I finally got a chance to read this piece, and I couldn't agree more. I saw the Sherald show in San Francisco, and it was ho hum. Michelle Obama's portrait was actually the worst painting in the show.
I think Sherald's paintings are good abstract design, sometimes much better than that. But I agree that they don't feel like portraits, really. They're easy to like, but somehow don't convey deeper feeling to me beyond surface pleasure.
Well perhaps they look better in the "flesh" but how in the world can these pictures (maybe they are paintings) compare with the masters? I see more in Hockney's portraits than with this mid career artist. Her work looks undynamic, flat, and a watered down version of what is beautiful.
And of course there is more smacking of DEI. A painter's painter? I don't buy it. Wisdom (huh?)
Thanks Ann, this is a good one. I'm responding to a responder. I yearn for the Frick
Thanks for this article, it's a wonderful foray into portraiture both past & current and gave me several insights to ponder! You're a wonderful writer, Ann!
These must be seen in person. They are dynamic, they are also "beautiful". Amy Sherald talks about beauty and its importance in her work. To hear her furthers the wisdom of the work. Many of the paintings tower over the viewer. "Horror's" Yes. Do we not live in a culture that "white washes" ( sorry for that pun) - but perhaps it is not a pun. Anyway, the titles of the work: Sherald's word and the often juxtaposed images, at times, are startling if one pays attention. I think this conversation brings to the surface the importance of artwork being seen in person - we are duped by the photographic image which we know is not at all the truth. Lastly, speaking of surface, as a painter - watching what she did and did not do with paint spoke of deep care and understanding of the practice..."a painter's painter" often crossed my mind as I walked through the show.
I agree with above. Her portraits lack emotion or any sense of who the subject is. The gray skin color is wrong and unattractive. As always l appreciate your work. Hope your covid issues have subsided.
Y'know, I'm not sure from the information available online. According to Wiki, "Costanza was imprisoned for adultery and fornication in the monastery of Casa Pia, the servant was exiled, as was Luigi Bernini [the brother], and Gian Lorenzo Bernini was fined 3,000 scudi."
A better account is in one of Simon Schama's series "The Power of Art," which is available on Amazon Prime. These episodes are thrilling....I highly recommend.
Ann, thank you for this. I often wonder if I am the only person who is not agog over Amy Sherald’s portraits. (It’s good to know I have you for company). Ever since I first saw her portrait of Michelle Obama at SAAM in 2018 - and then attended her 2019 solo at Pace, when I really tried to be open-minded and to give Sherald another chance - I have found little to admire. (I prefer Kerry James Marshall’s figurative work any day). Sherald sits at the top of my ‘overrated artists’ list.
I think one way to gauge her success as a portraitist is to compare her likeness of Michelle Obama with Kehinde Wiley's companion painting of Barack (granted Wiley is in disgrace, but so was Bernini--not to mention Caravaggio and quite a few others). It's a deeply searching portrait, conveying Obama's deep and restless intelligence. Alas, I cannot post it here so you will have to look it up. Why everyone went gaga over Michelle is beyond me--this image looks to me like an album cover for a Motown star from the 1970s.
I am open to many interpretations of portraiture ( and you have presented a great range!). It does seem, however, that most of Amy Sherald's work is just an overlaying of her particular style onto the subject at hand. Michele Obama is so much more interesting that that.
I finally got a chance to read this piece, and I couldn't agree more. I saw the Sherald show in San Francisco, and it was ho hum. Michelle Obama's portrait was actually the worst painting in the show.
I think Sherald's paintings are good abstract design, sometimes much better than that. But I agree that they don't feel like portraits, really. They're easy to like, but somehow don't convey deeper feeling to me beyond surface pleasure.
Well perhaps they look better in the "flesh" but how in the world can these pictures (maybe they are paintings) compare with the masters? I see more in Hockney's portraits than with this mid career artist. Her work looks undynamic, flat, and a watered down version of what is beautiful.
And of course there is more smacking of DEI. A painter's painter? I don't buy it. Wisdom (huh?)
Thanks Ann, this is a good one. I'm responding to a responder. I yearn for the Frick
I agree with Susan's take.
Thanks for this article, it's a wonderful foray into portraiture both past & current and gave me several insights to ponder! You're a wonderful writer, Ann!
These must be seen in person. They are dynamic, they are also "beautiful". Amy Sherald talks about beauty and its importance in her work. To hear her furthers the wisdom of the work. Many of the paintings tower over the viewer. "Horror's" Yes. Do we not live in a culture that "white washes" ( sorry for that pun) - but perhaps it is not a pun. Anyway, the titles of the work: Sherald's word and the often juxtaposed images, at times, are startling if one pays attention. I think this conversation brings to the surface the importance of artwork being seen in person - we are duped by the photographic image which we know is not at all the truth. Lastly, speaking of surface, as a painter - watching what she did and did not do with paint spoke of deep care and understanding of the practice..."a painter's painter" often crossed my mind as I walked through the show.
I agree with above. Her portraits lack emotion or any sense of who the subject is. The gray skin color is wrong and unattractive. As always l appreciate your work. Hope your covid issues have subsided.
Thanks, Beryl. Still struggling with Covid and moving into year three. But I have a new medication and my fingers are crossed. xxA
The Wyeth portraits you chose sure make the case! And did Bernini’s servant succeed in disfiguring that furious beauty?
Y'know, I'm not sure from the information available online. According to Wiki, "Costanza was imprisoned for adultery and fornication in the monastery of Casa Pia, the servant was exiled, as was Luigi Bernini [the brother], and Gian Lorenzo Bernini was fined 3,000 scudi."
A better account is in one of Simon Schama's series "The Power of Art," which is available on Amazon Prime. These episodes are thrilling....I highly recommend.
Excellent post. Thank you.
Ann, thank you for this. I often wonder if I am the only person who is not agog over Amy Sherald’s portraits. (It’s good to know I have you for company). Ever since I first saw her portrait of Michelle Obama at SAAM in 2018 - and then attended her 2019 solo at Pace, when I really tried to be open-minded and to give Sherald another chance - I have found little to admire. (I prefer Kerry James Marshall’s figurative work any day). Sherald sits at the top of my ‘overrated artists’ list.
I think one way to gauge her success as a portraitist is to compare her likeness of Michelle Obama with Kehinde Wiley's companion painting of Barack (granted Wiley is in disgrace, but so was Bernini--not to mention Caravaggio and quite a few others). It's a deeply searching portrait, conveying Obama's deep and restless intelligence. Alas, I cannot post it here so you will have to look it up. Why everyone went gaga over Michelle is beyond me--this image looks to me like an album cover for a Motown star from the 1970s.
Me too. Thanks Ann.
I am open to many interpretations of portraiture ( and you have presented a great range!). It does seem, however, that most of Amy Sherald's work is just an overlaying of her particular style onto the subject at hand. Michele Obama is so much more interesting that that.