Sometimes the hypocrisy of this kind of shit irks me to no end. Hopefully, there's plenty of people that are noticing this stuff and are bothered by it like you said. I don't know about that though. Not many people know about that artist painting severed heads of white people.

When I look at painting I can tell it's him. So yes its a good painting. If people don't like the painting that's their opinion.

I'm not saying they aren't his actual paintings. I was saying that I don't know the context of the paintings. They aren't inherently racist because they depict a black women killing a white women. I didn't want to look it up and I didn't want to ask so I didn't reply. You addressed that no one replied so I did ... 

I looked it up on Snopes and apparently the paintings have more to do with being provocative than racism. It's up for interpretation. But yes, he did create those paintings and yes, he probably shouldn't have made this painting (apparently though they weren't controversial until the aftermath of this painting, so it might be a genuine mistake).

You're not gonna progressive your way out of this but I do applaud you for responding. If a white person painted the scene in reverse, you would say that it was racist and the painter is likely a racist. You are excusing actual racism. Why not just call it what it is? Non-racist people don't paint shit like that. Paintings are created to be presented as is with no extra context. It works just like that when a person buys it and puts it on display. It never comes with an essay or explanation to add context. It doesn't work the same as a quote. Sure, an artist will sometimes elaborate on the meaning of a painting but that's with abstract art with splashes of paint. These paintings are clear as day. Either way, he's not gonna rat on himself. 

It looks like what someone with an anime profile picture on deviantart would draw.

Get an artist through affirmative action, get a result like this. Obama spent a lot of years in Indonesia, but the artist paints flowers from Kenya along with the other places Obama lived[Chicago,Honolulu] Weird.. Huh?

I think these are just so you can't accuse him of only painting black people ... but seriously, you might be right perhaps they are racist but when it comes to art I am a horrible judge.  There is much that is considered "Art"  that I just plain don't get.  A quick image search only showed those 2 pictures but who knows, many of the returned pictures had the beheading  cropped out anyway so there could be more.

Haha I didn't even notice the "sperm" on his forehead (although he was known to some as "Bathhouse Barry" back in the day, so maybe a little facial isn't that far-fetched for him.)

Aside from looking like he's situated in front of the outfield wall at Wrigley, the other thing everyone started pointing out after the portrait was unveiled is what looks like an extra finger on his left hand...

https://pjmedia.com/trending/artist-give-obama-extra-finger-go-freakishly-large-hands/

Also his hands are the size if his forearms in this portrait.  I know his hands are big compared to Trump's "tiny hands", but they make Andre The Giant's hands look small here.

Can't really say much more than I agree with you, if you straight up reversed the colours in the picture of the 2 people, and then had Trump use the artist for his picture you know that there would be literally no end to people crying about them.

Always do a swap of the figures and think "is it racist looking now?" in your mind and you should get the answer "it's goddamn racist now!"

"progressive" my way out of it? Don't you think you're jumping to conclusions a bit? I'm not even "that" progressive ...

I'm not excusing racism. They could be racist and if they are, then that's a bad thing and people should respond as such. If they aren't racist then the artist still probably isn't the best selection for a Presidential portrait, but it at least takes him out of the racist category. All I've communicated thus far is that I'm not sure of the context in which these were created. It's hard because, with any kind of art that requires some nuance (think of "Rape Me" by Nirvana, or for a very interesting example the genitalia of females in the work "In the Realms of the Unreal") to accept it's value, you're always going to have counter arguments that could easily ruin any positive interpretation of that piece. 

If I told you for example that the paintings meant to depict racism through death were actually takes on the already morbid paintings of Judith beheading Holofernes  ... your response would probably be something along the lines of "Oh, that's just an excuse to depict racism!" Well, how am I supposed to say that point is true or false when so much of art is based on your interpretation? I don't know if setting up these pictures as modern takes on such paintings is just an excuse to promote racism, and I could never know because I'm not the artist. Based on what I know, i'm not comfortable making an assumption either way.  

Here's what we know about Kehinde Wiley's frame of mind while making these paintings, according to him. We know that he is a provocateur by nature. He is quoted as saying "I think at its best what art is doing is setting up a set of provocations". Whether or not you agree, it is a dangerous standard to completely attack this idea as it's the basis of so much art out there. We also know the story of Holofernes beheading is revolved around the fact that he was trying to destroy the city where Judith lived. She pretended to be on Holofernes side, seduced him, and then killed him in his sleep. This is very interesting when you think, for even a second, about the context of white superiority throughout history. In these paintings, the beheading is of white women and it is because it has to do with the standard of beauty throughout historical paintings, as well as the stereotypes regarding black women. According to him of course.

From his viewpoint, I imagine that in order to get his point across he wanted to be as provocative as possible. You can even find quotes that are so, so easy to use in order to make him look racist. He even admits that it's "sort of a play on the 'kill whitey' thing". But is that provocation or racism? I'm not sure, and it's easy to interpret it either way. 

What I do know is that people are saying false things such as "He is mostly known for" or "He mostly does" - paintings of black people beheading white people. That is completely untrue though. Only two paintings in his extensive collection even have such a theme. He was mostly known for doing paintings similar to the one in the OP of black males (he started to incorporate more black females as time went on). Here is his website with his works. These specific paintings are suddenly important though outside of the art community because he must be racist ... 

Originally the reason I didn't respond to you was exactly because I didn't have the context for the paintings, which is why I find it ironic that you immediately accuse me of hypocrisy. "If a white person painted the scene in reverse, you would say that it was racist and the painter is likely a racist." No I wouldn't. Why would I? If I don't know who the subjects in the painting are, why would I automatically assume that it's racist because the victim is black and the perpetrator is white? What if the painting was of Bill Cosby being decapitated by one of his victims?  You have no way of knowing this and it's odd that you made this claim because I don't even contribute to political threads much at all, so I don't know why you automatically assumed I'm a racist liberal...

Do I think the art is in bad taste? ... Kind of. I've never really been a fan politically of the idea that people under systemic racism or whatever you want to call it, should push back by representing ideas that are brutal and vulgar. But it's an art piece, and as an art piece it is interesting. I can't say I agree with it, I can't say it isn't racist, it could be. I can't even say I understand it 100%. But it is up for debate and it isn't a fact he's a racist. And really, does it matter when the painting in this thread is about something completely different? No. Maybe they should have thought this one through a bit more but I don't see the President hiding a kill all whitey's sign behind the bushes. I don't even care that much, the only reason I've responded with such detail is because I can't stand that you have to jump to conclusions, stereotype people, and try to dumb this down into a discussion over party lines when it has nothing to do with that ... racist are racists. If you're accusing me of being a damn dirty liberal defending racism, then call me a racist right now.

By the way, you say the paintings aren't given with context but both paintings are literally named, you guessed it, "Judith and Holofernes".