Strange Facts About Obama’s Portrait and its Painter Kehinde Wiley


The official portrait of Barack Obama contains some strange details. The creator of the painting, Kehinde Wiley, has a bizarre story.

On February 12th, the official portraits of Barack and Michelle Obama were unveiled at the famed Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, the “nation’s only complete collection of presidential portraits outside the White House”. This prestigious art exhibit contains iconic paintings such as “The Lansdowne Portrait” of George Washington. It also contains some more controversial entries such as Bill Clinton’s portrait which, according to its painter, features the shadow of the infamous stained dress.

“If you look at the left-hand side of it there’s a mantel in the Oval Office and I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things. It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.

And so the Clintons hate the portrait. They want it removed from the National Portrait Gallery. They’re putting a lot of pressure on them.
– Philly News, Painter says he included Monica Lewinsky’s dress in Bill Clinton portrait

Barack Obama’s portrait, with its bright colors and lush green background, will undoubtedly stand out from the more conventional pieces on display in the president’s hall. However, a closer look at the painting and its painter’s past reveals a bizarre subtext.

Kehinde Wiley

Wiley is mostly known for his colorful depictions of young black males over classical backdrops inspired from masterworks.

Wiley describes his approach as “interrogating the notion of the master painter, at once critical and complicit.” His figurative paintings “quote historical sources and position young black men within that field of power”. In this manner, his paintings fuse history and style in a unique and contemporary manner. His art has been described as having homoerotic qualities. Wiley has used a sperm motif as symbolic of masculinity and gender.
– Wikipedia, Kehinde Wiley

In a 2015 interview with CBS News, Wiley stated that he often added sperm cells inside paintings to “take masculinity and all of its bravado down to its most essential component”.

His Alexander the Great variation features a background full of sperm cells.
Small sperm cells can be found in the background of this Napoleon-inspired painting.
The frame of the above painting contains sperm cells as well.

While Wiley’s work has been embraced by the entertainment industry, his work also drew its share of criticism. The fact that Wiley often recruits his models from the streets of New York to portray them in a lavish, sexually-charged fashion has been deemed “exploitative”.

A 2015 Village Voice article entitled What to Make of Kehinde Wiley’s Pervy Brooklyn Museum Retrospective? goes even further. It accuses him of “predatory behavior”.

But look closer at the 50-some objects — painting, sculpture, stained glass — in “Kehinde Wiley: A New Republic,” and you’ll see predatory behavior dressed up as art-historical affirmative action. Wiley’s targets are young people of color who in these pictures are gussied up in the trappings of art history or Givenchy. Judging from Wiley’s market and institutional success — in his fifteen-year career, this is his second solo at the Brooklyn Museum — Wiley has proven himself a canny operator seducing an art public cowed by political correctness and willing to gloss over the more lurid implications of the 38-year-old artist’s production.

Down, his series of billboard-size canvases of lounging odalisques, finds the artist’s male models with their underwear pulled down to reveal a few inches of abdomen and their lips moist and open in the manner of a classical Venus.

And then there is Wiley’s casting-couch method. In the early 2000s, after he graduated from Yale, Wiley did a residency at the Studio Museum and began inviting men he met on the streets into his studio to pose. “When I’m approaching these guys, there’s a presupposed engagement,” Wiley said in the 2008 Art Newspaperinterview. “I don’t ask people what their sexualities are, but there’s a sense in which male beauty is being negotiated.”

What Wiley and his subjects do behind the scenes may be none of our business, but his paintings kiss and tell. Saint Andrew grinds his crotch against a wooden cross, and in case we don’t quite get it, Wiley has painted free-floating spermatozoa across the canvas. The same goes for the bear of a fellow in Napoleon Leading the Army Over the Alps, which could be subtitled “(Through a Light Ejaculate Mist).” And if the painted tadpoles aren’t sufficiently suggestive, several of the gilded frames contain sperm reliefs of their own. (Talk about painting outside the lines.)

