02-15-2019 09:32:56 AM -0800
02-15-2019 07:34:51 AM -0800
02-14-2019 05:19:47 PM -0800
02-14-2019 04:32:01 PM -0800
02-14-2019 11:44:52 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Did Artist Give Obama an Extra Finger to Go with His Freakishly Large Hands?

The newly released portrait of former President Barack Obama is raising some troubling questions, not the least of which is "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?" The portrait was unveiled Monday at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C.

Let's begin with the odd background of the painting, which looks like a cross between a Caribbean street mural and Fenway Park's Big Green Monster. It's supposed to be some sort of homage to Obama's roots in Chicago, Kenya, and Hawaii or something:

Official portrait of Barack Obama President Barack Obama official portrait (Image via Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery)

To me, it kinda looks like poison sumac, which has some itchy implications for the former POTUS. You be the judge:

(Image via Flickr)

But after you get past the shock of that garish background, you realize there are some other oddities in this portrait, created by left-wing artist Kehinde Wiley.

For instance, what's up with that chair? There appears to be no arm on Obama's left side, so it looks like he's precariously perched with his left cheek hanging dangerously near the edge of the chair. Did the guy just run out of brown paint? Did he simply forget to add it? Was he smoking those garish leaves in the studio while painting Obama? So many questions, so few answers.

But let's forget all that for now and focus on the freakishly large hands. Those paws nearly span the distance from his wrist to his elbow. Stop reading this for just a second and hold your hand up to your forearm. Is yours anywhere close to the length of your forearm? No? Mine either, and neither is anyone else's except maybe Andre the Giant. Was the artist making a statement about Trump's notoriously small digits? We'll probably never know, but we can do the math. To punctuate his point, it seems Wiley may have given Obama an extra finger. Look closely and you tell me:

Twitter was a little freaked out by the whole thing:

PJM's Stephen Green described it this way:

The portrait is OK, I guess, other than the unusually large hands. Oh, and the chair is out of perspective with the body. Either that or it's missing an arm, and Obama's left butt cheek is hanging off the side. I'm sure it's on purpose, but I'm not sure what the point is. If the artist, Kehinde Wiley, is trying to evoke a postmodern Naïve art style, maybe he considers it a success.

But that background -- and I don't care what it's supposed represent -- evokes the very worst of '70s aging hippie strip mall art class style.

(PJM's Megan Fox pointed out earlier today that Wiley is known for paintings of black people beheading white people, which raises a whole slew of additional questions.)

But perhaps the most disturbing thing about this debacle is the radical departure from past presidential portraits:

Also, for comparison, see former President George W. Bush's' portrait:

The Obama's seemed to like it at the time:

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama host a ceremony on the occasion of the unveiling of the official portraits of former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush, in the East Room of the White House, May 31, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

I get that "art" (or what passes for it these days) is subjective. One man's paradise is another man's garbage dump and all that. But there's something to be said for tradition — not to mention having some objective standards in portraiture (the correct number of fingers, being just one example). Obama's portrait is just objectively hideous and doesn't belong amongst the dignified portraits of his predecessors.

Follow me on Twitter: @pbolyard