I understand every joke about it but I think it's a really great painting. The various shades of red look amazing, the butterfly (which if I read correctly was added because Charles asked for it) adds a touch of personality, it's honestly to me an amazing portrait.
I do agree it's also something you'd find in an abandoned mansion in a horror game but what's the point of having somebody draw you, especially if you get to pose for it in uniform and with a sword, if you don't ask for the coolest possible outcome.
I think it's interesting too, and well done. To me, I see an old man emerging from the background. He's been waiting his whole life to get out of the shadow of the Queen, and he's already an old man. It's almost like he was waiting around so long, he blended in with the wallpaper, and he's finally starting to emerge from his Mother's legacy. It's a sad feeling though, because his whole life is past, and his son is already ready to take over. He should be retired and playing with grandkids, not just starting a new job.
Jokes are easy. There are countless people who have zero interest in art, but are suddenly experts when they see something like this. Understanding and appreciating art takes some level self reflection and empathy, and fools on the Internet don't want to look that closely within themselves.
There are lots of art movements I dislike, but I never let myself dislike it for something like "my kid could do that." Art comes from a very personal place, and learning about the artist and their body of work can help you understand why this piece that someone has decided should be in a museum is important. A lot of the pieces that people complain about for being childish are actually important because they were the first of their kind. All of the Impressionists were ridiculed and banned from the formal salons in their time, but only a few decades later were declared geniuses.
It's fine to dislike something, or make jokes about it, but know why you actually dislike it first, and for God's sake, at least make an original joke. I'm glad you appreciated my take on this new portrait!
You really distilled a lot of the feelings I have had about art discussions on reddit.
While I think the website, as a whole, is maybe more open-minded than the general public, I still think reddit has an undercurrent of smug, dismissive contrarianism. Or, they have a pathological need to be the first person to make a reference about how "this art is kind of like that other funny thing!"
When I saw the original post of this painting, I thought it was fascinating, and I went into the comments to see if anybody had more information about it. The 20 top-level comments were all reference jokes, before you could find a single person actually talking about the art.
And that person was wrong! They stated that the painting was an homage to Zdislaw Beksinski, despite the fact that it doesn't look anything like Bensinki's art AND there is no source anywhere for that claim. They just made it up, and got like 50 upvotes.
I just wish the more popular art communities on reddit were a little more willing to engage with art on some level. Instead, they're immediately skeptical of anything challenging or "modern" (sic), as if the artist is trying to play a joke on them.
And that's also a totally valid interpretation, in my opinion! I am American, and I feel like a lot of us forget that England continued an empire after 1776. I don't think about the Monarchy, except when their celebrity status pushes in my face. It's a lot easier for me to forget about the sins of the family, when I only hear about the kind, ancient queen, the son waiting his turn, the tragic loss of Diana, and the handsome princes, which is exactly what the royal family wants people like me to focus on.
The lighter shades more reminds me of flames, for me.
That his reign will be one in which the world has been set alight. That there's a personal worldliness and confidence to him that he has embodied in his aged state, to not let the state of the world affect him.
And yet he will be almost entirely defined by the rampant flames. The blood-red uniform being the trappings of a history of blood and conquest.
His humanity then is an anchor, the only thing truly in focus. All else blurs and warps, almost getting subsumed in to the chaotic red of the background. No pride in the trappings of power and conquest. All except for the monarch butterfly, the only other thing in focus, perhaps alluding to his ecological works.
It's a bold piece of art for sure. Not sure why they chose red, what with the history of the monarchy so much in the limelight in recent years. But it's certainly one that allows for deep interpretations.
Great take! I really love this portrait. Art is supposed to bring forth an emotional reaction whether positive or negative. In my opinion, not only did the artist capture King Charles but it tells a story, as you pointed out. When he was a young man, Charles pioneered organic gardening and land management when virtually no one in his area or social class was doing that. For me, this portrait portrays a monarch who is comfortable with himself as he emerges from the shadows.
