Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
I should note, in the interests of full disclosure, that the Swedish King (and Queen) has at one point had portraits done in a style that I consider to be dubious.
In that case there is however a reasonable context in that they are part of the decorations in a room (the so-called Jubilee Room) at the royal palace that was intended to represent the modern and current style in 1997, when said room was a gift to the King on the 25 year anniversary of becoming King. Plus they’re rather less omnious.
Looks like he's embedded in crimson carbonite or, um, Tomato Aspic....
Looks like artist needs an urgent eye-test and, if okay, prompt incarceration in Tower for Lèse-majesté...
On the gripping hand, it does mean that the 'Spitting Image' puppeteers cannot possibly contrive anything worse...
That said, this 'Wham-Bam-RaspberryJam' horror seems some-how appropriate for 'Charlie Oath*-Breaker'...
( *: The 'Forsaking all Others' thing... )
If you cannot see the wood for the trees, deploy LIDAR.
That portrait kinda looks like the King is burning in Hell, which is NOT a good look for an official portrait. Could be some sort of commentary by the author.
I'm sorry, the only, ONLY, reasonable explanation for this horrid mess is that someone accidentally spilled red paint on this a day or so before the unveiling, and this was a rush job to fix it without having further delays...
Otherwise the artist needs to go back to art school, my 3yo niece does better than this crap.
JBG wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 11:32 pm
The underlying portrait looks fine. But the red .... there must be some obscure meaning to it?
Jonathan
I suspect the painter was try to draw attention to HM’s face and hands, and to fade the uniform into the background, as it were. But it’s didn’t really work.
