History, Politics And Current Affairs

I should note, in the interests of full disclosure, that the Swedish King (and Queen) has at one point had portraits done in a style that I consider to be dubious.

In that case there is however a reasonable context in that they are part of the decorations in a room (the so-called Jubilee Room) at the royal palace that was intended to represent the modern and current style in 1997, when said room was a gift to the King on the 25 year anniversary of becoming King. Plus they’re rather less omnious.

Micael wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 2:03 pm

I was thinking Shroud of Turin myself.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

The Royal portrait...
Ick.
No, Double Ick.

Looks like he's embedded in crimson carbonite or, um, Tomato Aspic....
Looks like artist needs an urgent eye-test and, if okay, prompt incarceration in Tower for Lèse-majesté...
On the gripping hand, it does mean that the 'Spitting Image' puppeteers cannot possibly contrive anything worse...

That said, this 'Wham-Bam-RaspberryJam' horror seems some-how appropriate for 'Charlie Oath*-Breaker'...

( *: The 'Forsaking all Others' thing... )

I like it.

Bernard Woolley wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 12:18 am I like it.

(Giving you copious amounts of side eye)

Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 1:19 pm ( *: The 'Forsaking all Others' thing... )

Which hardly makes him unique.

That portrait kinda looks like the King is burning in Hell, which is NOT a good look for an official portrait. Could be some sort of commentary by the author.

I give you this.

I Charles the scourge of Britannia, the sorrow of Diana command you!

I'm sorry, the only, ONLY, reasonable explanation for this horrid mess is that someone accidentally spilled red paint on this a day or so before the unveiling, and this was a rush job to fix it without having further delays...

Otherwise the artist needs to go back to art school, my 3yo niece does better than this crap.

The underlying portrait looks fine. But the red .... there must be some obscure meaning to it?

Jonathan

JBG wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 11:32 pm The underlying portrait looks fine. But the red .... there must be some obscure meaning to it?

Jonathan

I suspect the painter was try to draw attention to HM’s face and hands, and to fade the uniform into the background, as it were. But it’s didn’t really work.

I am informed that that painting is better than it looks.

Meanwhile, the Artists Collective of Royal Haters has done it again



At least the red one got the face right

jemhouston wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 2:38 am

Nathan45 wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 1:31 am AI would have done better. And likely had him riding a dinosaur.

Prompt king Charles riding a horned dinosaur

Now that's how it should be done!

JBG wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 11:32 pm The underlying portrait looks fine. But the red .... there must be some obscure meaning to it?

Jonathan

It has the look of a Freud or a Bacon. Whatever its artistic merits, it’s certainly memorable!

warshipadmin wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 10:02 pm I am informed that that painting is better than it looks.

Meanwhile, the Artists Collective of Royal Haters has done it again



At least the red one got the face right

Just… utterly… cack.

Speaking of the king's official portrait:
This is what vegan activists did to vandalise it today. It's actually an improvement!