For a Long Time

(New York Times photo)

Not surprisingly, the portraits of the Obamas that were unveiled today sparked reactions that were colored by the politics of the reviewer.

The New York Times, predictably, was sycophantic: [bold added]

...each radiating, in its different way, gravitas (his) and glam (hers).

Mr. Wiley depicts Mr. Obama not as a self-assured, standard-issue bureaucrat, but as an alert and troubled thinker. Ms. Sherald’s image of Mrs. Obama overemphasizes an element of couturial spectacle, but also projects a rock-solid cool.

The National Review was mocking:

Take your pick: he’s sitting by the ivy on the outfield wall at Wrigley Field in Chicago, he’s in the Garden of Eden, or this is all an elaborate promotion for The Weed Agency. (Perhaps it’s meant to suggest that when he sat in power, some Bushes were behind him?) Or maybe this is just what happens when earth tones get a lot of rain.

Let's set politics aside for the moment and just react to the art. Let's also set aside what members of whichever tribe we belong to will say about our reaction.

I liked the portraits. I think they're both beautiful, and I didn't vote for the guy.

Sure, the portraits break with tradition because they're not photo-realistic, but this is not the 18th century; now we have many thousands of images of our public figures and we don't need another picture to remind us how they actually looked like. It's much more interesting to see how an artist sees them....though I'll be puzzling over the extra finger on Barack's left hand for a long time.