The portrait is growing on me, though, and I'm appreciating the comments here. Thanks for sharing this, Steve; many of us needed a little break from orange! Enjoy your weekend, All :-)
I'm absolutely for it. Damn the strictures of historical portraiture. This is a welcome departure and I like it-much. And lest we forget; you can't stop progress.
If I thought I couldn't like Steve any more, he reveals his fondness for LHOTP. I could give two shits about anything Royal, but Little House, I'm all in. I just watched the episode when Albert's "real Pa" tries to come take him away, assuming he'll be good strong hands to labor in his fields. There is a camera move in that episode that rivals anything Scorcese has put on screen. I do like the non-traditional portrait of Charles, the butterfly symbolism is intriguing. Anyway, thanks Steve for keeping me guessing on where you'll go next!
He has been refined by fire: the long wait to be King, family legacy and tragedy, public opinion, personal turmoils. And now he is emerging. The more I look at it, the more I see.
After reading your comments regarding the Royal portrait, I briefly reconsidered 🧐changing my original opinion , but have decided to stay with my first thoughts … which were “Nah, 😱!!
You are assuming I am naysaying your King. That is not the case. If having a sovereign as a face of national unity gives you a sense of pride and a feeling of stability and continuity of government, then so be it. I respect your choice in the matter. I simply don’t like the portrait on visceral level. It’s simple as that…
The red swirling brings the focus to his face, which is an excellent likeness. I think it is a powerful work but I am still unsure whether red is the correct color. It does seem to say that he is emerging from the midst of a maelstrom with the hope of not being consumed and the butterfly underscoring that point. Art with an emotional impact is usually memorable. I think this portrait fits that idea.
I have to say I like it, though the first thought I had was of Francis Bacon’s rather scary painting of Pope Innocent X done in the 1950s.
That painting took Velasquez’s 1653 painting of the Pope and added “the scream” to it, which alludes to life in the nightmarish atomic age. Whew, that is a lot, but Charles’ portrait sure reminded me of it. Here is Bacon’s:
John, thank you for posting this link to the Bacon portrait and reminding me of the Edvard Munch painting (that is how I feel about our current political situation!). I love both of these paintings, and you've offered meaningful insight into the King's portrait which I'm liking more.
Oh, let’s have a series of political portraits ala “Scream”. Trump, Melania (her hat and outfit from yesterday would be perfect), mike Johnson, james Comer, gym jordan, MTG, all the veep wannabes—the whole “red-tie brigade” in a “Scream” chorus.
Wow! I’m the only one who thinks it’s absolutely awful!
I guess you could say at best it doesn’t speak to me! 🤔come to think of it -it does speak to me that I think his character, as revealed since Queen Elizabeth’s death, is execrable. Taking a horde of money from Scotland, taking the home and contents therein from his second son, and much more. No one comes to see him at events and no one invites him abroad. Observe the hands in that portrait!
I don’t like it either. Not that my opinion matters, nor am I an art critic. The red color to me is just too loud. It’s overdone. The things that move us and matter most in my opinion, are things that are subtle. This painting is anything but subtle.
Your opinion and others DO matter. Art isn’t for critics. Art has meaning or it’s pointless and just wall decor. Is it being misinterpreted when people see it as depicting - let’s say something macabre ? It’s a widely felt interpretation. Unbecoming , right? I do think it’s creative! Unorthodox. Not the usual. I would keep it up.
Alas, I’m tangentially tied to him. I just wish we had the gonads to say goodbye, thanks for your service sir and get on on our way without the monarchy.
"Everyone has an opinion"? Okay, if "I don't give a $#!+" is an opinion, then I also have one. 🤣 Never cared one bit about the royal family of another country. This portrait doesn't change that either.
Mike…there are books and essays written about Americans who express similar disdain for foreigners. It is part of the stereotype that fosters much anti-American sentiment. I know you don’t care so I’m just saying…
Not my point, and you falsely assume that because I don't care about the royal family, that I have a similar disdain for all foreigners. That's simply not true. Why do I HAVE to care about the royal family? Right....I don't. But please don't force me into a small, and wrong, bucket of anti-foreign sentiment.
Sorry Mike, but I was just trying to explain to you that your comment about the portrait might be considered offensive by some people, because you don’t express an opinion about the portrait you only express an opinion about the person in the portrait., and some may find that a bit off putting. But hey it’s your opinion so you do you.
