King's first official portrait since the coronation

Is it treason if I laugh at this?

sluttygran

I don't like the painting.
I'm not terribly keen on the idea of Monarchy, either.
>> Runs and hides.

I'm not keen on the idea of a Presidential system.

But if it's what William wanted, I'd vote for it in a referendum. I do feel sorry for whoever has to face that burden.

BigBertha1

I think I'm too much of a prole to appreciate it.

Same here! Can just about make out the uniform jacket seeing it for the second time. The face is good though.

I didn’t realise how large it is.

If people want a photographic likeness type portrait- well there are plenty of photographs available.

I think the physical portrait of the head is superb, one of the best I have seen, and it dominates the picture. The butterfly landing on his shoulder is a reference to the King's environmental concerns.

Neither age nor education has anything to do with whether someone can appreciate an item of artistic endeavour, and remarks about being a 'prole', whatever that might mean, are just affectations.

In this day of photography, the only point of a portrait like this, is for the artist to express or show something about the subject in the painting that cannot be seen in a photograph and this is what the artist has done so successfully.

My sentiments too Monica! I’d be very interested to know what the king thinks of it too.

I suspect that the King had quite a say in the final outcome of the picture, and the message it is sending.

Just as other portraits of monarchs send messages - Elizabeth 1 hardly had one painted that didn’t include a message and Charles has had decades to think of the type of monarch he wishes to be seen as.

My guess is the message is both obvious and less so. The obvious is his love of the environment and all his long years of arguing for its protection - organic - etc.

The less obvious is I think that the message is for change and transition. From what - to - presumably will become obvious as the years go by - but it is interesting.

Emphasising head and hands is also an interesting idea.

Bear in mind this was commissioned for Drapers Hall by the Drapers' livery company with which Charles has had a long association. It's not a Buck House, etc., painting. It is interesting because it keeps to the convention of presenting the King as a military officer while hinting at his concerns for the natural world.

Just been listening to Alan Bennett's A Question of Attribution. Brilliant discussion about the Queen having her portrait painted.
"One gets the impression that as artists portrait painters don't really count"
and
"Some of them get the horse wrong that's unforgivable."

A portrait is the artist's take on the sitter. all the phrase Some of them get the horse wrong that's unforgivable. means is that the viewer does not agree with the artist's interpretation.

M0nica

A portrait is the artist's take on the sitter. all the phrase Some of them get the horse wrong that's unforgivable. means is that the viewer does not agree with the artist's interpretation.

👏👏👏

M0nica

A portrait is the artist's take on the sitter. all the phrase Some of them get the horse wrong that's unforgivable. means is that the viewer does not agree with the artist's interpretation.

Oh for goodness sake. It's a joke. It's Alan Bennett. It's nothing to do with artist's interpretations. It's a suggestion that the late Queen bothered more about how the horse looked. It's funny.

Glorianny. and you clearly didn't understand my post. Nit picking is someone one not agreeing wth the artist's interpretation.

M0nica

*Glorianny*. and you clearly didn't understand my post. Nit picking is someone one not agreeing wth the artist's interpretation.

Oh I absolutely understood it. I think most people today are aware of artistic licence. Unfortunately some people can't recognise a joke.

I like it, it makes a change from the old fashioned portraits that hang in the palace, this is very modern.

Luckygirl3

There is a very very damning review of the painting in the Guardian today - couldn't be worse!

No, it couldn’t. It’s so scathing you’d have thought there might be history between the critic and the artist but no, Jones says he’s met Yeo and liked him. He certainly doesn’t like his work!

amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/article/2024/may/15/jonathan-yeo-portrait-of-charles-iii-review-a-cringeworthy-bit-of-facile-flattery

Seems to me it’s like marmite except red in colour. You either love it or hate it.

25Avalon

Seems to me it’s like marmite except red in colour. You either love it or hate it.

Actually, I think it's like the curate's egg.
Which might go with marmite on toast 😀

Maggiemaybe

Luckygirl3

There is a very very damning review of the painting in the Guardian today - couldn't be worse!

No, it couldn’t. It’s so scathing you’d have thought there might be history between the critic and the artist but no, Jones says he’s met Yeo and liked him. He certainly doesn’t like his work!

amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/article/2024/may/15/jonathan-yeo-portrait-of-charles-iii-review-a-cringeworthy-bit-of-facile-flattery

The Sunday Times was far more balanced