Old Masters, my foot.
Since several students in my portrait painting class are capable of producing a very good likeness of a model, I would think that resemblance would be a minimal criterion and not something you miss so badly that it seems you thought it was irrelevant.
Michelle’s portrait is a picture of elbows. Where’s the woman? Her vitality and style are entirely missing. Her hair doesn’t even look like that. And the muted gray skin tones seem as if they were meant to disguise her honest complexion. Why?
Barack’s is a better likeness, but he is portrayed in a very harsh, severe way, There are sharp edges everywhere, especially in the jungle that’s about to swallow him. (Or maybe we’re supposed to see him emerging from a jungle in his business suit and warlike countenance. Subtle, that.) His nose is too long, distorting his facial proportions and his expression, and he has a cramped, unyielding look and body gesture.
What in the world would have been wrong with a respectful depiction that also resembles the subject? It doesn’t have to be flattering, but it does have to show dignity and humanity if the subject has them, and these two individuals have them in abundance. But not their portraits. To judge by the online images, these portraits are empty.