Thanks Chris. I'm not 5, so I don't need you to tell me, "you do you". Steve's question was, "What do you think?" I responded. If someone loves the royals, good for them. I'm not going to apologize if someone can't handle, "I don't care about the royal family of another country." Seriously, are we that fucking fragile that my opinion about someone who has NOTHING to do with this country and holds a position of wealth and royalty by birth hurts yours or possibly other's feelings? Dear god.
Okay, to Chris the fragile royal lovers:
I think the royal family is the greatest thing that has ever happened to the world. I think the portrait of King Charles is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. My life is less because I'm not a royal subject. I should move to England (Canada is too cold for my preferences, so more apologies to all Canadians about offending your sensibilities about your weather) and remedy this at once!
Great portrait. Kind of a contradiction, like he has always been. On the one hand he has always advocated causes that many once raised their eyebrows over, ie climate and protection of the planet. Secondly, he’s the ultimate Royal, but he has that commoner streak. His treatment of Diana from day one was abhorrent and to see his muse referred as ‘Queen” is an insult to Diana. Lastly, he is a placeholder King. William is there and to a degree overshadowing Charles. I find it interesting most of the pic is background (red) and only his face is detailed. He has always been in the background and to a degree still is.
Thanks for sharing! Charmed to know other areas of your expertise! LHP—books, TVShow or both? That connects with what you’ve written for us about your travels, i think.
This is the best representation of the portrait that i’ve seen, and maybe i like it better or at least find it more interesting — face may be wonderful, hand is @ best, odd(??).
Surely, Trump’s corresponding portrait will be orange, like his uniform. No butterfly—maybe a sewer rat. Fuzzy pictures of classified docs and a national enquirer article his feet. Small hands.
Interesting question, given an article in today’s local newspaper concerning the interest in and enthusiasm for female monarchs, versus males. So for my 2 cents worth, and given that King Charles is also the King of 🇨🇦, I would have to say that it is hideous and not worthy of an official portrait of a sitting monarch. Perhaps it was payback for all of Charles’ missteps while waiting for his turn to run the British monarchy.
I was born in Canada; was adopted by American parents/citizens. After many years of research, I received my Canadian citizenship. When I looked on the other side of the document, it stated that I must be loyal to the Royal Family. That must have been ingrained
in my DNA, because I have always been interested in the Royals-going back to Henry the VIII! (LOL!)
I was lucky that I never had to swear allegiance to the Queen and if I were forced to do so to Charles, I would refuse. My view of the monarchy is that it’s an outdated custom with duties that could be devolved to a President as is the case in many countries. It should certainly be abolished in 🇨🇦 and take with it the Governor General’s Office that swallows approx $57.8M per year of taxpayer contributions. Alas, it won’t happen in my lifetime.
Every country headed by a King/Queen is ruled by a fascist structure, no matter how modified or mellowed the camouflage. In fact, the absolute, final top of the pyramid in authoritarian political power is secured by the longevity, the ages, of the royal family members. It is concretized tribalism. America's revolution to shirk off England's fascist dominance is the beginning of our political heritage, our replacement of fascist rule with democracy. Engaging in old stain sentiments about kings and queens generally is sickened by denialistic psychological indulgence, no matter the hues of maudlin memory touch-up.
Wow -I have never seen a painting painted with a Rhubarb Pie before! Impressive! Memorable!
The portrait is growing on me, though, and I'm appreciating the comments here. Thanks for sharing this, Steve; many of us needed a little break from orange! Enjoy your weekend, All :-)
Gosh, ain’t that the truth. Orange used to be one of my favorite colors. Now it is banished. Hopefully years hence it can be welcomed back.
Royal Rhubarb!
😂😂
I'm absolutely for it. Damn the strictures of historical portraiture. This is a welcome departure and I like it-much. And lest we forget; you can't stop progress.
It's very different that's for sure. Almost fuschia!! I like it!! ❤️❤️❤️
If I thought I couldn't like Steve any more, he reveals his fondness for LHOTP. I could give two shits about anything Royal, but Little House, I'm all in. I just watched the episode when Albert's "real Pa" tries to come take him away, assuming he'll be good strong hands to labor in his fields. There is a camera move in that episode that rivals anything Scorcese has put on screen. I do like the non-traditional portrait of Charles, the butterfly symbolism is intriguing. Anyway, thanks Steve for keeping me guessing on where you'll go next!
