The King has a new portrait

[YaMuvva]

Maybe it’s because I know nothing about art but my initials thoughts are…”Huh”

From the artist:
"It was a privilege and pleasure to have been commissioned by The Drapers' Company to paint this portrait of His Majesty The King, the first to be unveiled since his Coronation. When I started this project, His Majesty The King was still His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, and much like the butterfly I've painted hovering over his shoulder, this portrait has evolved as the subject's role in our public life has transformed. I do my best to capture the life experiences and humanity etched into any individual sitter's face, and I hope that is what I have achieved in this portrait. To try and capture that for His Majesty The King, who occupies such a unique role, was both a tremendous professional challenge, and one which I thoroughly enjoyed and am immensely grateful for."

Thank you! Based on this, I'm now sure it is one of Camilla's little rescue dogs, possibly Bluebell.

@BemusedAmerican I hadn't seen that statue before. It does bear a vague resemblance to Kosh, the Vorlon ambassador in Babylon 5. Less so PP, IMO.

Gosh Babylon 5, that took me back. Loved this show. G'Kar is my favourite alien of all times

If you look at it, you see a leopard, a giraffe, another big cat head. The natural world that he is trying to save.

It doesn't. His visage is suggestive of a headache coming on and the crimson tapestry looks like he's fallen into the strawberry patch.

I’m loving the differences of opinion.

I see someone who has evolved from looking rather nervous to someone who has gained a new wisdom. Hard for me to describe. Someone who has definitely come into power and is no longer anxious about it. But also who has lost a great deal and survived.

This question was posed upthread but not answered (well it was, but incorrectly).

The painting was commissioned by the Drapers Company, one of the Livery Companies (i.e. one of the historic guilds) of the City of London. Charles as Prince of Wales was appointed as a member of the company in 1971, and so in 2020, to mark his upcoming 50th anniversary as a member, the painting was commission to hang in Drapers Hall. So it’s a private commission and the Livery company paid for it. They are not short of a bob, since they have 500 years or so accumulated wealth (and largely these days operate as charitable foundations). Since it has turned out to be the first portrait of Charles completed since he became King, it’s attracted a lot of publicity. But Charles himself didn’t commission it.

It’s on public display at an art gallery for now, but will eventually hang in Drapers Hall which is in the City of London (the land in which it is situated was taken from Thomas Cromwell after his downfall!). You may have seen it on screen, as it’s often used as a filming venue.

I agree with this. It is over-egged. A shame, as JY's offerings are normally very skilful. And absolutely yes to giving other people a go. And some alternative subjects would be very welcome too! How about a portrait of one of the servants or grooms for example?

So glad it's not just me!

I like it.

I love it. I like the bold red which makes his uniform retreat and emphasises his face and hands. The face is full of character, yet not devoid of the signs of age. I think it's really compelling. Plus I like the butterfly!

I don’t really understand the use of the colour red tbh. Yes it signifies “importance” eg red carpets, upholstered antique chair seats, plush decoration, opulence.

It’s not the royal colour purple though is it?

And King Charles’s character doesn’t seem to correspond with the colour red, although I gather he can be very tetchy, but I would have said green for his eco- credentials, if you can be eco aware with twelve homes or whatever, but the point I am making is that red would denote “fiery and dynamic” which isn’t him at all is it really?

Also, it reminds me of an illustration in a children’s book of a little girl, where the material of the pjs she is wearing is the same material as the chair’s upholstery, so you can only see her face and hands 😀

To me this portrait smacks of the artist thinking, “I must do something different to imbue it with significance, but what?” when the artist had no need to do that as he is one of the best portrait painters out there so just needed to keep it simple and fulfil the brief.

I have no idea what the artist was thinking.
I think that red is a strong colour and I love it, more than purple. You are reacting with your opinion of Charles in mind, which I suppose is how people respond to art.
I like the fact that it's a bit different and makes you reflect.

Well quite Isolde.

Appreciate - or not - an artist’s work.

But there is no point in letting your personal opinion of the subject matter colour your judgement on a piece of art because it will never be fair. Or honest. So what is the point?

And it wouldn’t have mattered about the damn colour the artist used because to them it will always be shit regardless.

I’m afraid you underestimate my ability to critique and assess a portrait without allowing bias against the subject to colour my opinion.

That’s utter nonsense I’m afraid. I am perfectly able to appreciate a good piece of art whether I like the subject matter or not. Most people are able to appreciate a Munnings or a Stubbs irrespective of whether they like horses or not!

I dislike the concept of RF and I don’t particularly care for Charles although I also recognise he has some good points too.

And it’s perfectly reasonable to wonder about the significance of red in relation to the subject of the portrait.

Please tell me how you would assess a portrait without reference to the subject? I suggest it’s pretty difficult to do so!

I could just as easily assume you like it because you are a royalist but I wouldn’t insult your intelligence by doing so.

And yet you said it anyway….

No, I said I could assume it but I didn’t!

The two are very different things!

And yet you assumed it anyway then.

Well, @Noguarantees67 , you referenced the colour red and linked it to Charles being "tetchy" then criticised his eco credentials, so I would say that your dislike of the man is the prism through which you are viewing the portrait. However, I could be wrong.
I was just looking at it as a portrait.
I once saw an amazing portrait of Margaret Thatcher, who I personally strongly dislike, but it was so vivid and layered and the use of light and shadow were very intriguing. Great portrait, ghastly woman.

I repeat. No I didn’t.

Whatever you could say.

I like what Marcel Duchamp said. 'A work of art is completed by the viewer.' There is a room for people with different biases and life histories to respond in different ways to a painting, especially if there is some ambiguity present.

Jonathan Yeo himself acknowledged the contradictory elements in his painting - which is why more people are talking about it than would be the case if it were a straightforward work.

Yes I did link those things because that’s how you critique a painting, by seeking possible connections between the subject and the colours or composition used, among other things. As you say, I was querying the use of the colour red and said that I didn’t understand its use with reference to Charles, which I don’t.

If I liked the portrait, even though I don’t particularly care for Charles, I would have said I liked the portrait! I may not want it hanging on my wall but if I thought it was an accurate and tasteful treatment and the technique was skilled and I liked the overall concept then I could appreciate those qualities in it and say so.

We are talking about subjective opinion here people and I am allowed mine just as much as you are allowed yours!

TheTallestSally with respect to you, I have replied twice. You obviously wish to have the last word and that’s fine.

Personally, I don’t wish to engage in a tit for tat exchange which gets very tedious for other posters. Thank you.