History, Politics And Current Affairs

Is this as bad as I think it is?

No, it's worse.

He would have done better to get one of the followers of Piet Mondrian to do it.

It’s entitled something like, “King Charles in the uniform of the Welsh Guards against a red background”.

It’s definitely a Foreign Legion tunic.

It kind of reminds me of when Carl Bildt, one of our former prime ministers, had his portrait done a few years ago for hanging amongst the other prime ministers in the parliament building here.

I found out about from Twitchy https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2024/05/1 ... s-n2396225. I did some research to find the picture I posted. Some of the ones on Twitchy were better.

AI would have done better. And likely had him riding a dinosaur.

Nathan45 wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 1:31 am AI would have done better. And likely had him riding a dinosaur.

Prompt king Charles riding a horned dinosaur

That picture fell down the ugly tree and hit every branch on its way down.

Modern art. When even an AI still in its swaddling clothes can produce a better picture, it is a sign that something is a tad awry.

The King wasn't critical of it, but I think that might speak more to his quite nice nature than a full throated endorsement. This makes the Rolf Harris portrait of the Queen look like an Old Master in comparison.

Simon Darkshade wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 5:20 am Modern art. When even an AI still in its swaddling clothes can produce a better picture, it is a sign that something is a tad awry.

The King wasn't critical of it, but I think that might speak more to his quite nice nature than a full throated endorsement. This makes the Rolf Harris portrait of the Queen look like an Old Master in comparison.

Having <briefly> met & chatted to him, I get the distinct impression that his first thought was likely, “Oh God”

...I really tried hard to like this, but God forgive me, all I could think of was hearing, "Now, witness the power of this fully operational battle station!"

Mike

It’s somehow looking even more omnious when presented like this.

There's a new rival for the title of most awful portrait. Gina Rinehart has demanded that a portrait of her in Australia's national gallery be removed because it looks awful. I have to agree with her:

https://metro.co.uk/2024/05/16/australi ... -20849248/

I have delayed commenting on this because I didn't want to do it in the heat of the moment because I was likely to be less likely to say something.... unfortunate.

Having had some time to contemplate, and also return to view it several times, all I can say is "What the f&ck?".

For any of you out there with any artistic knowledge, what is the point of this? Its the kind of thing that I would think would exist in the mind of a perpetually enraged maniac.

Belushi TD

Belushi TD wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 11:21 am I have delayed commenting on this because I didn't want to do it in the heat of the moment because I was likely to be less likely to say something.... unfortunate.

Having had some time to contemplate, and also return to view it several times, all I can say is "What the f&ck?".

For any of you out there with any artistic knowledge, what is the point of this? Its the kind of thing that I would think would exist in the mind of a perpetually enraged maniac.

Belushi TD

Well, I think I can discern some of the reasoning behind it. There is an approach used by some portrait painters that aims to put the face of the painting in focus by way of reducing focus on the rest of the painting. By way of fuzziness, reduced fidelity and so on.
Here’s an example painted by Anders Zorn, depicting President Taft.

As you can see the background behind Taft’s head is considerably more blurry and lower in fidelity than the head itself, as is the legs and other parts around the puter edges of the painting. There’s even something of an aura surrounding the head. This makes the face pop out and focuses the attention on it, also giving a vibrancy to the painting.

Having said that, Zorn was a masterful painter, and he manages to do pull this vibrancy off while at the same time respecting the object in the painting, and also not straying too far from traditional portrait paintings. So while I believe that part of the reason behind the style of depiction chosen by the painter in the King Charles III painting stems from a similar motivation, focusing on the face, the execution of said desire is vastly different. The choice of this red mist, or mess, is puzzling. This not in the least as it should be obvious to nigh on everyone that it would immediately draw thoughts to blood and flesh, and from there to thoughts of malevolance, doom, and so forth. To such an extent that I can’t but help to wonder if this is some sort of an intentional protest or coup by the artist.

Micael wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 9:31 am It’s somehow looking even more omnious when presented like this.

Sorry, but now it looks as if somebody froze HM The King in red Carbonite

I'll try to be fair here, and look at this assuming my initial impression was wrong. This type of art does take talent, and might be a appropriate satirical take on the King, perhaps a cautionary take on power etc. It's also memorable (the worst thing any form of art can be is boring, and this is interestingif nothing else)

Still, as a official portrait? Nope.

Someone made it creepier by mirror duplicating it.

David Newton wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 11:02 am There's a new rival for the title of most awful portrait. Gina Rinehart has demanded that a portrait of her in Australia's national gallery be removed because it looks awful. I have to agree with her:

https://metro.co.uk/2024/05/16/australi ... -20849248/

Wow, that is awful. I seen better portraits done at county fairs. Her forehead and chin are very wrong and her eyes are not level. It looks like the artist was trying to portray her as having Down's syndrome.