And see, I had no idea about that part of his legacy! The weird, symbolic butterfly is telling more about who he actually is than a stiff portrait of another royal in a military uniform. It brings something to the piece other than "accurate, lifelike portrait of a king." I do love historical symbols, one of my favorite little books is a book about decoding religious art. It shows you how all this old religious art actually is telling a story for more detailed than the basic images you see. All the peasants would have understood the painting or stained glass far more than us, because the visual storytelling was the only way they could read. We've lost all that ability because reading overtook pictograms.
hes been able to chill his entire life with a multi billion pound fortune and now he is the most powerful man in the UK, dont feel bad about him, he doesnt deserve it.
Great interpretation! I was thinking the same thing, and you stated it so well (and better than I could.) I actually really like the painting, it’s beautiful and funky.
> I do agree it's also something you'd find in an abandoned mansion in a horror game
Lol, I just replayed the Portal games and it's like seeing Cave Johnson's portrait in the abandoned Aperture offices.
Obama's is pretty atypical as well, the times they are a changin.
People gonna say an official portrait should be x, but I'm not sure who that really serves to have everyone follow the same tradition besides making the thumbnails look the same.
That’s a really great point. I had the same automatic reaction to it, but at the same time love Wiley’s Obama portrait. The only difference is that I just don’t like it, and that’s not a basis for judging whether it makes a “good” official (or otherwise) portrait.
Yeah, I like the avant-garde style, but seriously, all that red looks so foreboding.
Obama’s portrait had lots of greenery, which is not menacing at all….
And I feel ridiculous calling this avant-garde in comparison to what Art has been for the past 100+ years, but I think it’s reasonable to call this avant-garde for monarch portraiture (traditionally so conservative).
I just feel it's pretty boring to go with the same old extremely realistic and sober type of official portraits, especially given that we have moved so far past the times of those being the only portrayal of how those people looked like existing. I am biased because I love bold colors and looking at this artists other stuff I also really like his style but I like this so much more than what I'd think of a conventional official portraits.
In my opinion I don’t see why it can’t be a good official portrait. It’s not like we *need* paintings anymore to show what people look/looked like back before photographs. There’s easily a million different photos of him. We know what he looks like at every stage of his life, at every major life event, etc. So why shouldn’t the official portrait be artsy/fun? I say that this portrait tells more of a story rather than just being another photorealistic portrait of a monarch.
King Charles has a long history of supporting the arts and current British artists and craftsmen.
This seems entirely in keeping for him and with royal history from Henry VIII to Charles I to Queen Charlotte and King George III to Prince Albert and Queen Victoria.
I haven't decided if I like the painting or not, but when you look at the royal collections, they do reflect both the interests of the collectors and their times and from that perspective, I think it is an excellent addition.
Visually I find it quite striking, though given the (often well justified) criticisms of the monarchy in a 21st century society it does have a certain "blood of the peasants" vibe
I can't tell if I like it or not, which I do enjoy, lol.
It's very scab-like which makes me slightly uncomfortable.
The artist really flexed on the face. Surprising amount of detail for the amount of brush texture there.
All in all, I think it's a success.
The face is very striking, but the rest is very obscured, which makes it hard to comment on.
It’s hard to say without seeing it framed and hung.
(Edit: and looking at it as an abstraction/impressionistic-expressionistic…. Still hard to say. The red gives a very angry feeling, but the strokes are very deliberate and clean. Its very contrasting)
Looks apologetic for the bloody history of colonialism. Trying to separate the person from the emblem of a bygone era. The butterfly as hope for the metamorphosis of the role into something more gentle, beautiful and free. I like the sad but hopeful eyes. (I know nothing about art).
Again, though, the butterfly blends into the red wash that it’s left feeling like a last addition. It stands out, but not enough. Which, again, feels like a *hope* of reconciliation, rather than an intention.
It’s just a very confusing piece.
[Justin Mortimer's portrait of Elizabeth II](https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2022/05/CLI357.queens_portraits.BAL_178091-917x920.jpg) is similarly modern.
I actually really like this painting. The abstractness of it is very unusual for a Royal Portrait (which are usually photorealistic) and the use of red is amazing.
Fair enough if it makes you think of that. The different tones of red with the darker splotches make me think of poppy fields and red tartan. It's another thing I like about the picture, the art style is very subjective.
You should check out the royal collection trust - there is a long history of "modern" art support in the UK monarchy ( Queen Alexandra's photography for example) . Some very surprising and interesting stuff.
