• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Obama Official Portraits

Is this like a fragile masculinity thing or do you believe all photographs of people hold artistic value?

i mean the guy did bend the laws of physics and have sex with a chick while getting a lapdance from a different chick...so, yeah
 
so basically catamount is the neighbor from Office Space
 
Nothing but respect for my president
51f219090b6252e310b9b24dae2d7235.jpg
 
What do you think art is? Should the presidential portraits be art?

Art is anything that people want it to be. Yes, they are art. No, I don't think having a discussion on whether a license photo is art is worthwhile.

7 pages on a presidential portrait, welcome to 2018.....
 
Art is anything that people want it to be. Yes, they are art. No, I don't think having a discussion on whether a license photo is art is worthwhile.

7 pages on a presidential portrait, welcome to 2018.....

on a couple threads you complain about lib circle jerks (which i take to mean "conversations that are identical to previous conversations and are pointless to enter).

in this case, it's a rather novel discussion (for the boards). i feel like they should be rewarded
 
Art is anything that people want it to be. Yes, they are art. No, I don't think having a discussion on whether a license photo is art is worthwhile.

7 pages on a presidential portrait, welcome to 2018.....

"Art is anything..." is hardly a definition. Sounds lazy to me. If you think everything can be art, then there is nothing to distinguish what is not art. There are definitely things that are not art.

The tangent about licence photos was just a discussion to see what someone thought defined a portrait. Not the whole discussion.

What do you think art is?
 
I thought these portraits were for the White House but they're actually Smithsonian portraits which are supposed to be more artistic in nature therefore I have no issues with them at all
 
"Art is anything..." is hardly a definition. Sounds lazy to me. If you think everything can be art, then there is nothing to distinguish what is not art. There are definitely things that are not art.

The tangent about licence photos was just a discussion to see what someone thought defined a portrait. Not the whole discussion.

What do you think art is?

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
 
In the end, it doesn't matter what any of us think.



[h=1]‘A moment of awe’: Photo of little girl captivated by Michelle Obama portrait goes viral[/h]https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-moment-of-awe-photo-of-little-girl-staring-at-michelle-obama-portrait-goes-viral/2018/03/04/4e5a4548-1ff2-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.2159e792066d
At her portrait’s unveiling Obama said she was thinking of little girls — and girls of color, “who in the years ahead will come to this place and see an image of someone who looks like them hanging on the wall of a great American institution. . . . And I know the kind of impact that will have on their lives because I was one of those girls.”

It's amazing to me that one of the most hated women in America can continue to have such grace.

And today:

 
Back
Top