It's certainly in the same vein, but this time it's a bit wishy for me. Its obviously the artist's style, and the likeness is excellent, but the whole concept of one dominant colour doesn't do it for me. What do you think?
Both can claim to be portraits only in that in each there is a superficial facial likeness, but floating in an amorphous wash of colour, watery in the case of David Attenborough, fiery in the case of Charles. Neither of them convey any sense of the sitter’s personality or physicality - I’m not very impressed with either of them.
Not keen personally although I can see where the artist is coming from with the colour scheme but it’s not to my taste and to me doesn’t reflect the warm and gentle DA personality
I like this one better than the one of Charles which I thought looked blood drenched though a good likeness. I recognised DA instantly and like the green background, which is appropriate and not too dominant like the red. I’d have much preferred a long sleeved shirt, though. I’m not keen on the pale scrawny arms which emphasise his age.
I neither like or dislike it and that’s a bit of a damming thing to say about a portrait He’s a tough old lad and I think he looks a bit ghost like and whimpy in that portrait and a bit feminine But I also don’t hate it
At first glance I thought it was an elderly lady who looked a bit like David Attenborough - then I realised it was him! Do I like it? Not really (I absolutely loathed the one of Charles). I realise portraits aren't photographs and will inevitably portray the artist's impression of the sitter, but I see little point of a portrait which is not immediately recognisable. As an art form, though, perhaps it's a new movement combining impressionism with realism?
The brilliant Jonathan Yeo is the artist. He has painted sooo many people. There is a fantastic one of Prince Phillip and many others. I went to an exhibition of his at the National Gallery years ago and loved his work so much I bought a hardback of his work.