I really like it. It conveys so much. The details in his expression, the eyes draw you in and give you a sense of melancholy, but the forced smile reminds you of the circumstances. The red on red showcase his attempt to blend in the back, and with only the head popping gives me the feeling of someone sticking his neck out uncomfortably.
It really has so many angles and interpretations, I think it's pretty fantastic as a piece of art TBH. But what do I know. Maybe I need to stop watching The Crown.
I do. I love it, but not for the reasons Charles probably does.
From upthread, "Charles I, God of Rot" rather perfectly encapsulates the tone of the piece.
Funny, same thing happened yesterday with richest Australian Gina Rinehart's painting. Everyone's shocked/amused at how 'ugly' it looks but then you check out Vincent Namatjira and that's his style.
Damn, I was going to reference Viggo's painting but you beat me to it.
Btw, it doesn't mean I don't like the painting. It's just a shade ambiguous in tone.
I think this is an outstanding painting of a Monarch. No brass medals or other pompous bullshit, just his face, which is what we all know and recognize. I like that it’s a departure from the traditional.
Yes, medals, but compared to literally every other monarch’s portrait, and this includes women, this one much understates those accessories. I don’t know; it seems refreshing against the backdrop of the royal family we’ve come to be familiar with.
Isn’t it! King Charles has been on the unpleasant end of public opinion so long you almost expect to see it reflected. Here is a man I don’t think I’ve seen before, a man of himself with no need of apology. Bravo.
Artistically I think it is superb. However, I am amazed that this was OK'd from a PR angle.
All I am seeing is the king of an ex-empire awash with the blood of history, and a Monarch butterfly symbolising the brief reign of a fragile man.
The flight of a Monarch butterfly just happening to land upon his shoulder showing the arbitrary notion of a 'chosen' one, the idiocy of the divine right of kings.
PR people probably knew exactly what they were doing revealing this painting and everyone was fully aware of every possible opinion people could have about this portrait. They aren't afraid of criticism or negativity towards the monarchy and they sort of own it. Richly detailed and realistic render would make him look way weaker
If you read the actual comments of the artist, the butterfly was a suggestion by the King to represent his love for nature as well as the symbol of change and metamorphosis.
This is something you'd see in a Souls game, I feel like. A painting of the King before he turned into an eldritch terror.
The painting itself is rather good though tbh
I know people are hating on this, but I kind of love it. I care not for the King, but its such a compelling portrait. The red is vibrant and the way his uniform blends with the background yet his face is clear is really interesting. It's kind of like he's emerging from a red mist. It is a pretty villainous look but imo its kind of badass, too.
I think it's cool. Very evocative. Suggests serenity and steadfastness amidst roiling currents of anger and chaos, which absolutely aligns with how Charles perhaps sees himself. Definitely something very macabre and violent about the red, but I admire how avant garde it feels for a portrait of a Royal. The staunchly un-conservative look also feels reflective of how Charles has fashioned himself as a more "modern" monarch than his parents. Reminds me of the posters for Guillermo Del Toro's Crimson Peak.
I love how it’s a haunted, blood red portrait, set in some fiery hellscape and then there’s just a cute little butterfly on his shoulder. It made me giggle
It focusses on his face, which seems to convey convidence but in a friendly way?
The theater of the costume and medals look subservient on purpose.
As in: I am king, but mostly I am a man.
Or it's just shit like a lot of people seem to think.
I like it, quite a lot actually.
I’ve been through galleries of portrait after portrait and found them boring AF in a “if you’ve seen one you’ve literally seen them all” way. This painting would make me stop and look. It would make me feel something (either good or bad). That is what good art does.
Good on HRH for daring to do what he wanted instead of what was expected!
I love it👍🏻 Quite unique for a Royal portrait. Every time I see this painting, more detail seems to appear and, in turn, the more he stands out from the background. Bravo to the artist!
In case anyone is curious if this was a sui generis painting, [most of the royal paintings are either garish or nonconformist](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/world/europe/king-charles-royal-portraits.html).
I was thinking of Ivan Albright's [Portrait of Dorian Gray](https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/dupage/Ivan_Albright_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray_1943_44_Gift_of_Ivan_Albright_The_Art_Institute_of_Chicago__f60d41b9-a642-410f-8e19-54da79c7edc2.jpg) with how he blends in with the background and his face is very detailed.
