I thought both paintings looked like something you would find at a high School art class art fair. They looked very amateur with little resemblance of the subjects
Rush had a retired art teacher on who said if any of his 9th graders had handed him those he would have handed them back and said start over.
Some claim the media have tried to manipulate the views of the portraits by using camera/video tricks, shading and lighting.
The first thing I noticed with the Michelle O portrait was that dress. It is a painting of a dress. Michelle, even though it does not really look like her, is faded and appears more as background.
I can hear little children years from now — ‘why is there a painting of a dress?’
I posted in an early thread yesterday that I would not be surprised to learn both portraits had been quietly switched out for replacements.
Philistine!!! J/K.