Kate Middleton's controversial portrait

Blog

Forum

Finds

Kate Middleton's controversial portrait

Janet

(website)

Veteran

http://ifitshipitshere.blogspo.....t.html?m=1

Curious to know what you all think?

As an artist (but not a painter), I cringe a bit to think of how it would be for the world to be picking apart your work, but I do agree with much of the criticism.

13 years ago

Off Topic

16 replies

Latest reply was from Hil

Anonymous

She looks more haggard in the portrait than I think she does in real life. Would it have killed him to use a kinder paintbrush?

13 years ago

Claudia

Veteran

Oh, boy. I also agree with much of the criticism. And I also really feel for the artist because it is far, far, far from horrible and I am sure that he wanted to create a masterpiece given his beautiful subject. I have painted portraits and taken intensive workshops given by professionals on portraiture. It is very, very difficult, probably the most challenging thing to do in fine art.

My humble opinion, is that the issues came out of creating the smile. If you look at most painted portraits, especially museum quality, the subjects are VERY rarely smiling (and NEVER showing teeth). That's because it is so damn difficult to get right, even for the masters.

When I look at Kate's painting I absolutely see the masterly painter's technique and so much that was done beautifully, but also the problems that many are complaining about.

Also, a painting is ideally meant to be viewed from a distance, not close up, so some of the criticism, like the "gray hair" are just wrong: recessed/recession on hair is done with neutral grays.

13 years ago

RoseandJoan

Veteran

I think he captured a very good likeness and the eyes are beautiful. I do think her hair lacks the lustre we see on film.

I do not believe the Duchess of Cambridge made the best decision with her choice of blouse and earrings, when seen in isolation these are the things I find ageing.

13 years ago

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

This is not a flattering portrait :(. The Duchess looks better in the photos than in the painting. What gets to me most is the too yellow tones and lack of smile.

13 years ago

Anonymous

What Claudia said. The only way to create dimension in a portrait is to use lights and shadows, the facial contours would look exaggerated when looking this close. The feel should be a lot more flattering at a distance. I just think the skin tonality is a bit too yellow for my liking. Portraiture was not my strong suit in art school so take it for whatever is worth.

13 years ago

Laurinda

Veteran

She would be very happy for that portrait if she were 50... :-/

13 years ago

ManidipaM

Veteran

I agree with Julie and with Angie that her colouring hasn't been accurately, let alone flatteringly captured.

Apparently the artist also says he adjusted her eye colour to tone with her clothing and jewellery as well as the background --- in the interests of realism, this sounds bizarre to me! (Why not change background and blouse to follow her actual eye colour instead?)

Anyone else a little taken aback by the little self-portrait of the artist in her left eye? I have to say while it is technically brilliant and whimsical even, I'm less than impressed with the occasion and subject chosen!

13 years ago

MsMary

Veteran

I agree it's not the most flattering portrait ever.

I love "Suri's" take on it: http://surisburnbook.tumblr.co.....-artist-in

13 years ago

lyn*

(website)

Veteran

I think the original picture she chose was not the one that was the most flattering. I look at the portraits hanging in the Alumni Hall at the university and most of those are tons more flattering, but I guess they could have gone for more accuracy.

13 years ago

Raisin

Veteran

Well I think the artist did a fabulous job at painting her likeness. It's SPOT on...the only thing is she does look much more sallow in the painting, which is what looks a little more haggard to me. A shame, because I do think the paining is nice. I don't mind the inclusion of the lines, bags, etc, that's all real to me.

13 years ago

Kari

Veteran

Agreed - it's an odd and aging choice in color and expression to use for an official portrait.

(Also, most of the media photographs of Kate show her with a real smile on her face, and she looks bright and happy. And I know personally, I look pretty haggard and unhappy when I'm not smiling - my face in repose doesn't look very cheerful. That's partly why you always see me grinning in my WiW photos.)

13 years ago

Gaylene

Veteran

Hmm, well it's definitely more flattering than that portrait of the Queen from a few years back. But, I guess I'm not so concerned about flattery (or lack of it) in a state portrait.

What struck me about the painting was how lifeless it seemed; to my untutored eye, a great portrait makes me feel like I've had a glimpse of the person behind the image. The actual image may, or may not, physically resemble the real person because I'm seeing that person through the artist's eye, but, to me, the portrait needs to create a connection between me, the viewer, and the subject. Hard to express, but it's that spark that makes me want to keep coming back to look at the image. This one just seems like paint on canvas.

13 years ago

Caro in Oz

Veteran

Just another ordinary portrait imo. Though why you would change the eye colour is beyond me (unless it was an expressionist painting).

13 years ago

Diana

Veteran

Hmm, when I first saw this I immediately thought, "ugh, they made her look so old and haggard! She looks so much better in real life." But the more I think about it, the more I think that she just made an unfortunate choice of clothing and the decision not to smile (not sure if this was Kate's decision or the artist's, but it is very in keeping with what I think of as the "official royal portrait" aesthetic). I agree that Kate looks way, way better when she is smiling and in less somber, gloomy lighting.

In this blog post, you can see an image of the portrait with the original photo the artist was working from, and you can see that it looks quite similar. Incidentally, if you scroll down in that post, you can see Princess Diana's first official royal portrait as well. I found the difference in artist's styles really striking!
http://theroyalpost.com/2013/0.....portraits/

13 years ago

rachylou

Veteran

Oh, I don't think it's so bad. She is 30, she looks 30.

Actually, it makes her looks less skinny.

13 years ago

Hil

(website)

Veteran

If the picture were to be solely judged on likeness, then there is no mistaking that it's her, but I think the painting lacks the light that surrounds Kate and the mouth worries me.

Fascinating to see the official portraits of Charles and Diana - thanks for those links!

13 years ago

Category