November 18, 2008
Your Turn: Michelle, Sasha And Elizabeth
There is an interesting post up at Michelle Obama Watch discussing Elizabeth Peyton’s painting “Michelle and Sasha Obama Listening to Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention August 2008″ which has just been added to current her retrospective at New York’s New Museum.
MOW concludes that the painting a.) is only coincidentally related to a photo of daughter Bernice resting her head on Coretta King’s lap at Martin Luther King’s funeral, b.) is based on a photo of Sasha and Michelle in a tired moment during the twi-night DNC extravaganza at Invest Stadium, c.) is fair game as subject matter, and d.) regardless of Sasha’s shading or Michelle’s expression or Peyton’s reputation (pro and con), does not hold any “hidden meaning” because sometimes “a painting is just a painting.”
By “hidden meaning,” maybe MOW is referring to something specifically controversial behind the creation of the imagery. Fair enough. But then, when is a painting (especially one this socially and politically rich) ever just a painting?
Besides encouraging your thoughts, I want to encourage all The BAG’s loyal lurkers out there to also jump in.
(image 1: art news; image 2: Fox News via It’s My Mind. image 3: michelleobamawatch.com)
25 Comments Leave a comment
mommybrain said:
Hmmm. I think the painting is harsher and colder than the photo. Michelle’s expression is severe, she is looking a bit askance at the speaker, she is resting her hand on the back of a seat and not on Sasha’s back and Sasha’s expression connotes sadness – looking down and far away. In the photo, Michelle looks engaged and not so critical, and Sasha draws me into the photo with her direct look.
Karen said:
It’s interesting that the word “scowling” was assigned in the link to Obama’s expression in this painting. I’m neutral on the painting, but the artist does seem to capture the “gist” of Obama’s attentive, focused look. I’ve seen it captured in photos many times. As far as the comparison with the Kings…it seems coincidental but works to remind me of how far we’ve come from the weary and grieving mother and daughter at a funeral to the weary and focused mother and daughter at one of B. Obama’s greatest victories.
As far as skin color goes, I don’t know the artist or the version of the photograph the artist worked from. And I never really feel comfortable taking offense at slight changes in skin color…when is a shade too dark? Why? We’re sort of past the place where the Obamas’ blackness is anything new. But when I compare the painting to the original, I find her representation more flattering in terms of modern cultural depiction. She is slimmer and more refined in the painting. I thought the artist captured her essence fairly effectively and though I thought the painting of Sasha captures her in general, it misses capturing her as she appears in the photograph. The child in the photograph is more conscious. Makes me think the child is the accessory to the subject.
In any case, I rarely find a “painting is just a painting.”
Wayne said:
I’m struck by the fact that in the photo MO has her arm and hand snuggling her daughter. By comparison the painting doesn’t just crop the photo on the left, it also omits the maternal gesture. And, yes, to suggest that in this context a painting might be just a painting is disingenuous. Who’s kidding whom?
Michael said:
It stylizes the postures of the two, mother and child, abstracts them slightly, and so moves from the sphere of politics to that of experimentation, and of seeing with intense visuality. That move, from politics to experimentation / composition, *could* be taken as political commentary. But in that case politics becomes pervasive, and no-one is safe from a political interpretation. Sometimes we need a break.
Captain Obvious said:
The expression on Michelle’s face looks like she is rolling her eyes, and almost disgusted. The photo looks like she is biting her lip, or trying not to cry maybe. Her face was rotated more towards the viewer to get this effect. Notably missing is the hand on her daughter’s back, taking away some of the loving motherliness.
Sasha has been changed to look bored, uninterested by taking away her eyes’ focus up, and changing it to looking at the floor. Her face was also rotated to acheive the looking down, depressed look.
Not a flattering painting IMO
Captain Obvious said:
I just noticed that Sasha’s arm is not hugging her mom’s legs either.
The “just a painting” removed both mother and daughter’s embrace. coincidentally, i’m sure.