In what world is a Yale-minted artist who lures young men into his studio with the promise of power and glamour not predatory? These aren’t portraits. They’re type — to the point where the majority of his titles reflect only the identity of the original sitter; his models remain anonymous.
– Jessica Dawson

The article ends with a rather ominous sentence.

Having discovered the art world’s weakness, Wiley has painted himself as untouchable.

Later in his career, Wiley also painted women. And there’s controversy surrounding some of these paintings as well.

Some of Wiley’s paintings feature black women holding the decapitated heads of white women.

These paintings were inspired Judith beheading Holofernes – a recurrent theme in art history. Originating from the deuterocanonical Book of Judith, the story says that Judith, a beautiful widow, enters the tent of Holofernes, an Assyrian general, and beheads him. In Wiley’s interpretation, the Assyrian male is replaced by a white woman. No explanation was given for this notable substitution.

Despite these controversies, Obama specifically selected this painter to produce his official portrait.

The Portrait

The Obamas at the unveiling of their portraits at the NPG.

While Michelle’s portrait drew criticism because “the face doesn’t look like her”, it is the former President’s portrait that raised the most eyebrows.

The painting was unveiled on February 12, 2018. It depicts Obama sitting in a chair seemingly floating among foliage. The foliage is described by the author as “chrysanthemums (the official flower of Chicago), jasmine (symbolic of Hawaii where the president spent most of his childhood) and African blue lilies(alluding to the president’s late Kenyan father). ”Reacting to the unveiling of his portrait Obama said: “How about that? That’s pretty sharp,” The Washington Post described the painting as “not what you’d expect and that’s why it’s great”. The painting received mixed reactions on social media.

Considering Wiley’s propensity for adding hidden little symbols in his paintings, some took a closer look at Obama’s portrait … and found some weird stuff. First, is there a sperm cell on Obama’s face?

Some observed that the big, bulging vein on Obama’s forehead oddly looks like a sperm cell.

Others observed that Obama appears to have a sixth finger.

Knowing that the thumb points towards the body, there appears to be a sixth finger tucked in there.

Considering past controversies, the selection of Kehinde Wiley to paint a presidential portrait seems like an odd choice. However, several facts played in his favor: He is a favorite of the Hollywood elite and he plays into the race wars agenda that has been going on for years. Also, he might have embedded a sperm cell into Obama’s face. Obama’s response: “How about that? That’s pretty sharp”. Wiley truly painted himself as untouchable.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Get an email notification as soon as a new article is published on the site.

Support VC


Leave a Comment

146 Comments on "Strange Facts About Obama’s Portrait and its Painter Kehinde Wiley"

newest oldest most voted

Obama’s whole presidency was Rife with helping gays and a huge homosexual agenda. So for him to hire a gay artist to paint him should be no surprise! And it wouldn’t be a surprise at all if he engaged in those activities himself

It’s been rumored that Obama was bisexual.

Being bisexual and being born a man are two very different things.

I have never heard such a rumor.

It’s speculated that Michelle Obama is “a tranny” Joan Rivers conveniently died very shortly after blurting that. Obama himself has publicly referred to Michelle as “Michael” and she definitely has masculine shoulders/upper arms.

That’s disgustingly racist – black women have had their femininity questioned for years, I hope you stretched before that reach

Why is it “racist”? Simply because it’s a comment about a woman who happens to be Black? He’s talking about ONE woman who happens to be Black. Unveiling didn’t say “she definitely has masculine shoulders/upper arms as most Black women do”, and even if Unveiling would have said that, it could be more of an observation or perhaps even passing on what might be a biological statistical fact! So actually when you jump the gun (o my, am I allowed to say “gun”?) and instantly tout the race card, it makes you look like the intolerant, emotional thinker, not others.

Think about it.

Not all women with broad shoulders are trannies..

Stop it.

do the children look like the ‘parents?’

