In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


What in God’s Name is This?

For decades, Americans are going to trek to the National Portrait Gallery and have to look at this. I’d say centuries, but if this is how we portray our leaders, we definitely won’t last that long.

Let’s start with the composition. You have cartoonish-looking man in a chair. The man and his chair seem to have been pasted into a painting of a garden. The juxtaposition isn’t jarring or thought-provoking. It’s just peculiar. The president looks peculiar.

Now, he does look resolute. As if he intends to remove not just a few weeds from the garden, but every last one of them. Once, he smoked a lot of weed. Now he removes a lot of weed. See those pinkish-red buds behind him? They are going to bloom, dammit!

And the weeding should go well since the president appears to have six fingers on his left hand.

But I guess this is the perfect metaphor for a society that, at least among its elite, is trying to erase all traces of masculinity from the culture. And no, I don’t mean that only men are strong. Feminity has its own strengths, and ones that also make for great leaders. I don’t think Margeret Thatcher seemed masculine. Nor does Angela Merkel. And yet there aren’t many male leaders of the last few decades whose strengths are comparable.

And neither would allow themselves to be portrayed in chair floating in a flower garden.

This painting represents just another liberal attempt to morph reality, to inflict political correctness on facts. This is a man who was commander in chief of the most lethal armed forces in history, despite his efforts to destroy it through budget cuts. Who daily made life and death decisions. Who led a country that exists in what continues to be a Darwinian international order where no nation’s survival is guaranteed.

I’m not saying the chair should have been placed atop a tank. That would have looked almost as stupid. But at least put him in an office with a mahogany desk, for goodness sake.

Obama doesn’t look like a man who would stand up to the likes of Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin, Bashar Assad or Ayatollah Khamanei.

Oh yeah, he didn’t. Let me take some of this back. It is, perhaps, a fitting portrait. Kudos to the artist.

42 thoughts on “What in God’s Name is This?”

  1. First, in defense of the Obamas, no way did they view these paintings in advance of the showing.
    Benefit of the doubt and all that.
    Second, who would trust an artist who wears a huge checkered suit in pubic.
    Third, the artist did paint a crease in Obama’s pants, so there’s that.
    Then…the field of flowers/greenery, the antique chair made by the oppressive French or English carpenters, the weird hair coloring, the black stain on the nose, the bruise on the left cheek, and it all is so wrong.

    Gosh, we haven’t had this much fun in a long time, thanks Obamas.

  2. If the artist had used pansies and lilies for the flowers I’d have to say she would have nailed it. Also, what conservative would disagree that the animated look is apropos for a cartoon presidency?

  3. Well the Obama’s loved them. To me that says it all.
    Winston Churchill burned his portrait because he f-ated it so very much.
    Now there was a man who did not suffer fools.

  4. This is the predictable outcome when you commission two portrait “artists” based on their radical leftist anti whitey agenda rather than on a history of capturing their subjects.

  5. Unfortunately, one of the worst aspects of the painting’s composition is the pose of the former president. He looks like he has been surprised sitting on the toilet when his nephew unexpectedly opens the bathroom door. Personally, I try not to sit like this in public.

  6. The pictures just look cartoonish and not much like the Obummers. Maybe it is fitting that the pictures are much like his administration.

  7. The background was quite obviously created in Photoshop. Anyone familiar with Photoshop’s “clone stamp” tool will see evidence of its use. One repeating sequence is easy to see along the top of the “painting.” Look just to the right of the purple and yellow flowers near the top: the same pattern of leaves appears just to the right of both flowers; the pattern extends all the way to the top. There are other cloned areas as well.

    1. I saw an article today that said the artist doesn’t even do his own painting: he “creates” in photoshop, then sends it to China to be painted by Chinese factory painters.

  8. OMG! I love it. The ‘six fingered man’ “Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.” Great humor! Obama is the evil dude in the Princesses Bride. Perfect!

  9. It is the fulfillment of: yellow submarine; the inverted deformed cross; flower-power; black-power; Laurel Canyon; Woodstock; dope; the communist triumph in Vietnam. B.O.’s & M.O.’s portraits characterize the culture of critique induced counter-culture mentality inhabiting many of the hep-c generation, their children & grandchildren – a well deserved retarded tribute to the legacy of the boomers.

  10. The whole exercise — I won’t call it art because it sure as hell doesn’t rise to that level — looks like something created on a computer with cut-and-paste. Something a second grader could do before breakfast and a monkey could be taught to do by dinner time.

Comments are closed.