Comments on: Your Turn: Michelle, Sasha And Elizabeth

By: ice weasel

ice weasel — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:19:30 +0000

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.

By: Rightwingsnarkle

Rightwingsnarkle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:38:15 +0000

Ooops, I forgot to add my final two cents – of course a painting is always just a painting. What else could it be?

By: Rightwingsnarkle

Rightwingsnarkle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:35:44 +0000

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.

By: bacaangel

bacaangel — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:10:32 +0000

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.

By: zatopa

zatopa — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:30:18 +0000

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.

By: jean

jean — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:28:48 +0000

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.

By: Lance Blisters

Lance Blisters — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:21:11 +0000

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.

By: Valkyrie607

Valkyrie607 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:56:35 +0000

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.

By: Books Alive

Books Alive — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:18:36 +0000

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.

By: Progressive Mom

Progressive Mom — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:46:12 +0000

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.