Regarding the six fingers: The nephilim of the Bible (fallen angels) came to earth and took human wives. The Bible calls their offspring “giants” (Hebrew “rephaim”, Genesis 6:1-4). Goliath was a descendent of this line of beings. The satanic purpose of the fallen angels was to dilute the humanity of earth’s population, placing it beyond redemption, because they knew Christ would take on the form of a man to die for Man’s sins. If Man was no longer “man”, Christ’s sacrifice would be of no effect. It almost worked. Every human on earth was corrupted except Noah and his family. Genesis 6:9 says, “Noah was perfect in his generations.” In other words, the sons Noah generated were free of the nephilim impurity. According to scholars and ancient literature, these rephaim/giants had six fingers. In my opinion, the artist was either saying that Obama was a giant among men or he… Read more »

How can a (fallen angel) have babies with human woman when fallen angels are spirits and spirits can’t ejaculate?

There are angels that can appear in human form… The account of the 2 angels, who appeared as men to the residents of the cities of Sodom, and Gomorrah, within Genesis… The prophet Daniel also had an encounter with the “man” Gabriel, who is also a cherub… The fallen angels were warned by God not to have sex with humans… They sinned by disobeying God, and the Nephilim, or giants were the result… Which is why God eventually had the children of Israel go in, and wipe out those who were a part of this lineage as they entered the promise of land, or the land of Canaan… The result of fallen angels procreating with women proved to be a curse to creation because God commanded it not be done… Not all of them were wiped out, and their are still those who exist on this earth who have the… Read more »

Good analysis. I agree. And, the supposed ‘professor’ was ‘just messin with you’ Enoch was referenced by Christ and therefore has merit. As for Obama….well…IMHO They must reveal to us and then ridicule us for believing them. Biggest spoof of all time.

In God’s redemption plan that was complete before any creation ever occurred, God established an avenue whereby a spirit could impregnate a human woman, in order that the Holy Spirit could impregnate Mary and bring forth Jesus Christ, who is fully God, and fully man. The evil spirit world either new about this avenue established for mankind’s blessing, or stumbled onto it. With every potential blessing, there exists a potential curse.

Lol to funny

No, the watchers were physical, not spirits.

I believe he’s not exactly a fallen angel. Obama doesn’t have 6 fingers (haha). The picture is symbolic, but in fact there is something dark about him.

Very interesting!

An “angel” was simply a being that came down from the heavens. It’s a modern-ish interpretation to think of them as some kind of supernatural being with wings – there are no references that I’ve seen saying that they were anything but physical. I think that wings were used symbolically to illustrate that these beings could “fly” and not necessarily that they *had* wings – just as “flying craft” were often depicted with wings. If you read Revelations with the mindset that this is a non-technological man being pulled into a very technology-laden environment (ship) the story holds up. Imagine a primitive man with no sense of what a radio was, a video surveillance feed, computers, etc being pulled into the command deck of a modern battleship. A “thousand voices” and “windows to other worlds” etc.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

You call them aliens, but thats where the greaT Deception bases it’s power. Angels masquerading as Aliens, technologically advanced so as to mislead humans to place their faith in them instead of God. The science will turn up as satan worship later

They’re inter dimensional DEMONS not angels get it right.

Hi J2Fly4u, the Watchers or Fallen Angels were or are the Sons of Seth and the woman’s they had relations with are the daughters of Cain, if you read the books Life of Adam and Eve (apocalypse of Moses) and the Lost Forgotten Books of Eden or The Secrets of Enoch which is not to be confused with The Book of Enoch tho all the ones mentioned above are books taken out of the Bible, you will understand how things happened.

They can take on human form. Or didn’t you know it’s possible to entertain angels unawares? Hebrews 13:2

And wasn’t it angels that the men of Sodom wanted to r**e? So clearly they had taken on bodily form.

There a lot of pictures in which Obama makes the sign of the “horned hand”, so I lean towards the second option. Also, probably only people under the illuminati reach the power in US and in most countries in the world.

“According to scholars and ancient literature, these rephaim/giants had six fingers.”

As a professor, I’m always obliged to provide footnotes and other HARD EVIDENCE in support of my statements. That’s why it fascinates me when people promote this biblical theory, without providing any scholarly documentation whatsoever to support it.

