AIBU to think the portrait of KM, DoC, is really unflattering and a bit creepy?

[NolittleBuddahsorTigerMomshere]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260655/First-official-portrait-Duchess-Cambridge-acclaimed-photographic-artist-Paul-Emsley-unveiled.html

It is ok like her.

I think it makes her look 15 or 20 years older, plus it is very boring, they might as well of took a photo of her and had it enlarged.
I do like KM though!

nkf I don't think people are saying she should look better and younger in a portrait - just not older and worse!

I sincerely hope she was just being polite when she said she was 'thrilled' by it. Because it's bloody awful.

IMO it's a good likeness. Normally Kate is heavily made-up. The artist worked from a photo where Kate put her face on to look natural. As for the expression, well it was Kate's choice to go for that half way house smile. Her full smile which is when she looks her most attractive would have looked scary on a painting of that scale which is a close up image as the artist intended no background to distract the eye.

The artist only had two sittings with Kate. To get the photograghic look the artist used several layers of glazing. A glaze is paint thinned with a medium and oil and applied over a base level of paint. Each layer must be completely dry before applying the next. It's extremely time consuming and technically challenging. Get the consistancy wrong and the underneath can crack give a tree bark effect.

So if you think it's awful do the Nation a favour, paint your own Kate and send it to the Daily Mail.

It looks like it was done by Venture Photography Oil Painting Division est 2012

In terms of artistic ability, I'm in utter awe of the artist: amazing.

But is it complimentary in terms of her looks or character? Absolutely not.

yeah she looks fatter and older, not flattering.

Makes her look old

fortifiedwithtea your comment is interesting. If something is very time consuming and technically difficult does that mean it is necessarily any good? True, for examole MC Escher, one thinks wow thats technically difficult or the Sistine chapel might be time consuming, but those works are good art because they add something to our perception of the thing painted or drawn.
Its the same with a portrait. It isn't sufficient that it might be technically well done or took a long time, but it also has to add something to the viewers perception of that person.
Two sittings is fine- after all there are many photographs and videos of Kate which the artist could have looked at to get a feel for the kind of person she is. Also- changing the colour of a person's eyes seems particularly odd if something is supposed to be like a photograph. In Kate's case (as with most people) her eyes are so lovely. There is another aspect which I find a bit sad- a first portrait of a commoner married into the Royal family presented on or near her birthday should really have been a happy thing- a celebration of Kate's strengths. Its that inner generosity which the artist lacked in himself which I find - well- makes me wonder whether he is such a good paiter after all and didnt just get the colour of the eyes wring and couldn't figure out a background. The hair isn't that great incidentally either. No Rembrandt here for us to marvel at the texture of the clothes or anything. No, its a portrait of a national figure for a national gallery. Send it back and ask for the money back. Demand higher standards of portraiture

..painter...wrong

I don't like the way her eyes are- on the right eye- left looking at the photo- the iris doesn't fill her eye, and shows too much white of her eye above her lower lashes. There are people who have eyes like this- but I'd never noticed it with her.

She's a smoker. Portrait probably isn't far off what she looks like

I thought poor Kate looked really sleepy and agree that her eyes look serious but her mouth is gently smiling, which in my books = a little bit sinister

A bit like the Mona Lisa for the 21st Century....

'Monalisa for the 21st Century'!!!! Ha ha, exactly! The painter will be forever famous.

The biggest problem with it for me is that he has used far too much shadow on the left side of her nose, which is one of 'the reasons you are left with that putty effect.
She always looks so innocent and light and sparkling in her photos that this is a shocking contrast.
For me, it makes her look very calculating, perhaps to reflect the rumors that she went to St.Andrews purely with the intent of bagging william.
Does it do her justice? No, not really but it is a very interesting piece.

She's a smoker. Portrait probably isn't far off what she looks like she used to be an occasional smoker. It's not like she was on meth! I'm sure she is much prettier in real life.

dh reckons the artists muse is Edwina Currie.

God she should sent the artist to the Tower.

Kate is a smoker? Really?

"Kate is a smoker? Really?"

She was photographed smoking at the airport in France before disappearing off on the "topless photographs" holiday. The smoking photos haven't yet been published.

As for this portrait... yes, she looks a lot older than 31. But she also looks a lot older than 31 in real life - more like a well-cared-for 40, IMO.

The soft-focus effect is a bit tacky, I think. The portrait looks like something that should be on the front of a trashy romantic novel.

But doesn't it look exactly like the photo he was given???

fortified with tea knows her onions and gets the teeth thing!Who on here can actually draw?

I've met her and it doesn't capture her very well. I also saw it and thought it looks like it was painted from a photograph rather than life and yes in that link you can see him copying. I would have preferred to see a looser, livelier painting rather than one trying to be a photographic copy.