Sasha is noticeably frowning in the picture, and laying her head down w/o the arm hug makes it seem like she really doesn’t want to be there, and almost like she is being punished
thomas said:
Elizabeth Peyton is the Joe Lieberman of the art world. She tenaciously attaches herself to celebrated faces and names, becomes part of the narrative and soon enough it’s as though her intent, competence or capabilities are no longer the question: she’s just always been there, she’s supposed to be there, impervious to criticism, impossible to get rid of.
She has excellent social positioning instincts and is extremely disciplined in managing her image. Also, she has a reliable and immediately recognizable style, which is solid gold in the cultural industrial complex.
But give credit where it’s due: she is definitely a better painter than Perez Hilton. Way better.
Jason Walker said:
The photo = likable, familial, hopeful, happy, gentle, bright, nurturing.
The painting = angry, aggressive, distant, dark, hateful, dysfunctional.
Oh, and how about those faceless white heads in the background?
This is a statement all right. Too bad.
Megan said:
Possible the painting was done from a slightly different picture, taken in slightly different postures?
I am surely out of my league on this, but aren’t triangle portraits for the Madonna/Child/Holy Ghost? Madonna and Child are obvious. In the the picture, that would make Ms. Biden the Holy Ghost. In the painting, the Holy Ghost is a faceless other woman (or young man), looking directly at us, out of the frame.
Anyway, I like images of mothers and daughters snuggling in my political realm. More of that, please.
rchsod said:
very nice photo of michelle and sasha and a really shitty painting. this artist has nothing to say. i suppose some one will be dumb enough to buy this painting.
charlie said:
first thing i noticed in the painting was the creepy blank-faced white women looking at Michelle and her daughter, glaring, judging. the facial expression in the picture makes Michelle looks harsh, mean, “bitchy”, with the high cheekbones, cutting stare, and pouty mouth. the added touch of making Michelle appear to not care about her daughter with that distant reclined pose makes me wonder why this artist hates Michelle Obama so much.
yesterdaygone said:
the 60 minutes interview made me worry about michelle. i can’t even begin to imagine the stress and strain the campaign must have put her through. the family separation alone must have been a killer.
i wanted to apologize for what she’s been put through. frankly, if it had been me, i’d have some resentment.
may the country’s future progress make all those sacrifices worthwhile.
yesterdaygone said:
i really resent this artifice that’s inflicted upon political wives. there is an expectation that they put on a happy front 100% of the time. that kind of pretense is not healthy.
demit said:
If the painting is based on the photo, the artist has altered the very elements that make the photo a good composition.
In the photo, mother and child are an intertwined unit; the mother’s hand is an anchor, physically and compositionally, and the child’s head rests securely in her mother’s lap. The mother’s head and whole gesture is a strong almost-vertical; the child’s head is a pleasing horizontal counterpoint to this and to all the strong diagonals, and thus the center of the composition. Your eye always is drawn there.
In the painting, the child looks like she is about to slide off her mother’s lap. All the elements, in fact, that continually relate to one another in the photo are sliding out of the frame. The gestures are technically unconvincing; the composition is so awkward that it is suggestive of dissonance or disaffection. Again, if the painting is indeed based on the photo—and the artist is otherwise considered to be accomplished—I have to conclude that this was her intent.
Anna Henry said:
Its interesting how angry this picture makes me. The more I think about this picture the more I actively dislike it. It completely changes the meaning of the photograph making both daughter and mother angry, unattractive and cold. The photograph was the exact opposite of this. If the painting existed on its own completely made up in the mind of the artist, the piece would be only about the artist’s relationship to the subjects but because the painting was modeled after the photograph it feels like there was purposeful deceit involved by the artist. Maybe this is a conceptual piece that is trying to say that a photograph can be a lie just as a painting. My anger shows me how much I love this family at this time and I don’t want anyone using them to “fool around” with art concepts no matter how profound.
Progressive Mom said:
The painter not only removed the mother’s loving, holding gesture on her daughter: the painter replaced it with an arm that appears to be slung over the back of the chair Michele is sitting in, thus creating total indifference and some arrogance to the posture. Exactly the opposite of the photo, the moment and the two subjects. Shame and sham.