So, if you can identify and quote these “scholars and ancient literature,” please do so. I’m not talking about vague, vernacular summaries you’ve found on the internet somewhere. I mean real scholarship. I want to keep an open mind about this, but it’s impossible to confirm or disprove these sorts of assertions when people like you don’t provide any cites. Thanks.

here you go prof

2 Samuel 21:20

In another battle with the Philistines at Gath, they encountered a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all, who was also a descendant of the giants.

But you know the good “Prof” probably doesn’t believe in the Bible. But way to provide that source!

You, Glenn Smith, are an idiot and a hypocrite. Why don’t you go look up “ad hominem attacks” before you insult people whom you know absolutely nothing about?
People who “believe in the Bible” don’t hurl offensive statements at total strangers.

Calm down, Marie. Glenn and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. His statement is not an insult, it’s a simple assumption, and an easy one to make, at that. If the “Prof” – if he really is who/what he says he is- really wanted to know the truth, and really wanted to find the literature where these statements are made then the response provided would be enough. It’s obvious you and the “Prof” are here only to stab, smear, and insult others who are making an effort to answer your questions. Do you even have a question, Marie? Because all I see is you posting a personal insult that is unfounded; simply because you took something the wrong way. If you were someone who “goes high when others go low”, then you would have just disregarded the statement instead of going on a petty tyrade.

Simple assumptions? Oh my…

Here’s one: I have yet to meet a Gemini who wasn’t “touchy” as h3ll. Scout’s honor.

@Glenn Smith, et al — Typically, a Professor is looking for a little more than one citation from whomever’s random English-language translation of the Torah/Bible. (Which is what I paraphrased/cited above, too, lol!) I can see where the “Prof” is coming from…one inference does not a point make. 😉

Dr. Micheal S. Heiser: — (Professor of Ancient Languages; U. of Madison Wis.); Note his “Divine Council” Phd Thesis… Fully documented Scholar of Ancient languages…Notes that the “Sons of God”, [KJV], AND (Their offspring, the Nephilim; are the giants spoken of in Genesis 6: 1 – 4), and he also notes Job 1: 6 – 12 & 2: 1 – 6; {“sons of God”…at a gathering with God}; and again, Psalm 83 refers to the “congregation of the MIGHTY”… [but note the denunciation in verses 2 – 6 {esply. ver. 6: “ye shall die AS men…”;]…And then Deut. 32: 8 – 9; God All of these refer to the members of the “Divine Council” of Yahwey, that Yahwey speaks to at various times: Gen. 1:26 – “let us make man in our image…”; and even denounces at times, (after HE divides the Nations among them, [ver. 8]…and maintains Ya’acob… Read more »

Gen 1:26 is God speaking to himself not a Devine council, let us ( the father, the word ( Jesus), and the spirit being us) in our image. There is no Devine council, that sounds very much like mormon doctrine.

It’s in the Bible. Look under the “Hebrew” section.

Όψεως αποκατασταθεί

Please forget wiki…if i didn’t learn anything in my masters research thesis program at the University of Aberdeen, at least i learned that wiki ain’t a reliable research material…i also note that it could be doctored and edited regularly.

Thanks, but I still don’t see anything here that explains what “ancient literature” says these creatures had six fingers.

In fact, I don’t see anything here in your response, which even indicates that this (single) professor says they had six fingers. How does “sons of God,” etc. equate to “having six fingers”???

It appears to me that you are making unfounded assertions.

This is a simple anti-Christian attack. Please, get a life. If you’re genuinely interested in this topic, a simple month in a legitimate bible study would answer this question for you. I find it comical that people who claim to be “educated” feel the deep set desire to cause an emotional rise out of others simply because they believe in something. It’s hypocritical bullying which IMO is due to a total lack of education.

Thanks. I noticed the same thing from the first post. This argumentative gentleman, rather than declaring that his own research had not borne this out, decided to challenge, in a rude and confrontational way, the interesting post of the first person. Dude, if you’re that concerned, find something that disavows his statement and post it; don’t keep after him with snippy, little insults and condescending remarks..