved Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Kennedy. I thought Ford and Carter did not really look like them but close...

They're all well done by highly skilled artists. But they were commissioned with certain expectations. There's a sameness to most of them that i think reflects a desire for stability in our society. And maybe that ship has sailed.

Ouch. Here's what I meant by "art shaming". Discussion on this question started out with thoughtful critiques on the artwork, then it started to veer into something else entirely, with suggestions to go offline to some bizarre things (which I didn't do). Doesn't matter to me whether someone likes the images or not. Nice to see the discussion is getting back on track.

I hope someday to see those images in person, as I've learned that paintings are never done justice by photos.

It will take a couple of years for Obama's White House portrait to be painted. We shall see...

Mary, FYI, I went to look for other work by both artists to see why the Obamas chose them. I was horrified by the work of one artist.
Hardly veering off track IMO

BTW, Mary, you have some weird coding going on in your about section of your portfolio....

Mary,

Not looking at the body of work by the artists is your choice. I always like to see the body of work of an artist. Gives me a better sense of what is being portrayed. Especially regarding political figures.

Jackie Kennedy had large "peasant" hands and size 10 feet. I don't see anything wrong with her hands in that painting. On the contrary, the artist probably made them more elegant looking than they actually were. Jackie was well-known for her fashion, pillbox hats, gloves and large sunglasses.

So weird to be talking about her...I was pinning Jackie pix on Pinterest a few days ago :) I think she was stunning!

Thanks for the link Jim - a real snooze fest!

Obama's portrait looks like he's about to be devoured by the Kudzu Monster. Michelle's doesn't look like her at all. Both are the products of lousy artists trying to get by with gimmicky technique.

I think the portraits suck. They remind me of the first Lucille Ball statue in Celoron N.Y. Remember THAT horror? Fortunately it was replaced by a statue bearing a true and flattering likeness. Likewise, the Obamas should demand a do-over in my opinion. A presidential portrait shouldn't make people want to giggle and roll their eyes.

Moral of the story: if you want a portrait done, hire a portrait artist, not some flavor-of-the-month pop art hack.

Not crazy about either of them.

I am a fan (apolitically) of both of them but not these portraits.

Marlene: THANK YOU for the heads up about my profile!

I don't know if the paintings are going to be hung together, but if that is the case, I think they should have been the same size and proportion. Michelle's portrait is much larger than her husband''s (if I am wrong about this, plese let me know, because I have not found exact information). It is good that the style of painting a presidential portrait has now completely opened up I was tired of all of those dreary black suits and black backgrounds (except for the excellent Sargent portrait of Rosevelt, that is). They remind me of those portraits in hallways and dining rooms of traditional mansions of puritanical angry sanctimonious elders looking askance amd superior at everyone.

I don't think that Michelle's portrait is a good likeness. Are the eyes too high in her face? I can't figure out what the problem is. She looks noble but like a different personality. . Waiting. Michelle is really hands on, dynamic. This portrait looks more like a debutante. waiting to be chosen and the ashen color of her skin further tones down her warm dynamic personality.

I think that the frangipangi and agapanthus flowers in the background of Obama represent those Hawaiian years but the ivy - ivy league college? I don't know, but it is too floaty for me.

However, these portraits are interesting in that they will be talked about, and will have created a major change in what can be expected of presidential portraiture in the future.

I like the portrait of Michelle. I'm a fan of Amy Sherald's work and love her style and use of color. Obama's portrait to me is just disturbing, like most of Wiley's art. It's like he's being over taken or just part of the background...very creepy.

Speaking of the new Lucy statue, if I may digress, as good as it is, it does have an error. Here's a link to a picture of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/arts/design/scary-lucy-statue-is-replaced-on-anniversary-of-comedians-105th-birthday.html

Let's see how many folks here can catch the error. 😜

J L,
I had to look at other views of the statue because in the one posted, her right thumb seems to be missing. An awkward angle or bad photoshopping. What I discovered, when looking at the back of the statue is that the hand in question is gloved, while the other is not. Is that what you're referring too?

Interview with Michelle Obama's portraitist Amy Sherald:

.

