Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

First Official Portrait of Kate Middleton

The fact the artist (?) took several months to do this ! ! ! ! A class of six year olds couldn't have done much worse . . . .could they?
Well, it was built up in thin glazes, which takes about ten days to dry enough to add another layer of glaze, so I can believe it. Still think it's rubbish though.
 
I suspect they warned her about this sort of thing. Most people don't understand that portraits are not photographs and always can be criticized.

That doesn't mean the criticisms are not valid. They must just be kept in balance with an understanding of what is going on.

I remember a portrait my mom had done of me; it was very unflattering, until I realized he was doing his best.
 
I suspect they warned her about this sort of thing. Most people don't understand that portraits are not photographs and always can be criticized.

That doesn't mean the criticisms are not valid. They must just be kept in balance with an understanding of what is going on.

I remember a portrait my mom had done of me; it was very unflattering, until I realized he was doing his best.
One of these days I'll dig out the one in pastels given after posing for a class twice. It was a reasonable likeness except for making me look bovine.
 
At the time I sat I was sporting a beard, and I looked like Charles Darwin. The beard came off.
It was interesting seeing several very different images of the same thing, but disquieting when that thing is you and some people have changed your hair (because it was easier for them), some have completely changed your expression, one or two have changed your nose, and somebody else got the textile bits spot on but not the body parts. :eek:
 
Just watched the news when they were talking about it. An art critic laid into it, then they asked the public. No one liked it, but one guy just winced and shook his head. Summed it up
 
I reckon he had started an Edwina Currie one just before the egg fiasco broke, shelved it, got it out again, added a bit of hair and called it 'Kate'.
_65226304_83c280b4-fb78-465b-95b2-5e1f0fed69cf.jpg


Or else it's the woman in Greggs.
 
Regardless of how you feel about who she is, she is a very pretty woman and they have made it look like one of those mug shots of an employee for a HR company brochure.

It's only an accident of marriage that prevented that.
 
I think a problem with it is that it is a micro expression, yes at a moment in time she probably does look like that, on the way to smiling for example, but such moments are very fleeting and so we do not really recognise this painting as her.
 
I like it, precisely because it's not very pretty. If I want to look at a pretty picture of Kate I could just look at a shopped photo.

Her eyes are wonky though.
 
I think it's technically very good, it just makes her look a lot older than she actually is. Perhaps when viewed in real life it looks different.
 
I think a problem with it is that it is a micro expression, yes at a moment in time she probably does look like that, on the way to smiling for example, but such moments are very fleeting and so we do not really recognise this painting as her.

that's no excuse though. as a portrait painter you're supposed to be aware of these things, and work from a pose or image that is flattering to the sitter. I have a feeling he is a terrible photographer, and should have had someone else take the photo. Just shocked that he's gotten this far in his career without realizing these things.
 
It looks as though she's trying to smile without opening her mouth. So there's a half way house where the smile is being suppressed causing the lines from nose to mouth which also have the effect of making her look older.
 
Yes of course. It's a time-honoured tradition, in a comic called Viz, to take the piss out of the kinds of ad you get in tabloid weekend supplements selling cheap and tacky memorial nonsense.
My favourite is the hitler doll which has only one testicle
 
Back
Top Bottom