General Chat

Have just seen the portrait unveiled by Wills & Kate in New Zealand. It's quite obviously been traced from a photograph and has no artistic merit whatsoever! These days you can achieve the same result by doctoring a photo on your PC! Is this a veiled insult from the Kiwi republicans?

She looks very fat of face & stocky in build in my opinion. Almost there but not quite

LOL just like a passport photo...........

Actually, I quite like it. :-D.

Don't think it was traced from a photograph, I did see the artist interviewed, he said he chose to put the Queen in blue so I guess he has had a lot of artistic license in this commission.

Art is very subjective don't you think... :-)

I agree that art is subjective but in this instance it's 10 out of 10 for draughtsmanship, 1 out of 10 for artistry. Once he's traced the image he can make her dress any colour he wants, but a true artist will use his skill to give the portrait the impression of depth and life. It might only be, for instance, a little reflected light on the chin or a darkened shadow. The job of the artist is to go beyond what the eye sees, otherwise we might just as well all rely on photography.

http://www.aww.com.au/news-features/news-stories/2014/4/william-and-kate-unveil-portrait-of-queen

A glimpse of the Queen's face on pic 3........ doesn't look like her at all. He's made her look like a hamster.

:-(

I've read somewhere that he had 1 sitting with the Queen, last October.

I've just been looking at it ..................... and realised that her right hand, the one resting on the back of the chair, is way out of proportion!


The artist is supposed to be an up-and-coming young artist, who has had some big commissions, and who splits his time between London and NZ. He was chosen by the people who raised the funds to pay for the painting ................. young NZ'ers. It's therefore not surprising that they might choose a young artist as against an "old f**t" :-)


Many artists are known to work from photographs ..................... they take photographs at sittings, and then use those as the basis for their painting. Landscape painters do the same ............... take photos, and then use them later as "ideas" for a painting.

Taking photos is the modern version of making umpteen quick sketches and then working from those at a later date.


It's actually nothing to be derided ...................... call it artistic license



He couldn't possibly have done much in ONE sitting!

Yes, long before photography, talented artists were using the camera obscura to achieve accuracy. My point is, slavishly copying the photograph is not art. You can see that it's so because it lacks the highlights and definition that an artist would ad. Perfectly fine I would say for a middle-class living room but surely a royal portrait should be something a bit special!