King Charles' new portrait.. wtf.

Schnozz

It's red so that they can just paint Vlad or Xi's head over it and finish the rest later.

CavemanGrogg

I like it, my favourite ''royal portrait'' to date I think was called ''Punk Queen''.

Timcito

ICBM said:

I like the Charles portrait a lot. The more you look at it the more depth and detail you see in it and the better it seems, which to me is one of the things a good artist does. The butterfly is possibly a tiny bit distracting.

Art doesn't stand still, and it shouldn't look like an old painting.

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 in it and present him or her in a reasonably ordinary setting. In another set of circumstances, the artist can be freer in their interpretation. 

Appropriacy is important in art. Another example might be the US national anthem sung at the Superbowl. In those circumstances, it needs to be sung in a reasonably traditional form rather than be open to very free interpretation. This is what people want and expect. At Woodstock in 1969 at a free festival, the interpretation could be more improvised, as it was by Jimi Hendrix.

In this case, the artist seems to be caught between two conflicting approaches, traditional for the hands and face and free interpretation for the rest of it. The result is a mess, for me. 

Cols

littlegreenman

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. 

sweepy

I think its bloody awesome, nice change from the usual fare ,

Timcito

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.

WezV

ICBM

Timcito said:

Appropriacy is important in art. Another example might be the US national anthem sung at the Superbowl. In those circumstances, it needs to be sung in a reasonably traditional form rather than be open to very free interpretation. This is what people want and expect.

I might have thought that too, but Whitney Houston proved it wrong. I also didn’t think I even liked that style of vocal-gymnastic singing - until I watched the film of her performance in context… it’s astonishingly emotive and brilliant, and rightly regarded as the best ever version.

The thing I really like about the Charles portrait is that I think the artist has captured his character (or at least what we know of it) very well, not just his appearance. Likewise, I think it’s brilliant.

GoFish

Philly_Q said:

bluecat said:

I am an artist, and to me that portrait is awful.

I just hope the artist only got paid half a crown for his work.

Can you prove it?

You've got a cat painting pictures and you're quibbling over qualifications?

thecolourbox

GoFish said:

Philly_Q said:

bluecat said:

I am an artist, and to me that portrait is awful.

I just hope the artist only got paid half a crown for his work.

Can you prove it?

You've got a cat painting pictures and you're quibbling over qualifications?

He'd be accepted if he was a red cat

GoFish

breakstuff said:

Could be worse, just spotted this on Reddit.

See, now I quite like that.

thecolourbox

breakstuff said:

Could be worse, just spotted this on Reddit.

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

Philly_Q

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.

GoFish

So-called traditional portraiture has been outdated for over a century at this point. Doing it old stylee would have been more conspicuous than this, and in no way better. Yes, any old hack or a dilligent amateur could do that.

Stratavarious

Timcito said:

ICBM said:

I like the Charles portrait a lot. The more you look at it the more depth and detail you see in it and the better it seems, which to me is one of the things a good artist does. The butterfly is possibly a tiny bit distracting.

Art doesn't stand still, and it shouldn't look like an old painting.

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 in it and present him or her in a reasonably ordinary setting. In another set of circumstances, the artist can be freer in their interpretation. 

Appropriacy is important in art. Another example might be the US national anthem sung at the Superbowl. In those circumstances, it needs to be sung in a reasonably traditional form rather than be open to very free interpretation. This is what people want and expect. At Woodstock in 1969 at a free festival, the interpretation could be more improvised, as it was by Jimi Hendrix.

In this case, the artist seems to be caught between two conflicting approaches, traditional for the hands and face and free interpretation for the rest of it. The result is a mess, for me. 

It’s one painting I suppose. There will be many.  I think the colours will also work in the Draper’s Hall space which is a riot of colours.

Re. appropriacy… The Hendrix version made history though (Whitney to some degree) while the rest were just singing by the numbers.

 I think the butterfly is an interesting element too. His environmental cares are etched into his portrait.  Interesting to me anyway. If we are still around in a couple of hundred years and the nuance and details of our lives are lost, some future historian will possibly be intrigued to explore the significance of the butterfly but also the break from tradition in the style and what was happening in society and culture now.  Art does not have to look backwards.  That is for museums. 

There seems to more to it to explore in close up with the texture.

This is the one of the last monarch commissioned by/for the same location.. Today it almost looks like a fake painting made up by a computer using Bing Image Creator or Dal-I… She is hovering over the stairs too.

Good.. but not attention filling… doubt it would get 5 pages of comments. It’s generic and would not stop me enough to comment… other than the lack of shadows at her feet.. . It’s trying to be photo.  It certainly does not ignite views and conversation as human beings looking at it.

Art must engage or advance us somehow or it’s just graphics.

fretmeister

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.

You really need to stop using tradition as an argument for absolutely everything. You've done TV and Film already and now you are onto paintings.

Tradition is the very weakest of arguments: it's just an announcement that the complainer has no new ideas and refuse to consider new ideas of others.

Tradition / Canon call it whatever you like: it's clinging onto the past and closing the mind.

To paraphrase Leonard Nimoy "Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae.........Be a fan and open your mind and say 'where does this want to take me now'."

Stratavarious

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


How about this Lucian Freud… The Queen is the one on the right.

Offset

GoFish said:

breakstuff said:

Could be worse, just spotted this on Reddit.

See, now I quite like that.

I think it's quite flattering.

thecolourbox

Stratavarious said:

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


How about this Lucian Freud… The Queen is the one on the right.

That's Fred Elliot from Corrie with a wig on isn't it?