If you’ve been keeping up with the news recently, you’ll know that the official portraits for the Obamas were revealed on Monday, February 12th. The paintings are unlike any presidential paintings seen before, and everyone has an opinion, myself included. Keep reading to learn more about these two paintings and why they’ve been such a huge news item.
Let’s Learn About the Artists
Kehinde Wiley is the painter behind former President Obama’s portrait. Wiley is a New York City-based artist. He attended the San Francisco Art Institute and received his MFA from Yale’s School of Art. Much of Wiley’s work depicts young black men he encounters on the streets in the style of Renaissance paintings by the Old Masters. This juxtaposition between classic portraits that often depict white men in power, and the modern black man truly sets Wiley’s pieces apart from the rest. In his own words, Kehinde Wiley describes his work as “an investigation of how we see those people and how they have been perceived over time. The performance of black American identity feels very different from actually living in a black body. There’s a dissonance between inside and outside.”
Amy Sherald is the creator of former first lady Michelle Obama’s portrait. Sherald is a painter based in Baltimore, Maryland. She received her education from Clark Atlanta University and the Maryland Institute College of Art where she received her MFA. Sherald focuses the subject of her art on the African American body; specifically, she depicts her subjects skin tone in grayscale as a way of challenging the idea of color as race. Sherald only paints black people because, in her own words, “there’s not enough images of us.”
Let’s Talk About The Paintings
The former president’s portrait is colorful to say the least. While Obama may not be portrayed in a Napoleonic fashion unlike some other portraits, the painting still has the saturation and attention to detail that is signature to Kehinde Wiley. The former president is pictured seated in a chair, surrounded by lush greens as well as flowers that delineate, as Wiley puts in, “[Obama’s] path on Earth.” See the chrysanthemums, jasmine, and African lilies which represent Chicago, Hawaii, and Obama’s heritage respectively.
The oil on canvas painting definitely stands out among the other portraits in the Smithsonian gallery, and not just because of its vibrancy. Looking at past portraits we see many former presidents, shrouded in tones of brown and black, standing in their offices, sitting at their desks, staring down the viewer, or averting their gaze entirely. In his portrait, Barack Obama looks out to the viewer, but not in a challenging, harsh way. Instead his gaze is strong, yet comforting. He is sitting on a chair, leaning his arms on his legs, but not slouched. It almost feels as though you, the viewer, are in conversation with the former president, and he is listening very intently. This intersection of professional and strong and casual and welcoming is, what I would call, a successful portrayal of Obama during his time as president.
And now, Michelle’s portrait. Do I have thoughts on Michelle’s portrait…
Upon the reveal of the two paintings, former first lady Michelle Obama’s portrait has dominated much of the conversation. People don’t understand why hers is so muted, why she’s sitting like that, and for goodness sakes why doesn’t it look like her at all?
I’ve been thinking about this nonstop for the past few days and I think I’ve finally come to some conclusions:
First off, why is her painting so muted? We see Mrs. Obama, painted in gray tones, surrounded by a swath of blue, the only other pops of color coming from her dress. Well, if we go back to Amy Sherald’s artist description, we’ll remember that it’s part of her artistic style to paint her subjects in grayscale. There’s meaning behind it. Contrary to popular belief, the choices made by artists aren’t made solely for looks.
On that note – why the blue?
Think about the color blue? Where do you see it in your day-to-day life? One example is the navy blue often associated with law enforcement. Because that shade of blue is used by a variety of police throughout the world it has become a symbol of authority. Lighter, softer shades of this blue were thus created to highlight the less pronounced peaceful and trustworthy meanings behind blue. The Pantone Institute also brings up the fact that we typically see blue in nature via the sky and calm seas, lending to the idea of blue as tranquil and dependable. Sounds Obama-esque, no?
Overall the portrait is subdued, but still powerful. The colors against the gray are striking, and Mrs. Obama sits dead center, unapologetically. As a first lady, Michelle Obama was known for being strong and impactful, but never overly showy or arrogant. In her portrait she sits with her chin resting in her hand. She is contemplative and reserved, yet powerful. Her portrait portrays her confidence and leadership as well as her grace and humility through this pose and color choice.
As for the painting’s lack of resemblance to Mrs. Obama’s actual appearance, I have a few thoughts. Looking at the image, one doesn’t see a complete stranger painted on the linen. It’s clearly the former first lady; it just doesn’t look photographically identical to her. That’s the point.
If you wanted an image of yourself that was a perfect reflection, you would just take a photograph. Part of the nature of painting is the handmade quality and slight abstractions from reality. Sure, it’s impressive to see someone create an image that’s indiscernible from a photograph, but what do they artistically accomplish by doing so?
My point is that Michelle Obama is not unrecognizable in her portrait. Sure, it’s not a mirror image, but that is not the nature of this medium nor this artist. The question of where that line should lie, and whether or not tradition should be disregarded when the subject is someone as well-known as Michelle Obama, is something for you to decide. If you ask me given the medium and the style of this particular artist, I would describe it as a successful portrait.
Let’s Discuss Why This Matters
First off, if you’re still with me, thank you. Like I said, I had some opinions about these portraits.
You may find yourself, having gone through this entire article, thinking ‘ok yeah, symbolism is great and all but WHO CARES? They’re just pictures, does any of this even MATTER??”
The answer, of course, is yes, it does matter.
The presidential portraits are a long-standing tradition – to bring these two styles of portraiture in the context of the previous paintings is avant-garde in of itself.
The Obamas made history by being the first black president and first lady; they continued to make history by bringing in the first black artists to create their official portraits. Moreover, these paintings are not simply paintings. They are works of art. They convey symbolism, significance, and meaning. They’ve gone beyond merely documenting the past and instead go forth as a symbol of hope, strength, and perseverance – especially to a large group of Americans that seldom see representation anywhere, let alone one so positive. As Michelle Obama puts it, in reference to her own portrait, she believes it will have a significant impact on girls of color – “and I know the kind of impact that will have on their lives because I was one of those girls.”
So sure, maybe to some of you these are just paintings. You’ll look at them for two seconds and go about your day.
But for many others all these aspects – the artists, the symbolism, the colors – mean something. Seeing these paintings will stick with them and inspire them. They will look at these paintings and they will take something away from viewing them. Seeing this change and this progression from the old, stagnant past; to see things moving forward, hopefully for the better: that’s why this matters.
Images courtesy of: Time, CNN, and The New York Times