That was a traumatic event for Albert.
Steve
He has been refined by fire: the long wait to be King, family legacy and tragedy, public opinion, personal turmoils. And now he is emerging. The more I look at it, the more I see.
After reading your comments regarding the Royal portrait, I briefly reconsidered 🧐changing my original opinion , but have decided to stay with my first thoughts … which were “Nah, 😱!!
I try not to care about the Royals but I get sucked in. Just judge it from an art perspective not the subject. 🧐
Can you hear me laughing? is he your king? Oh.....
You are assuming I am naysaying your King. That is not the case. If having a sovereign as a face of national unity gives you a sense of pride and a feeling of stability and continuity of government, then so be it. I respect your choice in the matter. I simply don’t like the portrait on visceral level. It’s simple as that…
I like that analysis Janet.
Emerging or sinking into the chaos?
The red swirling brings the focus to his face, which is an excellent likeness. I think it is a powerful work but I am still unsure whether red is the correct color. It does seem to say that he is emerging from the midst of a maelstrom with the hope of not being consumed and the butterfly underscoring that point. Art with an emotional impact is usually memorable. I think this portrait fits that idea.
I liked it immediately. And like it more each time I see it. Realize it is not the traditional thing to do, but think it is great.
I have to say I like it, though the first thought I had was of Francis Bacon’s rather scary painting of Pope Innocent X done in the 1950s.
That painting took Velasquez’s 1653 painting of the Pope and added “the scream” to it, which alludes to life in the nightmarish atomic age. Whew, that is a lot, but Charles’ portrait sure reminded me of it. Here is Bacon’s:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_after_Vel%C3%A1zquez%27s_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X
John, thank you for posting this link to the Bacon portrait and reminding me of the Edvard Munch painting (that is how I feel about our current political situation!). I love both of these paintings, and you've offered meaningful insight into the King's portrait which I'm liking more.
Oh, let’s have a series of political portraits ala “Scream”. Trump, Melania (her hat and outfit from yesterday would be perfect), mike Johnson, james Comer, gym jordan, MTG, all the veep wannabes—the whole “red-tie brigade” in a “Scream” chorus.
Sidney Powell, rudy giuliani ( a natural), jeffrey clark, john Eastman ,
Omg STEPHEN MILLER, bannon.
Pence
Oh I love that idea Barbara!!!
Wow! I’m the only one who thinks it’s absolutely awful!
I guess you could say at best it doesn’t speak to me! 🤔come to think of it -it does speak to me that I think his character, as revealed since Queen Elizabeth’s death, is execrable. Taking a horde of money from Scotland, taking the home and contents therein from his second son, and much more. No one comes to see him at events and no one invites him abroad. Observe the hands in that portrait!
I don’t like it either. Not that my opinion matters, nor am I an art critic. The red color to me is just too loud. It’s overdone. The things that move us and matter most in my opinion, are things that are subtle. This painting is anything but subtle.
Your opinion and others DO matter. Art isn’t for critics. Art has meaning or it’s pointless and just wall decor. Is it being misinterpreted when people see it as depicting - let’s say something macabre ? It’s a widely felt interpretation. Unbecoming , right? I do think it’s creative! Unorthodox. Not the usual. I would keep it up.
You are not the only one! Art critic Sebastian Smee of the Washington Post began his article with "Oh dear."
Was that because of the"art"? or for the statement it makes?
Maybe a little of both?
“confused,obsequious, oversized, and unaccountably frightening portrait”. Bingo!
LOL! Unless it is your country, your king, whatcha sweatin' about? LOL! and the Queen did no such thing. Still laughing.
Alas, I’m tangentially tied to him. I just wish we had the gonads to say goodbye, thanks for your service sir and get on on our way without the monarchy.
"Everyone has an opinion"? Okay, if "I don't give a $#!+" is an opinion, then I also have one. 🤣 Never cared one bit about the royal family of another country. This portrait doesn't change that either.
Mike…there are books and essays written about Americans who express similar disdain for foreigners. It is part of the stereotype that fosters much anti-American sentiment. I know you don’t care so I’m just saying…
Not my point, and you falsely assume that because I don't care about the royal family, that I have a similar disdain for all foreigners. That's simply not true. Why do I HAVE to care about the royal family? Right....I don't. But please don't force me into a small, and wrong, bucket of anti-foreign sentiment.
