Recommended Posts

On 2/6/2024 at 4:52 AM, nonnaB said:

Worrying news about King Charles.

I think the "red" portrait would have cheered him up.

I think it is absolutely fantastic. What do you think?

King Charles III Unveils First Official Painted Portrait Since Coronation -  The New York Times

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He knocked over the pot of red paint but didn't want to admit it!

 

I'd hang that one next to Rolf Harris's portrait of Queen Elizabeth II: the one that looks like a koala bear.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid the whole monarchy thing died when we lost our beloved Queen a couple of years ago, (in my mind anyway) I have no interest in them one little bit

 

Rog

Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching and listening to the media reports on this painting I realise I am a heathen with regard to art. I cannot see the point of this item. The main item reported is that there is a butterfly on it. Wow I think I will turn on the television,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that the butterfly symbolised the metamorphosis from a prince to a king.  As for the portrait itself,  I think it’s just headline grabbing

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MargieH said:

from a prince to a king.

In this case from a prince to a frog

 

Rog

Link to post
Share on other sites

The face, though recognisable, somehow just doesn't look right.

The rest looks as though climate change protesters have had a go at it.

Margie has it right, another portrait would be just that, another one. But this is a publicity stunt and all the pretentious aficionados  dare not say do it again it's rubbish.  There have been some shockers in the past, all garnering praise simply because the artist was famous - Freud, Warhol, Partridge and a few others, but were in actual fact, like this one.... crap.

There are better artists on YouTube.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s ‘art’ though isn’t it? Not draftsmanship. Although a skilled draftsman can produce a facsimile, and we can admire their skill, art is an interpretation in the mind of the artist. It invites us to think about and discuss it. We may like it or loathe it but it stimulates a conversation and a reaction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a friend of mine said, hands and faces are the most difficult parts of the human body to paint well.  Whoever this artist is, he clearly has the ability to master those two areas extremely proficiently. As to the rest of it... one gets the impression that he couldn't be bothered to spend the time on it.  Sorry. Don't like it. I have a lifelong aversion to the colour red.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took art at ‘O Level’. Some of us, who were going on to study biology at ‘A Level, decided to select, out of the various options, ‘plant drawing and figure drawing’. The third option I studied was ‘history of art’. Whilst not making me an expert on the subject, it did give me an appreciation of the many artists from the Italian masters to the French impressionists. I’ve been fortunate to visit many of the art galleries in the UK and Europe and view the masterpieces at first hand. More locally Nottingham castle art gallery was interesting as was the Usher Galleries in Lincoln and the Harley Galleries at Welbeck.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A picture should be representative, it should not need an explanation or some 'expert' to   interpret it and tell what to think about, or what the 'artist' is trying to tell us. 

Or is he trying to tell us his face and hair needs a good wash.

 

Then again, I'm just an old Philistine

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brew said:

A picture should be representative, it should not need an explanation or some 'expert' to   interpret it and tell what to think about, or what the 'artist' is trying to tell us. 

Or is he trying to tell us his face and hair needs a good wash.

 

Then again, I'm just an old Philistine

 I disagree there. A diagram should be representative and convey definitive information but art is a creative process and the results are open to interpretation by the observer. They say that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Why does the Mona Lisa have an enigmatic smile? :) 

I suppose, however, that portraiture should endeavour to capture the likeness of the subject without attempting to be a photographic image.

My favourite artists are the French impressionists plus a bit of Van Gogh!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our art mistress at The Manning was, to put it mildly, a raving eccentric.  She was built like Hattie Jacques but minus the sense of humour.

 

I have no artistic ability whatsoever. Therefore, art lessons seemed a total waste of time to me.  The standard appraisal of a painting Hattie  didn't like was "an amorphous mass", whether it was something one of her pupils had done or the work of a professional.  

 

We spent a great deal of time trying to imagine, at Hattie's insistence,  the trauma of a paintbrush left overnight in a pot of water so that all our hair fell out. Much of our lessons were spent listening to Hattie's problems in trying to find a solution to keeping her son's spectacles level ... because his ears weren't!  Alongside that, we absorbed the evils of carrier bags bearing the supermarket's name and being used as free, walking advertisements for Tesco et al. A plain, unmarked cardboard box was the unrivalled solution to this problem.

 

I didn't learn much about art at Manning.  My favourite artist is John Atkinson Grimshaw who was self-taught and even made his own paints.  I wonder whether he went shopping with a cardboard box?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

Why does the Mona Lisa have an enigmatic smile? 

 

I've no idea but having seen it I was thoroughly unimpressed. Why does everyone rate it so much? It's a picture of a rather plain looking woman. Who said she is smiling?

Who said his St John the Baptist is homoerotic? Why is Benci not as good as Lisa...? Everyone plays follow my leader in art. Experts say it's great therefore it must be

 

But having said that at least we don't need a degree in fine art to see what it is and the technical skill it took to paint his portrait, and I'm fairly sure he never thought to throw buckets of paint on his canvas.

One excuse I've just read of why it's famous is da Vinci demonstrating his understanding of her skull structure. Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grimshaw, though he painted mainly land and cityscapes was very, very good...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our art master at Mellish, Charlie Evans, was a good guy. He had been a Lancaster pilot during the war. He lived at Attenborough and turned out for the village cricket team. He was also one of the senior CCF officers. A very charming, amiable bloke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't remember art classes though I did one term of pottery and my ashtray turned out looking like anything you care to name - except an ashtray.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jill Sparrow said:

I think there's one of my older sister as a baby, looking gormless!!!  I seem to remember the name Freckleton on the back of it.

There isn't one of me. I broke the camera!

There was another well known local photographer, Edwin Hadley, who used to live  in our village. His house, The Acre, opposite the church, was for sale when we moved here in 1962. It was bought by a director of Boots who used to commute to Beeston by train where a car would collect him from Beeston station. I certainly recall the name ‘Freckelton Studios’ so I must have a photo of myself somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grimshaw did paint portraits and conventional landscapes but I'm not keen on those.  I love his nocturnal, moonlit scenes. The almost tangible sense of solitariness appeals to me.  Some of the originals are in Harrogate Art Gallery and Scarborough Art Gallery. They're big canvases and mesmerising, as though you could walk into the picture and leave the modern world behind.

 

Pottery? Huh. We didn't do pottery at The Manning. Didn't have the facilities. I think we ran to a paper press, a few (bald) brushes, some bottles of paint and a couple of rusty tins of varnish.  The art room was on the first floor at the rear of the premises, overlooking the dustbins. There's inspiration for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not one of his better ones but still OK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...