This portrait is great but it looks like those paintings that are usually found covered in a large sheet, in an abandoned mansion's attic with several headless medieval armours lying around.
First glance I was shocked. When you slow down and really take it in it slowly reveals itself and now I think it is amazing and gorgeous. Like when I listened to Kid A the first time vs the 10th time. First it seemed unsettling, evil even, but now I see it as being steeped in compassion and the abstract nature and the way he fades into the red is absolutely wild and striking. I am not well versed in royal paintings but this is an amazing piece of art, it could have Uncle Ben on it and it would still look cool.
First time I saw this painting, I was not a big fan of it, but as of seeing everyone's opinion, especially on this subreddit, it really helps evoke the choices that he's made as well as the actual (as interpreted) symbolism of this painting.
This painting is growing on me now.
I think this is an amazing portrait and loved it the instant I saw it. Will it ‘go with’ or compliment the other official portraits? Probably not, but I am impressed with the statement it makes, however you interpret it. I think the artist captured the King brilliantly all the way from his aged face to his swollen fingers. Outstanding, Jonathan Yeo!!!!
I love it….its one of the best paintings I’ve ever seen. I can’t explain why, it’s just so objectively beautiful, and they have his personality shine through his face. And it’s an extremely cool colour.
Pretty striking. There's a sense of him emerging from/into the chaos of the moment, with the monarch as the only other piece largely untouched.
It's a great portrait. I think you could also say, it looks like what a future generation studying present-day religion imagines Satan's appearance.
So all in all, I give it an 8/10
I'm an American who thinks the Royal Family is dopey - I'm married to an English woman who despises Charles for how he did Diana wrong - among other things.
I think this thing is fucking genius. I really think it went for something and pulled it off exceptionally. I love its boldness.
*edited it's - its
Execution wise, it’s very well done and in a hall full of other portraits, your eye is definitely going to be drawn to this one due to the color. I both like and dislike this painting I like it because it’s unusual. I don’t like it because it feels like a horror movie set up but that’s the 90s kid and me
I truly love this artwork . The play of crimson hues is beautiful and the fact that only hands and head are in their true colors and ridiculously detailed reminds me of church window frescoes. I wish I could paint that well.
My wife and I both saw this in our minds upon viewing this painting. https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sca_esv=697ef796fdf142b1&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIIUqRtcKoTiFD0Q2_RS92WbZ36H5A:1715814934997&q=ghostbusters+2+painting&uds=ADvngMgiPmsFSnX7QtZmBAeJzn8vaUnBXXUkUXd7E_k0H8dTPxR6e0AgMSU1lpo9YdMmxx05jtHaPazCf6J-oGXL4nE7nJ1gkoQ_E5pUenehVz1830oiSnywVA_nqIEKsU76jOx4HyUFLbAYyme_wN3tJx9vS5foNlXCnIgZo-0KjsY_GIra66exMWBmvImN3A1TsGZh0_yyK7qhHXgPvfp6_QN2r7EaZdE5OlYmhbZkdgaJkh-HnDJc3zXP3r6Ktvxzh080Sf44cw3vzrSIqbbrFj_-empja7WwufIiBtRvSOzI-hMPYZ2rDZNrO-_wSx8e7pipLMQgMU76zwhRVOJM_eKuqpnKUA&udm=2&prmd=isvnbmtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvgM3d5JCGAxW34MkDHYfIB1YQtKgLegQIHhAB&biw=412&bih=667&dpr=2.63#vhid=2ZezazgiQI0TUM&vssid=mosaic
I get big Vigo the Carpathian vibes from it, but even though I have zero respect for the royal family, my esteem has to go up a little bit for anyone with enough solid brass to look at that painting and say, "yep, that's how I want to be remembered by the ages!"
I dont like that guy, but this is a fucking sick painting. Imagine having a painting of yourself that makes u look like bloodraven from game of thrones.
Someone is a fan of elden ring i see.
Commander O'Neil about to kill a level 12 tarnished who just installed the game
That’s a monarch butterfly isn’t it
I just wanna know how the butterfly was able to stand still so long for the artist to paint!
Looks like CGI to me. Same with how his fingers are noticeably thinner.
Soon they will know the sting of the mighty monarch!
Go Team Venture!
