r/therewasanattempt May 15 '24

to act happy about your Royal portrait.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

25.3k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

82

u/Whyistheplatypus May 15 '24

You know what purpose a portrait is meant to serve right?

79

u/Vecna_Is_My_Co-Pilot May 15 '24 edited May 15 '24

Yes it’s fantastic! A truly evocative representation of the last cancerous heir to a dying blood soaked empire. It evokes an ancient tarnished nobility that is quickly fading from view. The work is absolutely moving in the way it represented the waning stature of a one-imposing figurehead. It instead shows how all indications of office, beyond the weathered man himself, are fading into the background. The medals, the regalia, are all being wallpapered over, old relics that has long since outlived their purpose but still are hauntingly, ominously present like an antique that nobody needs or uses but can’t be parted with.

26

u/SweatyAdhesive May 15 '24

So you can see why Charles probably didn't like it that much right?

6

u/Vecna_Is_My_Co-Pilot May 15 '24

Apart from the life of unimaginable privilege, I kind feel bad for him.

4

u/floghdraki May 15 '24

Then again, expressing the truth trumps considerations for one man's feelings.

Great piece.

1

u/bz0hdp May 15 '24

Maybe he should have done something to make sure any artist would have a favorable view of him. Like dissolve the monarchy.

4

u/monocle_and_a_tophat May 15 '24

Okay....I posted a reply above about how this is likely something Charles will not appreciate, ever, but: this was amazingly written, haha

From this perspective the portrait absolutely nails it.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the man, but I do feel bad about this. The all-red painting and your description of it would have been absolutely PERFECT for a socially-outspoken artist to have redone after a "normal" original portrait was released.

8

u/Vecna_Is_My_Co-Pilot May 15 '24

Exactly. I can't believe that portrait was not done in satire.

3

u/bz0hdp May 15 '24

I think it was, the artist was just very brave to utilize the opportunity that was given to him/her.

The only good monarch is one that proudly dissolves is monarchy.

3

u/Some-Body-Else May 15 '24

This is apt and needs to be higher up. I personally thought it seemed like only an old, withered face, peering in out amidst a dense red fog. Or red rain, of blood. An omen as it were, or a premonition, of the British Empire fading into history and only being remembered for one thing; the blood it spilled (and old ugly wrinkly men and women).

2

u/superander May 15 '24

What about the butterfly? And the overall technique?

Regarding the fading indications of office, isn't this portrait too honest given who the client represents? 😅

6

u/finalremix Free Palestine May 15 '24

who the client represents?

Tourism?

2

u/superander May 15 '24

Lol, true. Then the color makes sense.

1

u/HilariouslyPissed May 15 '24

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

-2

u/ikkybikkybongo May 15 '24

That shit was breathy as hell. Imma guess people love your stories but nobody loves your stories as much as you do.

1

u/gangofocelots May 15 '24

Did he immediately report you to Reddit cares too? I also could tell he was high off his own farts and I got a reddit cares within 2 minutes of replying to him.

2

u/I_Am_A_Pumpkin May 15 '24

unlikely. its happening to everyone, probably through bot abuse.

-1

u/gangofocelots May 15 '24

Nah, it just looks like shit

3

u/Gibodean May 15 '24

Wasn't it meant to let people know what the Kings looked like, before we had photographs, but they just kept doing them because it was tradition ?

-28

u/E-Pluribus-Tobin May 15 '24 edited May 15 '24

You know what the purpose of paintings are? Do you understand why paintings don't need to be hyper realistic or even representational at all? There are tons of photographs and portraits of Charles, and here they chose to give an artist an opportunity to portray more than simply the same thing a camera could produce. It's fascinating. You can be upset that the background doesn't look real enough but you will have to accept at some point that it doesn't need to look real. And if that was important they would have just used a camera.

41

u/Whyistheplatypus May 15 '24

Yes but it's a portrait.

If I hired someone to paint a portrait of me and they covered the majority of my body in a red haze I'd be livid.

I understand artistic expression. Heck I even agree with this portrayal of a monarch. But as a portrait, it fails to instill a sense of realism, the background is far too abstract for that, but it also fails as an artistic representation of anything other than a blood soaked image.

2

u/popcornkernals321 May 15 '24

It may be a “portrait” but I feel like the person who commissioned the painting HAD to have known the artist’s style and couldn’t have been surprised right? Lol like someone had to have flipped through this dude’s body of work and liked what they saw to commission such an important painting. What I’m saying is yes it’s a portrait but this shouldn’t not have been surprising based on the artist’s past work.

-5

u/Biz_Rito May 15 '24

Van Gogh famously painted his chair and Gauguin's chair as portraits of him and his comrade. Neither look like the chair (duh), yet their spirit can clearly be seen in these still lives.

11

u/Whyistheplatypus May 15 '24

Yes but you'll note, the chair is placed in some sort of tangible surrounding and has personal items laid out on its seat. It's not an abstracted chair floating in a sea of green. The placement of the chair in a plain room and the selection of items on the chair tell us about the person the chair belongs to.

As I said, this portrait really fails to do anything other than place Charles in a sea of blood.

15

u/CariniFluff May 15 '24 edited 29d ago

Dude this is a portrait, it's absolutely supposed to be representational.

Definitions for representational:

  • Of or relating to representation, especially to realistic graphic representation

    • Of or pertaining to representation or to representationalism
    • (used especially of art) depicting objects, figures,or scenes as seen. "representational images"

And representationalism means: - Realistic representation of the world in art.

Sure the artist does not need to make hyper realistic painting, or even a painting of the subject with a very real looking background. But this..WTF is this? It's just crap. I'm guessing the artist won't be asked to make another portrait anytime soon from Charles or anyone in the royal family.

It seriously looks like he's in Hell or purgatory, (or maybe just chilling in the middle of a forest fire?). Is he stepping through a wall of flames?

The subject of the portrait itself is not great already and everything else just looks like someone spilled tomato soup on it.