Agnostic.com

5 1

OK. I'll say it: Michelle's portrait is horrible and does not resemble her in the least. 😐

LilAtheistLady 7 Feb 18
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Art has always been subjective - everyone sees and feels it differently. Keeps things interesting !

1

I don't like either of them. Who picks the artist?

I'm by no means an art critic or professional. I guess someone with more knowledge than I would need to weigh in

1

They took one last chance to break new ground.
Hers harkens to slave era garb.
He he looks concerned still, no hint of gloating or conceit.

2

My first impression seeing it was: good high school art project. Unfortunately, the dress has more depth than her skin does. In reality, her skintone is rich and she almost glows. The portrait looks flat and bland, like her skin was shaded with graphite. Why is she so gray? And her expression seems so disengaged, lacking any of her inherent passion and warmth. I don't even have strong feelings about Mrs. Obama, but I don't think her portrait does her justice at all.

Her portrait is (to me) is two dimensional. There's no dept to it.

@kiramea That's how I feel, too. It's very flat.

2

Apparently I don't know art. I think both portraits are horrible, but at least Obama's looks like him. I see Michelle's and think paint-by-number.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25946
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.