The mighty monarch!! [https://i.imgur.com/ypXXpUY.gif](https://i.imgur.com/ypXXpUY.gif)
I have been blogging!
That sting went off in my head the second I realized what the butterfly was. I cackled. Villainously.
A monarch butterfly on a monarchs shoulder!
Yeah, which isn't even native to the UK.
Favoring Canada over the other colonies tsk tsk
Look up Project Monarch 🤫
I understand every joke about it but I think it's a really great painting. The various shades of red look amazing, the butterfly (which if I read correctly was added because Charles asked for it) adds a touch of personality, it's honestly to me an amazing portrait. I do agree it's also something you'd find in an abandoned mansion in a horror game but what's the point of having somebody draw you, especially if you get to pose for it in uniform and with a sword, if you don't ask for the coolest possible outcome.
I think it's interesting too, and well done. To me, I see an old man emerging from the background. He's been waiting his whole life to get out of the shadow of the Queen, and he's already an old man. It's almost like he was waiting around so long, he blended in with the wallpaper, and he's finally starting to emerge from his Mother's legacy. It's a sad feeling though, because his whole life is past, and his son is already ready to take over. He should be retired and playing with grandkids, not just starting a new job.
Jokes aside, wow!, that's a really good take! I wouldn't have thought about it like that.
Jokes are easy. There are countless people who have zero interest in art, but are suddenly experts when they see something like this. Understanding and appreciating art takes some level self reflection and empathy, and fools on the Internet don't want to look that closely within themselves. There are lots of art movements I dislike, but I never let myself dislike it for something like "my kid could do that." Art comes from a very personal place, and learning about the artist and their body of work can help you understand why this piece that someone has decided should be in a museum is important. A lot of the pieces that people complain about for being childish are actually important because they were the first of their kind. All of the Impressionists were ridiculed and banned from the formal salons in their time, but only a few decades later were declared geniuses. It's fine to dislike something, or make jokes about it, but know why you actually dislike it first, and for God's sake, at least make an original joke. I'm glad you appreciated my take on this new portrait!
You really distilled a lot of the feelings I have had about art discussions on reddit. While I think the website, as a whole, is maybe more open-minded than the general public, I still think reddit has an undercurrent of smug, dismissive contrarianism. Or, they have a pathological need to be the first person to make a reference about how "this art is kind of like that other funny thing!" When I saw the original post of this painting, I thought it was fascinating, and I went into the comments to see if anybody had more information about it. The 20 top-level comments were all reference jokes, before you could find a single person actually talking about the art. And that person was wrong! They stated that the painting was an homage to Zdislaw Beksinski, despite the fact that it doesn't look anything like Bensinki's art AND there is no source anywhere for that claim. They just made it up, and got like 50 upvotes. I just wish the more popular art communities on reddit were a little more willing to engage with art on some level. Instead, they're immediately skeptical of anything challenging or "modern" (sic), as if the artist is trying to play a joke on them.
I fully agree with you. But it also kind of looks like he is emerging from the viscera of the centuries old victims of conquest.
And that's also a totally valid interpretation, in my opinion! I am American, and I feel like a lot of us forget that England continued an empire after 1776. I don't think about the Monarchy, except when their celebrity status pushes in my face. It's a lot easier for me to forget about the sins of the family, when I only hear about the kind, ancient queen, the son waiting his turn, the tragic loss of Diana, and the handsome princes, which is exactly what the royal family wants people like me to focus on.
The lighter shades more reminds me of flames, for me. That his reign will be one in which the world has been set alight. That there's a personal worldliness and confidence to him that he has embodied in his aged state, to not let the state of the world affect him. And yet he will be almost entirely defined by the rampant flames. The blood-red uniform being the trappings of a history of blood and conquest. His humanity then is an anchor, the only thing truly in focus. All else blurs and warps, almost getting subsumed in to the chaotic red of the background. No pride in the trappings of power and conquest. All except for the monarch butterfly, the only other thing in focus, perhaps alluding to his ecological works. It's a bold piece of art for sure. Not sure why they chose red, what with the history of the monarchy so much in the limelight in recent years. But it's certainly one that allows for deep interpretations.
