Comments on: Michelle Obama’s Official Portrait (Or: Take That, Jefferson!)

By: C.J.

C.J. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:34:21 +0000

Do not like this photo at all. Poor composition, leads one to believe she indicated she wanted Jefferson in the photo and the photographer had to work around that fact. Drapes look strange behind her, watch should go, flower in front of her hand is odd, her not standing on both feet evenly looks like she is trying to be sexy (inappropriate), and I do not like her shoulders being revealed. Awful.

By: Palau

Palau — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:58:38 +0000

She’s amazing though

By: Michael Shaw (The BAG)

Michael Shaw (The BAG) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:13:59 +0000

Another point worth mentioning. This picture was all over the nets, but a lot of MSM outfits cropped it so that Jefferson doesn't even show up.

By: yg

yg — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:00:05 +0000

what a mood lifter that is.

By: Paula

Paula — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:24:40 +0000

A chin stroker, indeed. The composition sucks from an objective POV, but I have to agree with the person who wrote that the FLOTUS dwarfs most of the objects around her. Actually, maybe the photo was composed as such and MO posed that way in order to underscore a certain amount of casualness. MO is standing, and the hand on the table and her extended hip and the line of her leg indicate that we’ve got her in a brief moment of respite before she needs to go do something else, which means the photographer doesn’t worry about the drapery or the flowers so much. I could easily see her keeping that free hand on her hip in another version of this portrait. Her outfit also underscores that message: she nods to the tradition of First Ladies with a dress and pearls, but her minimal black and sleeveless silhouette is a striking change to say the least.
Contrast this to NR’s portrait, in which the objects are carefully visible around the first lady and create a very baroque, and to take cenoxo’s wording, “courtly”/royal portrait. NR has that contained, very diminutive little-woman/girl posture. Plus, ruffles!
Re TJ in the corner: you can write a paper on that. Srsly. 2009 and the events of 200 yrs ago still hits like a ton of bricks.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:35:57 +0000

The silver wristwatch is really bugging me now. I wish she would have worn either a white or black bracelet around her other wrist, since the flowers accessorize her other wrist enough already.
Thanks for putting up my thoughts in the post!

By: Maximus

Maximus — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:00:44 +0000

I just wish the drapes weren’t growing out of her head. She looks smashing, but the photographer should have worked on the composition a bit more.

By: dada

dada — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 05:04:22 +0000

Give it up... for a new era in the White House! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MBFLrNZs-Q&feature=related

By: yg

yg — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:54:37 +0000

she has several looks she picks from. in this one she looks strong, confident, and too busy to be fussy. being first lady isn’t about being a catwalk model. it’s an important message to send in a culture where women are judged by their looks as opposed to their character. which creates a tendency for women themselves to be overly obsessive about their looks.

By: yg

yg — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:15:09 +0000

the first lady took my breathe away in this one:
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/02/media-alert-stevie-wonder-honored-at-the-white-house/#disqus_thread
wish i had the still shot and not the video freeze.
it says something that she wanted to get glammed up for the stevie wonder event but not for the vogue cover.
i caught a glimpse of another layout where her arms were folded and wrapped around herself, forming the shape of a w. she was luminous in that one. shades of edward weston. wish i knew which magazine it was.