- Posts
- 29,556
- Likes
- 35,537
Thoughts from our UK friends
- Posts
- 5,871
- Likes
- 42,442
noelekal
··Home For Wayward WatchesSigh...
A perspective out out Texas ... It's somehow not the same.
A perspective out out Texas ... It's somehow not the same.
- Posts
- 5,457
- Likes
- 8,493
Peemacgee
·Namatjira can use red too....
- Posts
- 1,978
- Likes
- 7,086
- Posts
- 7,289
- Likes
- 57,943
- Posts
- 4,936
- Likes
- 17,234
pdxleaf
·Forgive a non-UK member for commenting.
It's a bit surprising to me that the Guardian thinks this portrait flattering. The NYTimes notes the many ways it does not flatter the King.
“ 'To me it gives the message the monarchy is going up in flames or the king is burning in hell,' one commentator wrote under the royal family’s Instagram post when the portrait was unveiled.
“ 'It looks like he’s bathing in blood,' another wrote. Someone else raised the idea of 'colonial bloodshed.' There were comparisons to the devil. And so on."
A Shock of Red for a Royal Portrait https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/...athan-yeo-red.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
From my safe distance, I kindof like the ambiguity. It's both passionate and yet it isn't. The initial blast of red excites me to expect some strong emotion, but then presents a clam, tranquil face. Bouncing back between the two, I am confused as to what is being said. It's like a dentist who puts on leather chaps on the weekend to ride his Harley.
Maybe that's the point of it. Because King Charles is both a man who has already lived a long life and a newly minted King without a legacy, what is history to make of him? My personal impression of King Charles (wholly influenced by the media), is of a man who was passionate about Camilla but otherwise ineffectual, although perhaps through no fault of his own because he was forced to wait past his prime to assume his position.
To me, the portrait shows a kind, thoughtful man, but little else. He is in a cauldron of conflict and passion but has no influence over his environment. Camilla said the artist captured him perfectly, but beyond saying that King Charles is a thoughtful and perhaps kind person, we know nothing of him from this portrait.
I don't know what the artist intended, but I suspect history will have a favorable opinion of his painting, regardless of how it judges King Charles.
It's a bit surprising to me that the Guardian thinks this portrait flattering. The NYTimes notes the many ways it does not flatter the King.
“ 'To me it gives the message the monarchy is going up in flames or the king is burning in hell,' one commentator wrote under the royal family’s Instagram post when the portrait was unveiled.
“ 'It looks like he’s bathing in blood,' another wrote. Someone else raised the idea of 'colonial bloodshed.' There were comparisons to the devil. And so on."
A Shock of Red for a Royal Portrait https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/...athan-yeo-red.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
From my safe distance, I kindof like the ambiguity. It's both passionate and yet it isn't. The initial blast of red excites me to expect some strong emotion, but then presents a clam, tranquil face. Bouncing back between the two, I am confused as to what is being said. It's like a dentist who puts on leather chaps on the weekend to ride his Harley.
Maybe that's the point of it. Because King Charles is both a man who has already lived a long life and a newly minted King without a legacy, what is history to make of him? My personal impression of King Charles (wholly influenced by the media), is of a man who was passionate about Camilla but otherwise ineffectual, although perhaps through no fault of his own because he was forced to wait past his prime to assume his position.
To me, the portrait shows a kind, thoughtful man, but little else. He is in a cauldron of conflict and passion but has no influence over his environment. Camilla said the artist captured him perfectly, but beyond saying that King Charles is a thoughtful and perhaps kind person, we know nothing of him from this portrait.
I don't know what the artist intended, but I suspect history will have a favorable opinion of his painting, regardless of how it judges King Charles.
- Posts
- 12,922
- Likes
- 51,651
Larry S
··Color Commentator for the Hyperbole.Lucifer? Is that you?
- Posts
- 457
- Likes
- 618
BlueBoy
·
As a Brit and a huge fan of the Queen, not so much this present generation, I prefer the Bob Moran version...
- Posts
- 27,357
- Likes
- 69,752
Archer
··Omega Qualified Watchmaker
- Posts
- 5,457
- Likes
- 8,493
Peemacgee
·They should have commissioned Frank Auerbach instead of Yeo and got a genuinely interesting painting.
Too late…
https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/nov/12/frank-auerbach-dies-aged-93-painter
- Posts
- 674
- Likes
- 1,195
size11s
·
Yes, terribly sad, first Norman Ackroyd this year and now Frank Auerbach, the art world is a lesser place.....
