May 15, 2024

Let's talk about the unusually red portrait of King Charles and whether his flinch, as he unveiled it, revealed a horror of the thing.


I like this longer clip. I'd seen the short clips on Twitter, which make it seem as though Charles was seeing it for the first time and giving an unfiltered negative reaction. But here, you get to see him interacting with the artist, Jonathan Yeo, and there's discussion of slight differences since the last time Charles saw it. "You fiddled away, didn't you, up here, somewhere," Charles says, wiggling his fingers toward the head area.

58 comments:

Aggie said...

I always knew he was red.

Achilles said...

This looks a lot like the Noem situation. He didn't even know what the person painting him was doing.

"has it changed much since you last saw it?"

"Oh a little bit."

The idea of the painting is not terrible. But the background had to be a different color and you can't have the face a raised actual picture over the top of something abstract. The face had to be hand painted too.

I didn't watch long enough to see if the painter hated Charles or did this on purpose.

Was it the painter that did the unveiling?

Paddy O said...

As seen on X:

When you want to freeze someone like Han Solo but you've run out of carbonite and use raspberry jelly instead

n.n said...

Left-wing ideological phase shift.

CJinPA said...

I think the flinch was because he wasn't sure where the cover was going to fall.

And that's my most insightful take of the day.

RAH said...

Ugh . Certainly not traditional. His mother would have been appalled.

Dave Begley said...

He didn't have approval of the his official portrait?

Bigger moron than I thought.

Wining our War of Independence against the Brits was one of the greatest events in the history of the world. And we very easily could have lost. It was a close run thing.

Zavier Onasses said...

KINGS NEW PORTRAIT

Ummm - can we have a look at the old portrait?

And, hey! I did not mean to do away with the apostrophe entirely. Just stop the contractions and double possessives. Here an apostrophe would be an unambiguous possessive - unless there are other kings obscured by the cherry jello.

James K said...

My first reaction was to think of Klimpt's "Lady in Gold." But red is an odd choice, suggesting either blood or Communism.

Peter Spieker said...

Graham Sutherland did a portrait of Winston Churchill that Churchill loathed. Churchill had the thing burned. This painting looks like it is already on fire.

RCOCEAN II said...

Its such a let down to go from Queen Liz to King Charles. Lets face it, he's boring.

RCOCEAN II said...

Its such a let down to go from Queen Liz to King Charles. Lets face it, he's boring.

Joe Smith said...

It looked like Charlie was a bit scared when the cloth came down, like maybe the painting would fall over.

I think it's quite good (as someone in the creative field who has taken far to many art history classes) : )

We don't need to keep painting the same stodgy stuff. Sure, do those too, but break out a little.

It has also created a huge 'canvas' for online memes. One of my favorites is the picture is actually the Queen wearing a MAGA hat and holding a 'Trump Won' sign.

Wince said...

That painting looks like Hell, literally.

RCOCEAN II said...

As for the painting, I guess the artist was trying to do something different. If you don't have a great talent, like say JS Sargent, its better do something that's not a straight portrait.

Freeman Hunt said...

I love it. I get some Dorian Gray vibes, but I love it.

Quaestor said...

Someone famous has made the observation that King Charles looks as though he's been encased in carbonite for his journey to the Emperor, or Jabba the Hutt -- whatever. I agree, but too late for any credit to accrue to me.

Frankly, this is an atrocity not unlike that absurd official portrait of Obama subsumed within a hedge, paid for with tax dollars. There's a commonality between these two paintings besides their bad taste and self-indulgence at public expense -- both sitters are near idiots foisted on their respective publics by powers and circumstances far removed from their own picayune intellects and accomplishments. In the case of Charles III, the mismatch of his station and his talents is an example of the limitations of lineage. Regression to the mean is such a bitch.

tim maguire said...

I think CJinPA is right—the flinch comes before he sees the painting, as he’s jumping out of the way of the falling cover.

My own take is that’s it’s terrible. You can barely see his body, just his face (which is well done) and his hands (which are not well done). The rest is just a sea of red, symbolizing…what?

