Attention Townspeople: We’re Just Not ‘Artsy’ Enough To Understand Michelle Obama’s Portrait

Barack and Michelle unveiled their portraits today. They are less than stellar. Michelle’s doesn’t even look like her, and Barry looks like he’s sitting in a marijuana garden with Homer Simpson.

WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 12: Former U.S. first lady Michelle Obama looks at her newly unveiled portrait during a ceremony at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, on February 12, 2018 in Washington, DC. The portraits were commissioned by the Gallery, for Kehinde Wiley to create President Obama’s portrait, and Amy Sherald that of Michelle Obama. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 12: Former U.S. President Barack Obama stands next to his newly unveiled portrait during a ceremony at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, on February 12, 2018 in Washington, DC. The portraits were commissioned by the Gallery, for Kehinde Wiley to create President Obama’s portrait, and Amy Sherald that of Michelle Obama. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Told ya. Michelle’s is definitely worse, though. I didn’t take a poll, but I’m just gonna go ahead and say that basically all of Twitter agrees.

President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama’s portraits were just unveiled. Is it a joke? #NotMyPortrait pic.twitter.com/fIPrIbM7Yd

— Bill Colona (@BillColona) February 12, 2018

LOVE the new portrait of Michelle Obama pic.twitter.com/c4OXHhFOw6

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 12, 2018

It’s not that @BarackObama‘s portrait is bad, it’s that there’s no depth, that he’s floating in a wall of leaves. @MichelleObama‘s portrait is bad. Like, paint by numbers bad. pic.twitter.com/qBCusNhx0B

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) February 12, 2018

I would be so upset if that was my portrait…just sayin. pic.twitter.com/Yh3nNB8jhI

— Kim Mathis (@kjmathis) February 12, 2018

I feel that this does not seem a good likeness of Ms Obama nor does it represent her ‘style’

— Annette Montgomery (@annettegmo83) February 12, 2018

Is that the same women who painted this? pic.twitter.com/i3cWqVNjtb

— Baby Trump (@TheTrumpBaby) February 12, 2018

Lol they need to try again

— Z (@zohrasool) February 12, 2018

It’s a rare moment of unity for sure. But here’s the thing– we’re just not understanding the portrait. CNN’s Kate Bennett wants us to know that it’s supposed to look like this.

Amy Sherald’s incredible portrait of @MichelleObama. Sherald uses greyscale to paint skin tone in order to take away “color,” so her subjects can be seen for their personality and presence. pic.twitter.com/mLiLZSlNEU

— Kate Bennett (@KateBennett_DC) February 12, 2018

Sure, it doesn’t look like her in the “traditional sense,” but you have to look ~deeper~.

It’s not supposed to “look like her” in the traditional sense of portraiture. These portraits break the mold of how we as the viewer consider the depiction of a person. This is why Sherald and Wiley were chosen.

— Kate Bennett (@KateBennett_DC) February 12, 2018

What other sense is there? It either looks like her or it doesn’t. In this case, it doesn’t. The end. What is CNN gaining by defending this less than stellar portrait?

It looks like something a high schooler in art class would do. Come on. Stop making excuses for crappy portraits. They had the world of artists in their hands and these two were chosen? I am unimpressed.

— kristie 🇺🇸🤷‍♀️ (@xtglamour) February 12, 2018

I know students in high school that could do better.

— Jenny (@BlessedTNGal) February 12, 2018

Ohhhh I get it. This image Self-Identifies as Michelle Obama!

— VGRDR8 (@vgrdr8) February 12, 2018

OK, that’s perfect.

A caricature is supposed to be a free representation of you, a Portrait is supposed to be very representative of what you look like… this artist missed the mark by a wide margin. #nottoskilled

— [email protected] (@Cisco149ergmai1) February 12, 2018

Clearly, NYT feels differently.

Barack Obama’s portrait shows him not as a self-assured, standard-issue bureaucrat, but as an alert and troubled thinker.

Michelle Obama’s portrait overemphasizes an element of couturial spectacle, but also projects a rock-solid cool. https://t.co/tTJuIGWa4d

— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 12, 2018

Alright, alright. My turn. Here’s my interpretation of this picture of my melting marshmallow of a dog.

“She looks content, but not in the traditional sense of contentment. She contemplates her own pusillanimous nature. She yearns to acquire further knowledge and expand the depth of her understanding of the universe. Truly, life is an endless cycle of boondoggle. As she ponders her own existence, she comes to a stunning revelation. Truly, extravagance comes at a cost. Tis a capricious world.”

Think I could land a job at NYT?

Real talk. Who came up with that pseudointellectual drivel? Raise your hand and slap yourself.