ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ส.ค. 2024
- Painted by British artist Jonathan Yeo, King Charles III’s new royal portrait has been met with mixed reactions.
This video features my opinion on the painting as a work of art from an art historical perspective.
Follow me on:
TikTok (@tatyanaaboutart)
Instagram (@aboutart.tks)
Website (www.aboutartbytatyana.com/)
Wow! Thanks for the explanation.
I love the way it looks, and I love that it has people talking about art and how we interpret it. Bravo to the artist 👏
I don’t see how it is anything except Charles emerging out of blood or maybe fire. The artist seems to have intended to make a different impression. The fact remains, however, the painting makes an entirely different impression than the artist intended. The work leaves the viewer with the impression that Charles as king is either bathed in the blood and sin of his family and country or is emerging from fire like some kind of demonic God. No amount of “we aktually” explaining no matter how clever changes that. Moreover, the fact that the intentions of the artist have to be explained at all and are not undeniable to anyone looking at the painting is conclusive proof of its failure as a work of art.
This is your perspective only. I see it quite differently. And the fact it elicits debate and analysis tells you it’s an important piece of art.
@@carolinebennett5615 I agree with this.
your impression iz too literal
IMO the painting reminds me of the portrait of Obama and the green foliage background. I guess you can paint a head and choose your own background and then "SELL" the narrative as an afterthought. I have a BFA degree from a Canadian University and think the articles explaining the "HIDDEN" meanings is a more accurate description of dark undertone.
It looks more like a Broadway marquee for an upcoming performance.
@@donaldziemer1919 the Broadway marquee is a good description. It could be a marquee for a new production of Hamlet or McBeth.
''Although I'm surrounded by tumultuous times, my face and my hands will stay clean and see the light!'' This may be the message; a declaration...
thank you! great comments!
I thought I was the only one that liked it! I applaud Charles for accepting it.
I like the portrait
Good analysis. The job was to make a regal portrait and I think the artist succeeded beyond all expectations.
Yes, the red signifies King Kotex has got his wish, living inside Cruella the Ills trousers. 👍
0:15 I like it. It's different. The red is almost as if the king is emerging. I don't get a sense of anything other than emerging. I love his uniform and how the artist used the red in bold flourishes to announce the King's emerging and accented it with the monarch butterfly. Long live King Charles III.😻
It's a great painting!
Seems surrounded by blood
I too thought he was bathed in blood.
That really isn't a blood color.
I love the painting.
He is in denial about dissolving into a blurry menacingly red surroundings
i like it
Depravity calls to depravity
I like it alot. Imagine it in blue, white, grey or any other colour and the warmth of the red fades. I imagine it being an underlying passion for his role. Great presentation 😁
I like it...😊❤
I like it a lot...it's stunning in a very modern way, but not abstract. It is beautifully painted and this woman's explanation is excellent and thought provoking. I love the butterfly
I have to say it's quite.... 'edgy' . I rather think I like it. It has a similar atmosphere to Louis le Brocquys' work.
Wholeheartedly agree with your entire analysis. Thank you for helping me see this portrait in such a clear & meaningful way.
Charles without a doubt has been agonizing about this portrait for decades. There is not a chance that, with their the combined life-long loves of culture, both Charles and Camilla didn't analyze every aspect of many versions of this portrait.
Charles is culpable of many sins, but being ignorant of the arts and having poor taste in them are not two of them.
I find it hard to look at with my eyes, as in optical. It's a incredible portrait of King Charles, I just wish I could see it better.
Hasn't anyone else thought it might be representative of a sea of red poppies behind a king in uniform?
Many modern artists and fashion designers make ugly and shocking works just for the publicity. Potrait of the King filled with blood stains gave the painter a lot of publicity so it worked.
I'm fine with that but then there's Art Galleries like Kiasma in Finland that bought a videotape of man torturing and killing a cat and having sex with the corpse and invited the criminal to all its events praising his deeds after he got convicted for the crimes, Art Gallery that seeked to starve and dehydrate dog to death in it's exhibition and Art Auction site Christies that sells child mannequin s.x dolls and Art Galleries that were going to showcase them as "art" but backtracked after child advocacy groups and public protested it.
Oh please, it’s ghastly. No amount of posh artsy words can change that.
Is he being stoic or unaware of his surroundings?
As someone who paints, I must say those hands are amateur garbage.
This painting gives me Wilde's 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' vibes.
There's no doubt that it's demonic and unsettling, no matter what your overall opinion is.
Maybe it represents bloodshed.
nope nope nope
not a big fan of it I do like your explanation!
Do you really call British Artists?
How many of them can work more than 30 minutes without smoking or taking a break?
It’s a decent painting but I hate the colour. It should have been green to reference his green credentials. Painting him as though he is standing in hell is a bit of an insult.
Not a good idea at all. Face look good
though.
DIANA & KATES BLOOD...
Unfortunately the chaotic brush strokes in those colors seem to evoke the flames of hell. I admire King Charles, wish him the best and feel the last thing he probably needs is more controversy.
Cant look at it; revolting.
I am not amused .......
Don’t like it.