It reminds me of that meme of Homer Simpson disappearing into a hedge—but red where Homer’s hiding place is green.

john said...

His face is beautifully painted. But his hands look like death, even folded like a corpse.

Leland said...

If the artist was trying to give an impression of what it might look like for Charles to “burn in hell” or “burn at the stake”; I’m struggling to identify what the artist might change.

Eva Marie said...

Jonathan Jones review:
“There’s no insight into the king’s personality here, just a weird allegory about a monarch butterfly that Yeo says is a symbol of his metamorphosis from prince to king.”
“ . . . it’s no surprise King Charles is said to be pleased with his first official portrait since being crowned. As he courageously copes with cancer, who’d begrudge any pleasure this glowing red homage gives good old King Charles? But the pleasing effect of joy and uplift as Charles’s red military uniform melds with a pinkish psychedelic splurge is bought at the price of any genuine artistic perceptiveness or purpose.”
It gives me the impression that the King’s official duties are swallowing him up and there’s cancer everywhere.

Tina Trent said...

Well, compared with Barack and Michelle's portraits, and the fact that one of the artists who did them wants to lynch white people, I guess this isn't so bad?

Except, how couldn't one recall the tampon talk he had with Camilla?

FWBuff said...

I like it. The artist captured his face and hands very well. Seen up close, the red is more complex than it first appeared. It reminds me of Klimt in some ways.

Oligonicella said...

We used to do that 'effect' with the curtain on stage.

He was pretty much dead pan the whole time.

TickTock said...

He looks like Hans Solo, frozen in red carbonite.

Joe Smith said...

"If you don't have a great talent, like say JS Sargent, its better do something that's not a straight portrait."

Look up other works by this artist.

He has talent but also has a definite style that is more illustrative and have more of a commercial look.

So talent, but maybe not the style you prefer.

There are very few Sargents : )

mikee said...

Goes well with the poison gas colors of the official portrait of Winston Churchill.

Mrs. Churchill had it burned after his death. Nobody cried over the loss to the art world.

Rocco said...

Vigo the Carpathian from Ghostbusters (the real one).

Left Bank of the Charles said...

“I think the flinch was because he wasn't sure where the cover was going to fall.”

I agree. He was worried he would look like an idiot if he ended up draped in the cover.

Howard said...

I'm not sure what I like better. The excellent portrait of the King's countenance or the comical bleatings of the Karenocoidal scolds exposing their faux masculine egos.

loudogblog said...

You'd think that being the eco-activist that he is, it would have been green.

This reminds me of the time a famous photographer did a photo shoot of John McCain when he was running for president and later released some horrible shots of him that she had tinted red to make him look evil.

I think that this a similar kind of F.U. being directed at King Charles.

Smilin' Jack said...

The hands appear to be in the final stages of gangrene.

MadisonMan said...

His face is very well done. And that's all that anyone should focus on, I think.

Amexpat said...

He didn't have approval of the his official portrait?
Bigger moron than I thought.


There's a tradition of having a famous painter do a portrait of the monarch every year. They may chose the artist, but they don't have final approval - it's not going on a stamp or a bill.

Actually this is quite flattering compared to Lucian Frued's potrait of QEII:
https://www.pinterest.jp/pin/173810866848293878/

Biff said...

I agree with those who say he was reacting to the falling of the cloth and not the painting itself. While a portion of the portrait was visible when he began to flinch, there simply wasn't enough time for his reaction to have been in response to the content. It was simply a reflexive action to the falling cloth.

I think the artist's remark that the "bright red tunic of the Welsh Guards" was the inspiration for the use of red is rubbish. Surely he was aware that the color choice was bound to inspire thoughts of Charles awash in the blood of Empire. If the artist wanted to capture something about the person who is Charles, green would have been a better choice due to the King's social views.

JaimeRoberto said...

Could be worse. Could be a topless Camilla by his side like the dictator's flag in The In-Laws.

Narayanan said...

