Painters Online Logo

Login/register

Studio

The King's portrait

Welcome to the forum.

Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.

Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.

Hang on Studio Wall
Showing page 1 of 2
Author
Message
With Sarah, Phil, Ellen, Rose the dentist, and the granddaughter whose name I forget.

Robert Jones, Napa

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 24825
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 8654
Posted
Have we discussed this?  I think I missed it if we have; or if we haven't, I didn't - QED.... Anyway, returning from la-la land for a moment: why did he scumble or glaze - or just smear - that layer of a rather unlovely red all over it, everywhere but the face?  Did it mean anything, did it help?  For me, it made the muddy colours he'd used for the face all the muddier - if he had a reason for doing that, was it an aesthetic one, or just that Yeo isn't keen on painting costume?  And if it was the latter, why show him in uniform at all?  The Guardian's art critic hated it - which is usually a pretty good sign that there must be something worthwhile about a work after all, because he's a ding-bat: but while I don't hate it, I don't respect it as a piece of work, either.   Over to you lot then, and sorry if we HAVE covered this before, I'm online too often and get confused between sites (and many other things, come to that).
P1080764

Carol .

  • Respected User
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 679
Posted
I've just had a look at this, and it does appear a bit odd. Seems the head is not a part of the body. Maybe Yeo is trying to say something . . . All I can say is, its bold.
meprofile

Gary Martin

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 159
Posted
Yes, I'm not a fan of it. Feels unfinished to me and looks messy because of the textures. I did smile when I saw some animal rights people pasted Wallace from Wallace and Gromit over the face!
IMG_3630

Paul (Dixie) Dean

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 21432
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 6952
Posted
I though it had been vandalised, till I read about it . Bet it gets some laughs in a few of the military bases . It’s a bloody red mess and should not be in the mess I can hear several  Officers and Sargent that I knew spluttering out after a glass or two . Be the first thing that gets something thrown at it in a mess bash I bet. Treason I hear hand the man . 
P1080764

Carol .

  • Respected User
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 679
Posted
Robert, do you know if the artist has given a verbal explanation for his approach to this portrait. If so, where can it be heard.

Norrette Moore

  • Esteemed User
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 948
Posted
I think there is an article in the Independent about his choices in the piece, although I haven't bothered to read it. Charles must have had no surprise with it, as it's Yeo's style, see : https://www.jonathanyeo.com/giancarlo-esposito-study I agree with Robert about the Guardian critic. :-)

Jenny Harris

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 4713
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 1901
Posted
Carol, there is a YouTube video of Jonathan Yeo discussing the painting.  Not sure how to do a link from my iPad, but you can search on it -

Edited
by Jenny Harris

profile

Tony Auffret

  • Respected User
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 714
Posted
Intrigued, I looked up the Guardian critic's review and then followed a link to Jonathan Yeo's website.  I was somewhat disappointed to see that Yeo's portrait of the King lacked originality, in that a brown face emerging out of a red soup is a motif he has used before, more than once (the link in Norette's post is one example).  In particular there is a 2015 portrait of a D-Day veteran, George Pattinson (see below) and the only stylistic difference I can see is that the red soup is more disorganised in the King Charles portrait.   I don't find the King's portrait unpleasant, it works better than the Pattinson portrait, but I think bashing out a formulaic approach may work for the artists in the Montmartre tourist traps but it is hardly befitting for the first official portrait of the new monarch.  Can't help but wonder how much money he trousered for so little originality.

Edited
by Tony Auffret

Untitled

Rikard Lindby

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 47
Posted
I think he did a good job on the face. There is expression and some depth there. But I generally dislike these types of inconsistent paintings. It does force the eye to the face rather than gently leading it around. I find looking at it rather stressful actually.
our Lady2

Jim Morris

  • Respected User
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 667
Posted
Just  a view: I'm not a fan of photographic portraits. Too much of them is spent on surroundings when the focus should be on the face. Even then, they have to look like a painting, ie, the artist's idea of the subject and not a photograph. For this reason the portrait of his majesty is a mess of colour that doesn't say anything to me. I agree with Robert's view on uniform (my description being, "more medals than the Australian Olympic swimming team", none of the earned in war or battle so why bother? In short, a huge lump of canvas for un-needed effect. Chop it all away and you're left with a decent painting for which I credit the artist's originality.
With Sarah, Phil, Ellen, Rose the dentist, and the granddaughter whose name I forget.

Robert Jones, Napa

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 24825
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 8654
Posted
The veteran's portrait is better than the King's, but again - why use a red background and overlay which bleaches colour from the flesh?  You could well believe that Yeo has just got bored with painting portraits and is playing at it. 
P1080764

Carol .

  • Respected User
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 679
Posted
Carol, there is a YouTube video of Jonathan Yeo discussing the painting.  Not sure how to do a link from my iPad, but you can search on it -
Jenny Harris on 13/06/2024 08:51:56
Thankyou, Jenny. I'll have a look for this.
Showing page 1 of 2