[imagesource:wikimediacommons]

King Charles unveiled his first official portrait since his coronation as British monarch.

Even the royal stepped back in disbelief or fright as the black veil came down from the painting by artist Jonathan Yeo at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday.

The painting’s most immediately striking – and divisive – feature has to be the hodgepodge of red that the monarch is surrounded in, something The Guardian observed as a “psychedelic sea of lurid reds” where not even an endangered monarch butterfly can save “this superficially observed and carelessly executed bland banality”.

The UK publication went further in crucifying the portrait with a one-star review and more brutal words about the British artist’s giant red mistake.

“Yeo’s portrait of the king is replete with all his vices. It is technically superficial and unfelt. There’s no insight into the king’s personality here, just a weird allegory about a monarch butterfly that Yeo says is a symbol of his metamorphosis from prince to king.”

Have a look-see:

Despite his initial hesitation, King Charles reportedly said he was rather pleased with his first official portrait since being crowned, but The Guardian argues that it lacks the depth and meaning that true portraiture requires:

“As he courageously copes with cancer, who’d begrudge any pleasure this glowing red homage gives good old King Charles? But the pleasing effect of joy and uplift as Charles’s red military uniform melds with a pinkish psychedelic splurge is bought at the price of any genuine artistic perceptiveness or purpose.”

Painted over four sittings, the portrait reflects Yeo’s signature style “where he places greater emphasis on capturing the character and essence of his subjects rather than replicating their literal appearance,” Yeo’s website states. The Guardian couldn’t have agreed less, saying that Yeo’s art is simply formulaic, putting a pedantic study of someone’s features amidst a “free burst of lurid abstract wallpaper” – “an evasion of actual portraiture which is based on acute, hard observation”.

“A serious portrait would look hard and long at Charles (or anyone), not combine facile pseudo-portraiture with the cheery serotonin of random colour,” the review laments, later adding that it’s “a masterpiece of shallowness by an artist so ludicrously upbeat he should be called Jonathan Yo!”

While art historian Richard Morris praised the portrait, and the BBC described it as “vibrant”, many more folks were fearless in expressing a far less flattering opinion.

The surprise and shock over the ‘unexpected’ and ‘untraditional’ portrait is going to be another PR nightmare for the British royals, according to CNN royal historian Kate Williams, noting how the sheer scale of all that redness is generating a lot of criticism.

The overwhelming redness of the painting made one Instagram user comment that Charles “looks like he’s in hell”, while another wrote, “It looks like he’s bathing in blood”. There were even some unbecoming comments about Charles appearing as Camilla’s bloody tampon. Sies.

The Daily Beast collected reviews about whether the painting showed Charles’ “acceptance of the revelation of your flaws and your mortality,” or it being a “very fine portrait,” or conversely “like the poster for a truly nightmarish horror movie,” or even so bad it was deemed “absolutely fecking hideous, looks like he is burning in hell.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The Royal Family (@theroyalfamily)

Considering the cancer diagnosis, the red painting feels like a foreshadowing. Then again, considering the monarchy’s history of colonial conquest and its hand in slavery, it may very well come across as a secret nod to the horrors of the past. Those who suffered under the rule of the British royals see the red as rather apt.

Indeed, it’s giving The Shining‘s ‘redrum redrum redrum’ if you know what I mean.

Anyway, this painting is a sure-fire way to be remembered for yonks.

[source:guardian&dailybeast]