Sorry Mike, but I was just trying to explain to you that your comment about the portrait might be considered offensive by some people, because you don’t express an opinion about the portrait you only express an opinion about the person in the portrait., and some may find that a bit off putting. But hey it’s your opinion so you do you.
Thanks Chris. I'm not 5, so I don't need you to tell me, "you do you". Steve's question was, "What do you think?" I responded. If someone loves the royals, good for them. I'm not going to apologize if someone can't handle, "I don't care about the royal family of another country." Seriously, are we that fucking fragile that my opinion about someone who has NOTHING to do with this country and holds a position of wealth and royalty by birth hurts yours or possibly other's feelings? Dear god.
Okay, to Chris the fragile royal lovers:
I think the royal family is the greatest thing that has ever happened to the world. I think the portrait of King Charles is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. My life is less because I'm not a royal subject. I should move to England (Canada is too cold for my preferences, so more apologies to all Canadians about offending your sensibilities about your weather) and remedy this at once!
Better? This whole thing is ridiculously silly.
I liked part of your diatribe, but draw the line about the royal family, being the greatest thing. Perhaps you meant “since sliced bread”? 😉
Hahaha. Fair enough and thank you for completing my thought! Much better that way.
Exactly! Not my country, not my king. Americans losing their shite over a portrait of NOT THEIR KING! I'm laughing.
Loathe the Royals – love the portrait.
LOL! Is the UK your country.....
Great portrait. Kind of a contradiction, like he has always been. On the one hand he has always advocated causes that many once raised their eyebrows over, ie climate and protection of the planet. Secondly, he’s the ultimate Royal, but he has that commoner streak. His treatment of Diana from day one was abhorrent and to see his muse referred as ‘Queen” is an insult to Diana. Lastly, he is a placeholder King. William is there and to a degree overshadowing Charles. I find it interesting most of the pic is background (red) and only his face is detailed. He has always been in the background and to a degree still is.
What a fascinating comment that bring meaningful insight and perspective. Thanks.
Good point.
Thanks for sharing! Charmed to know other areas of your expertise! LHP—books, TVShow or both? That connects with what you’ve written for us about your travels, i think.
This is the best representation of the portrait that i’ve seen, and maybe i like it better or at least find it more interesting — face may be wonderful, hand is @ best, odd(??).
Surely, Trump’s corresponding portrait will be orange, like his uniform. No butterfly—maybe a sewer rat. Fuzzy pictures of classified docs and a national enquirer article his feet. Small hands.
Just the TV show!
Steve
Interesting question, given an article in today’s local newspaper concerning the interest in and enthusiasm for female monarchs, versus males. So for my 2 cents worth, and given that King Charles is also the King of 🇨🇦, I would have to say that it is hideous and not worthy of an official portrait of a sitting monarch. Perhaps it was payback for all of Charles’ missteps while waiting for his turn to run the British monarchy.
I was born in Canada; was adopted by American parents/citizens. After many years of research, I received my Canadian citizenship. When I looked on the other side of the document, it stated that I must be loyal to the Royal Family. That must have been ingrained
in my DNA, because I have always been interested in the Royals-going back to Henry the VIII! (LOL!)
I was lucky that I never had to swear allegiance to the Queen and if I were forced to do so to Charles, I would refuse. My view of the monarchy is that it’s an outdated custom with duties that could be devolved to a President as is the case in many countries. It should certainly be abolished in 🇨🇦 and take with it the Governor General’s Office that swallows approx $57.8M per year of taxpayer contributions. Alas, it won’t happen in my lifetime.
👍👍
Every country headed by a King/Queen is ruled by a fascist structure, no matter how modified or mellowed the camouflage. In fact, the absolute, final top of the pyramid in authoritarian political power is secured by the longevity, the ages, of the royal family members. It is concretized tribalism. America's revolution to shirk off England's fascist dominance is the beginning of our political heritage, our replacement of fascist rule with democracy. Engaging in old stain sentiments about kings and queens generally is sickened by denialistic psychological indulgence, no matter the hues of maudlin memory touch-up.
LOL! Bibbity bobbity boo! Nonsense.
The red color reminds me of an old world illuminated by the weary red light of a dying star.