King Charles' new portrait.. wtf.

fretmeister

thecolourbox said:

breakstuff said:

Could be worse, just spotted this on Reddit.

I like how they specify that the actual person is on the right

That lady has clearly never head of the Streisand Effect.
Doubtful that so many worldwide media companies would have paid it any attention if she hadn't complained.

Keiko

Wow, such old fashioned narrow-mindedness. That is very good in my opinion.

Sporky

Fred Elliot looks nothing like her maj. 

Philly_Q

Sporky said:

Fred Elliot looks nothing like her maj. 

The Lucian Freud portrait actually looks a lot like the Queen's Spitting Image puppet.

Timcito

Philly_Q said:

Timcito said:

littlegreenman said:

Timcito said:

I think it's a question of appropriacy. For a formal state painting like this, sure, the artist should create a mood, which will involve considerable artistry, but I think the sum total should incline toward a more traditional approach: the painting should look like the person

It looks exactly like Charlie, and apparently he likes it. So fuck traditionalist ideas about how it "should" look. 

If your granny asked you to play her something on the guitar, would you turn up the amp and play some distorted, wailing improvisation with little form or melody? Just because you can does not always mean you should. 

Thinking more cynically, this is the artist's moment in the sun, and he may well have wanted to make the most of it by doing something surprising, maybe even a little scandalous. If he had painted in a more appropriate style, he may have been ignored and then quickly forgotten. By doing something like this - Prince Charles emerging from a raspberry trifle - people sit up and take note. Media celebrities will want to interview him about 'that' portrait and the thinking behind it. I can imagine some talk show hosts here in the US displaying the 'unique' painting and then welcoming the 'free artistic spirit' that created it onto the studio stage to the sound of enthusiastic applause. 'Murrca loves a maverick!   

All that may not happen, of course, but there's a much better chance of catching the spotlight with an off-beat painting like this than with a traditional one.

So you think the artist has sneakily used it as an opportunity for a bit of self-promotion?  I'd like to think the King and his team choose an artist for an assignment like this with the intention that they will bring something unique, personal and possibly even challenging to the project.  If they just wanted a photo-realistic portrait they could hire any old hack to do it.  What the fuck, why not just take a photo and be done with it.

The measure of most skilled artists is to work within a genre but still produce something unique. This is what great blues guitarists or actors do, to pick just two examples. You listen to Lightnin' Hopkins or John Lee Hooker, BB KIng, or Eric Clapton, and, yes, on the surface they seem to be doing what thousands of others have done at root, and yet there's something they put into that seeming artistic dead-end of 3-chords-plus-some-solo-runs that sets them apart. But the fact remains that the people who enjoy those artists have a fundamental expectation of the blues genre which they like. If those guitarists had dicked around in too extreme a manner, they would have blown it. 

The same would go for any Shakespeare performance you may have particularly enjoyed. I especially liked the way Peter McEnery played Mercutio in Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 production of Romeo and Juliet. It was more or less what we would expect of Mercutio  from reading the play - intelligent, amusing, a free spirit - yet McEnery managed to inject something both edgy and likeable into the character that was unique. He did not have resort to some over-the-top or outlandishly strange interpretation in order to achieve that or delight the audience. He had the skill and inspiration to create something unique yet still work within a genre.

Which is what this painter did not do. Perhaps because he felt the public would not 'get it' if he worked within the genre he was operating, who knows? Out of the arts, painting is one medium that many people feel estranged from and often see works in black-and-white terms (ahem!). It's either a painstakingly accurate reproduction of nature as in a Constable or it's a balls-out jamboree with spikes coming out of horses' heads like Picasso. If an artist chooses to work within a genre and create something unique, they run the risk of not being noticed because people are not in the same habit of noticing subtleties in paintings as they are with popular music.

So yes, I do suspect that this artist may have seized the opportunity for a 'look-at-me' moment. In a digital age where look-at-me rules, where one's personal 'brand' is what makes hordes of social media 'followers' single out their 'influencers,' a visual  artist working within a relatively obscure medium of expression will need to put some kind of striking stamp on their efforts that creates an immediate impact on as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. If enveloping a king in a sea of pink blancmange hits the spot, then so be it, Who cares if it's just a cheap gimmick? It got us talking, didn't it?      

Kurtis

You have an unusual way of looking at things Timcito.

I salute you sir! 

breakstuff

Kurtis said:

You have a very rose tinted way of looking at things Timcito.

I salute you sir! 

FIFY.

JerkMoans

I kinda like it, but my first thought when I saw it was that it reminded me of those Tory ‘blood on their hands’ pictures that created a furore a couple of years ago.

Timcito

Kurtis said:

You have an unusual way of looking at things Timcito.

I salute you sir! 

Thanks!

Stratavarious

TBH.. all his other portrait paintings are similar… he was never going to ape a Holbein.  They got what they expected.

https://www.jonathanyeo.com/paintings

Kurtis

Stratavarious said:

TBH.. all his other portrait paintings are similar… he was never going to ape a Holbein.  They got what they expected.

https://www.jonathanyeo.com/paintings

Wow! Those are great. 

Kittyfrisk

JerkMoans said:

I kinda like it, but my first thought when I saw it was that it reminded me of those Tory ‘blood on their hands’ pictures that created a furore a couple of years ago.

I always thought that was a slightly blurred photograph.

thecolourbox

Kurtis said:

Stratavarious said:

TBH.. all his other portrait paintings are similar… he was never going to ape a Holbein.  They got what they expected.

https://www.jonathanyeo.com/paintings

Wow! Those are great. 

I agree there's some great stuff in there, still don't like the Charles one though

thecolourbox

A chap on Facebook has photoshopped it to be a less aggressive colour and I have to say, I think it immediately looks better to me



Edit : I still don't think the face looks like him that much though

Jonathangus

57Deluxe

...is there Alt Txt for the visually impaired?

marxski

I think all the above look great.

Cols

Timcito

thecolourbox said:

A chap on Facebook has photoshopped it to be a less aggressive colour and I have to say, I think it immediately looks better to me



Edit : I still don't think the face looks like him that much though

Blueberry slushy instead of raspberry (or maybe cherry) slushy!

Snap

I like it. think it's quite cool tbh