Oh For a Far Horizon

Many of you have by now seen the official portrait of President Obama, which shows him seated not quite squarely on a chair that is partly swallowed in a wall of luxuriant vegetation.  It is in many respects an odd picture, as I suppose befits an odd man.

I am most struck by the absence of depth, since neither the President nor his surroundings seem to extend in three dimensions.  The wall of leaves is, for instance, background in some places and foreground in others—but every single leaf is nevertheless fixed on the same vertical plain.  The light that falls on the leaves that cover the President’s feet is, as you can see, exactly the same light that falls on the leaves behind his head.  This means that there is no suggestion of a level plain lying beneath the president’s feet, or beneath the legs of his chair, and that far from resting on God’s green earth, the President and his chair are fastened like appliqué to that two-dimensional wall of foliage.

The flatness of the picture is also evident in the absence of a shadow to the President’s left.  There are, to be sure, some small shadows on the President’s face, but my overall impression is of a two-dimensional man looking out from a two-dimensional world.

This of course breaks with the Western tradition of portraiture, as I can only suppose it was intended to break with that tradition.  To see what I mean, compare the Obama portrait to the official portrait of President Regan, which shows a decidedly three-dimensional man in a decidedly three-dimensional world.

What places the Regan portrait most distinctly in the Western tradition is the receding landscape that forms the background of the painting.  Instead of a flat and opaque wall of leaves, this background is a boundless prospect that runs away to the distant Jefferson Memorial, and to the Potomac estuary beyond.

Oswald Spengler said that this sort of prospect, or “depth perspective,” is the defining element in Faustian art, for it expresses the Western will-to-power over space.

“The Faustian . . . projected the center of gravity . . . into the distance by the means of perspective . . . . When ‘natural’ backgrounds, with their blue-green heavens, far horizons and depth perspectives, began to appear in early Gothic . . . . Faustian Christianity attained to consciousness of itself.”  Decline of the West, vol. 1 (1918)

Landscape with a far horizon is, in other words, the symbol through which Western man is conscious of himself.

“The background . . . gains a preponderant importance . . . . as a symbol of the infinite . . . .”

“With the 16th century, the decisive epochal turn begins for Western painting . . . . The technique of oils becomes the basis of an art that means to conquer space . . .” Decline of the West, vol. 1 (1918)

But there is no far horizon in the Obama portrait—no depth, no “distance”—and if the leafy background is a symbol, it is very far from being a symbol of “the infinite.”  I am tempted to say it is a symbol of finality, and that this may explain the metaphysical unease the Obama portrait arouses in some who have seen it.  Western man cannot live without the prospect of a far horizon, for as Spengler said, a far horizon is the symbol of the Western soul.

Such was the thought of one Western man as he traveled through the Congo jungle, hemmed between opaque walls of luxuriant vegetation and pining for deep prospects and wide spaces:

“I believe a long stay in this forest would lead to heavy mental depression in sensitive men.  The unutterable feeling of oppression which makes itself felt in the course of time lies in the absence of free view, the impossibility of permitting the eye to rove freely across a wide space, or of once catching a glimpse of sky and earth merging in the far horizon.”  (Adolf Friedrich Mecklenburg-Schwerin, In the Heart of Africa [1910])

Might this be the forest in President Obama’s portrait?

11 thoughts on “Oh For a Far Horizon

  1. Pingback: Oh For a Far Horizon | @the_arv

  2. It’s a painting of a black man by a black man whose previous work includes paintings of black women brandishing the severed heads of white women, with a wallpaper pattern that was sometimes behind and sometimes in front of the figures. In true Dunning-Kruger/Keith Beukelaer fashion, blacks lack the ability to perceive how little ability they really have.

    Meanwhile someone pays $110.5 million for crude graffiti of a skull by a black artist, when one could pay $400 for a more attractive work painted by an elephant. We applaud the dancing bear not because it dances well, but because we’re impressed that it can dance at all.

  3. Pingback: Oh For a Far Horizon | Reaction Times

  4. Pingback: Art Imitates Life – Presidential Edition | Carlos Carrasco

  5. The main impression I get from the portrait is the preference of ephemeral popular fashions over tradition. The antique furniture being swallowed up by the wild overgrowth suggests that. But let’s just call a spade a spade, and say that it’s looks like the cover for some kind of alternative hip-hop album. I don’t think the conscious intention is much more more sophisticated than that, just a bit of pop-cultural posing. Although, unconsciously there might be many other suggestions involved here, as fashion itself tends to proceed unconsciously and without deliberation, completely under the sway of the passions, and those passions have their own agenda that they rarely disclose to us.

  6. In a small but important detail, it’s also worth pointing out that Obama’s in decidedly ‘business casual’ – no tie, open neck, unadorned cuffs of a casual cut. It betrays a lack of respect for the circumstance of the office.

    • You’re right. It adds to the impression of finality, of something that has come to its end; although I realize many will see it as a beginning.

  7. Pingback: Obamaportrætterne af Kehinde Wiley og Amy Sherald – Galleri Svinestien

  8. A certain Republican senator not too long ago assumed Obama’s pose in the stall of an airport men’s room — and was arrested for it!

  9. I recently visited the national portrait gallery and this blog post came to mind. When one compares President Obama’s portrait with President Reagan’s portrait there is certainly a contrast in terms of their respective backgrounds. But President Reagan’s portrait is in no way representative of most presidential portraits and or even conservative presidential portraits. In fact, I observed most portraits have very little background at all let alone sweeping vistas representative of a subconscious will to power.
    https://www.whitehousehistory.org/galleries/presidential-portraits

  10. You’re right. I’m not saying that it is in the Western tradition to place a landscape in the background of every portrait, only that when a landscape is placed in the background, it often has a distant horizon. And I’m not writing as an admirer of Regan’s portrait (or even Regan). All recent presidential portraits strike me as shabby, down-scale, low budget affairs. I’d say the same thing about the appalling MLK statue.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s