Books Alive said:
The painting does not capture the distinctive shape of Michelle’s face, esp. her jawline. It’s a feature that I cannot help noticing in photos. Elizabeth has rendered a generic black face, in my view.
Valkyrie607 said:
Not impressed with this artist. Michelle’s face is not rendered in a way that convincingly portrays her, neither her expression nor even the basic shape and proportion of her features. And Sasha, instead of looking cozily ensconced in her mother’s lap, as she is in the photo, seems disconnected, with her arm hanging down, a sad/angry look on her face. She looks very uncomfortable.
The painting says a great deal more about the artist than it does about the Obamas.
Lance Blisters said:
This morning I saw a big web banner ad for this show, and it featured this painting. I also read the painting as much more negative and cold than the picture (perhaps by intent, perhaps simple lack of talent or care), but hours later my overriding impression is still: museum and artist are simply cashing in, exploiting the Obama craze to drum up business. Don’t think the painting adds anything useful, it takes without giving.
jean said:
Looking at her other work, this picture looks rushed, and as such very coarse. She seems to have problems with dark skin, there were no other examples of people of color in the articles. The painting is very hard edged, and not at all sympathetic to the subject. I wonder if she did it for the obvious reason of the Obama’s popularity, and thus, a coattail thing and cash value.
Her other portraits are broadly brush-stroked in all areas but the faces, which are quite finely drawn. I have no training in this stuff, but this seems very slapdash, especially the faces. Not up to her other work, IMO.
zatopa said:
If there is anything interesting about this painting, it is only that it serves as further confirmation of the “celebrity” status of the Obama family. Celebrity paintings are just what Peyton does; she runs images of famous people through her particular aestheticization/monetization machine, and the art market keeps on churning. No real surprises.
bacaangel said:
Those who for their own reason continue to speculate unnecessarily about Barack’s demise, are only hastening their own. Michelle is very worried for her husband, and rightly so, who risks his life, daily to bring about a more just, fair and equitable world for the people here in the United States and in the world.
Rightwingsnarkle said:
Well, now – timing is everything, isn’t it?
My daughter, who’s in her final semester as a painting major at MassArt, has been thinking about painting some portraits of Obama. She’d obviously have to base them on photographs. One motivator is the thought that people may be interested in buying them.
Her other interest is based on some recent discussions we’ve had about Elizabeth Peyton. My daughter feels pretty strongly that paintings, particularly figures and portraits, should be done from direct observation, from life, and that the subject of a painting must be physically present while the painting is happening. She’s intrigued by Peyton’s, and other artists’, use of photographs, and is willing to explore that method even though she currently disagrees with it.
As for what Peyton herself means with this image, I’m not going to guess at it, and I haven’t read anything that would explain it. Even if she came out and gave a very clear explanation of her meanings and motivations, it wouldn’t matter to me at all.
What I think and feel about an image is a reflection of me, not of the artist. That goes to the heart of my personal answer to the question, “What is art?”
Art isn’t anything. Art does something. Art provokes. What gets provoked is entirely up to the viewer, not the artist.
Rightwingsnarkle said:
Ooops, I forgot to add my final two cents – of course a painting is always just a painting. What else could it be?
ice weasel said:
Painting, yes. Work of art, no.
Allow me to offer the opinion that peyton is another shallow creation of the gallery set for whom art is much more of a speculative venture than one of aesthetics. This painting and the body of peyton’s work serves to prove that. Are so cowed by a degree, endorsements from high rollers and gallery owners not to see these as the cheesy exploitation of celebrity that it is? And trust me, that’s the not “message” here. Saying that gives peyton’s work far too much credit.
So while the above may appear to be just and ad hominem against the painter my point is that whatever depth we project into this work is simply that, projection. To put it more colloquially, there’s no there there.
Next up, why paintings of rock stars from photographs do not a body of work represent.