KINGS NEW PORTRAIT
Ummm - can we have a look at the old portrait?
===============
is there one with new clothes[!]

Richard Dolan said...

Made me think of the official portrait of Obama peaking out from behind all those branches and leaves. Strange that self-absorbed people like those two have such little appreciation for why they should avoid weird 'official' portraits.

The Real Andrew said...

Plot twist: it’s actually upside down.

William said...

Well, the face looks like Charles, only a little better looking. That's really what you want in a portrait, else why commission it. My guess is that Charles is going to have a short reign--an interregnum between the long reigns of Elizabeth and William. The Gerald Ford of English monarchs. Maybe this portrait will be the most memorable thing about his reign....I read a bio of the Duke of Wellington. He had his portrait done a number of times, and apparently he liked having his portrait done--probably because the painter always flattered him. Even Goya. The downside of all that was that people who met him for the first time were usually disappointed in how undistinguished and ordinary the vanquisher of Napoleon looked in person.

Indigo Red said...

The artwork has hints of the macabre style of Francis Bacon. The prominent red detailing, which I initially thought was a reference to the crimson of the traditional British Guard uniform, is actually in honor of the Welsh Guard, as confirmed by the artist. Overall, it's a very skillfully executed and impressive portrait. I really like it.

RCOCEAN II said...

LOL, yeah its King Charles - the Hans solo version. Was Jabba the hutt involved?

rehajm said...

Go to where the Churchill portrait was burned…and burn this one.

Balfegor said...

I don't follow the artist on Instagram, but some artists I follow do, so I've seen his work in my feed before. If I had commissioned a portrait from him, I don't think this is what I would have expected. He's a fine portrait painter, but generally his paintings seem to be more muted in colour (like his paintings of the current Queen and the late Prince Philip). He's certainly no Sargent -- this pales next to the luxurious splendour of Sargent's portraits of men in court and military uniform -- but no one today is.

Lance said...

This might be the last hand-painted official royal portrait. There's a good chance William's will incorporate some amount of generative AI.

Kate said...

I like it except for the single butterfly. Too literal. The rest of the portrait is intricate and layered with meaning. That face!

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Aaaah, Richard Dolan beat me to the KCIII/Obama comparison. That's the first thing I thought of.

As for the color: Whatever that's meant to be, it isn't flames. Flames are red to orange to white; that color has a lot of blue in it.

Narr said...

Much ado about almost nothing.

rehajm said...

Mercifully Lucian Freud was still dead…

Jim Gust said...

Good argument for abolishing the monarchy.

Josephbleau said...

The upward looking shot of Charles and the artiste show how far British tailoring has fallen. Buy an Italian suit Charles.

Nancy Reyes said...

when I saw it, I thought it was a joke or a vicious meme.

BudBrown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

Rumor has it that King Charles has pancreatic cancer with two years to live. Since the cancer was discovered after the king had surgery to remove his enlarged but benign prostate, the cancer is likely to be colorectal - common among men but surely he must have received frequent colonoscopies after age 45?

wendybar said...

Reminds me of the great (sarc) painting of Hussein Obama.

Rocco said...

William said...
"Well, the face looks like Charles, only a little better looking."

Hey, AI, show me a portrait of King Charles III with raspberry jelly done in the style of Gustav Klimt.

Rocco said...

I see red
And it hurts my head
I guess it must be something
That I read

It's the color of your heartbeat
A rising summer sun
The battle lost or won
The flash to fashion
The pulse to passion
Feels red inside my head

And truth is often bitter left unsaid
Said red red
Thinking about the overhead
The underfed
Couldn't we talk about
Something else instead
...
Feel red, still, go ahead
You see black and white
And I see red, red
Not blue

- Rush, red lenses, 1984

Tina Trent said...

Gerald Ford was an excellent president and great legislator. He brought the country together. He brought the troops home. He united the Parties. He was modest and self-effacing, but hard-working and effective. He stood by his wife through her mental illness and addiction. He served with honor.

The Fords are due a revaluation. Prince Charles is due tbis portrait.