I do not like Barack's portrait.. I do like Michelle's, but I do not like the skin tone.. I know that is something that the artist does on purpose so Michelle knew what she would be getting.. she [ the artist ] is making a statement.. but I think it is a mistake.

Marlene, I looked at a few different views of Lucy, and I don't see the glove you speak of.

Jessica, thanks for posting the video. Looking at Michelle's portrait in HD on a large screen changes things for me -- her skin is beautiful! That part of the portrait really comes alive. You can feel the paint and texture; it's not chalky at all. And the likeness is wonderful, too. I love it!


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

No her skin color isn't chalky...it's gray. The artist uses Payne's Gray. She so stated.
And nope, still doesn't look like Michelle, sorry.
Her experience is in portraits of unknown people....which is very different than portraits that must be spot on because they are famous.
Ask any portrait artist how easy it is to paint a portrait and paint one that looks like the subject.

You're close, Marlene. Look at the hand resting on Lucy's hip. The fingers are all the same length. That's anatomically incorrect.

There are a lot of pictures on the net of Michelle's portrait, taken in bad lighting and processed with the color filter du jour -- which gives her wildly varying skin tone.

Seek out a high quality image. Her skin isn't gray, it's a nice velvety chocolate. Also, Michelle has many looks. This is one of them and it works for me :-)


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

It's grey. It's awful. I much prefer the traditional styles in the white house. These are awful.

JL, each finger is a different length, so definitely not seeing what you're seeing.

I agree with Marlene. Her other portraits are of unknown people. We have an expectation that a portrait of the First Lady should be a good likeness. Her portraits
do nothing for me personally, not my cup of tea, but she was Michelle Obama's choice.

Dan, I love you but listen to the interview...she states she paints skin tones in gray and WHY. In another interview I read, she said how she came upon doing that. She was starting with payne's gray for a tone....then added yellows or reds to warm them up...one day she decided she liked the gray and left it that way. It has now become her signature.
Any portrait artist will tell you that payne's gray is not a color for skin.

Lemme find the other views of Lucy
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/06/us/lucille-ball-new-statue/index.html

I don't know, maybe its the lighting.

J L , I see differnet lengths, though subtle...

Meanwhile Scary Lucille is a giant fail...even the sculptor admitted it!!
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/lucille-balls-hometown-finally-replaced-160322258.html

Ya see, guys, sometimes an artist that is ill equipped, will accept a commission because their egos get in the way. Make sure you have the skill set!!

Sherald doesn't say anything about what paint she uses in the video Jessica posted. I think y'all need your monitors calibrated.

"Any portrait artist will tell you that payne's gray is not a color for skin."

Since Amy's getting the big bucks for portraits, I bet it is now!


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Check in at about 2:30...the question is why do you paint black skin in gray scale....and then she goes on to explain why.

I just pulled the portrait into Photoshop and overlaid it with a graduated grayscale. Then I duped the layer and actually made it grayscale.

She put warmth in Michelle's skin, especially the highlights. BUT not as much as you'd think. The subtlety is amazing and the illusion of more color than is actually there is amazing. That's skill, that's discipline.

This woman is a genius.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

but Dan,aren't you just adjusting an image that's online?

One adjusted, one not. l just made a grayscale to pop back and forth for comparison. The New Yorker has the best repo I've found so far, but I'm sure there are others.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

But, it is still a repo...you have not seen the original and the repo could have already been adjusted.
That's the wild card, hon. Just listen to her own words....

Sorry, I've lost interest in gray or not gray. Whatever it is, I like it.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Just happy we agree on most other things ;)

IMO, gray in skin tones= dead.

Remember "Flesh" in the crayola box? Apparently nobody was ever that color!


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

and Crayolas are for kids.
Don't make me smack you.

Neither speak to me so much.

Hm, looked at the Lucy image on my desktop and the hand looks more normal. Guess my tablet distorted the image, my bad.

Michelle Obama's Portrait Is So Popular the Smithsonian Had to Move It

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/michelle-obama-apos-portrait-popular-185019365.html

Fabulous! Everyone connected with that painting has to be beaming.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online