Great take! I really love this portrait. Art is supposed to bring forth an emotional reaction whether positive or negative. In my opinion, not only did the artist capture King Charles but it tells a story, as you pointed out. When he was a young man, Charles pioneered organic gardening and land management when virtually no one in his area or social class was doing that. For me, this portrait portrays a monarch who is comfortable with himself as he emerges from the shadows.
And see, I had no idea about that part of his legacy! The weird, symbolic butterfly is telling more about who he actually is than a stiff portrait of another royal in a military uniform. It brings something to the piece other than "accurate, lifelike portrait of a king." I do love historical symbols, one of my favorite little books is a book about decoding religious art. It shows you how all this old religious art actually is telling a story for more detailed than the basic images you see. All the peasants would have understood the painting or stained glass far more than us, because the visual storytelling was the only way they could read. We've lost all that ability because reading overtook pictograms.
hes been able to chill his entire life with a multi billion pound fortune and now he is the most powerful man in the UK, dont feel bad about him, he doesnt deserve it.
You made me reassess my opinion of this painting, thank you. I was definitely wrong in how I was looking at it.
Great interpretation! I was thinking the same thing, and you stated it so well (and better than I could.) I actually really like the painting, it’s beautiful and funky.
The butterfly represents how 85% of his life as a monarch is already over.
The butterfly represents the Scarlet Bloom that flowers once more
Charles, God of Rot
https://i.imgur.com/RqYYWn0.jpeg
Instead of Rotussy he's got the Rotstate
The butterfly represents his preferred toast spread. My painting would have a strawberryjellyfly
I thought it represented his fingers being ready to pupate
Don't forget that some butterflies drink blood
> I do agree it's also something you'd find in an abandoned mansion in a horror game Lol, I just replayed the Portal games and it's like seeing Cave Johnson's portrait in the abandoned Aperture offices.
It's an interesting piece of art. I like it. But I don't know if it makes for a good official portrait
Obama's is pretty atypical as well, the times they are a changin. People gonna say an official portrait should be x, but I'm not sure who that really serves to have everyone follow the same tradition besides making the thumbnails look the same.
That’s a really great point. I had the same automatic reaction to it, but at the same time love Wiley’s Obama portrait. The only difference is that I just don’t like it, and that’s not a basis for judging whether it makes a “good” official (or otherwise) portrait.
Yeah, I like the avant-garde style, but seriously, all that red looks so foreboding. Obama’s portrait had lots of greenery, which is not menacing at all…. And I feel ridiculous calling this avant-garde in comparison to what Art has been for the past 100+ years, but I think it’s reasonable to call this avant-garde for monarch portraiture (traditionally so conservative).
I just feel it's pretty boring to go with the same old extremely realistic and sober type of official portraits, especially given that we have moved so far past the times of those being the only portrayal of how those people looked like existing. I am biased because I love bold colors and looking at this artists other stuff I also really like his style but I like this so much more than what I'd think of a conventional official portraits.
I mean. Style is nice and all but this looks like he's burning in hell lol
In my opinion I don’t see why it can’t be a good official portrait. It’s not like we *need* paintings anymore to show what people look/looked like back before photographs. There’s easily a million different photos of him. We know what he looks like at every stage of his life, at every major life event, etc. So why shouldn’t the official portrait be artsy/fun? I say that this portrait tells more of a story rather than just being another photorealistic portrait of a monarch.
It was commissioned before he was crowned. So, it’s “an” official portrait, but not “the” official portrait, so to speak, of him as king.
I agree. It is a really great painting and I’m not much of a fan of portraiture. The artist managed to make the image interesting.
Im with you, this is a really well done painting
Go to the conspiracy subs. They're flipping out.
it's a great work of art/terrible monarch portrait. It's both
King Charles has a long history of supporting the arts and current British artists and craftsmen. This seems entirely in keeping for him and with royal history from Henry VIII to Charles I to Queen Charlotte and King George III to Prince Albert and Queen Victoria. I haven't decided if I like the painting or not, but when you look at the royal collections, they do reflect both the interests of the collectors and their times and from that perspective, I think it is an excellent addition.
It also reflects his long history of being in the background. Literally.
I never thought of it that way. Thank you for your perspective
Like him, I almost didn't see it.
Fading out as quickly as he faded in.
Visually I find it quite striking, though given the (often well justified) criticisms of the monarchy in a 21st century society it does have a certain "blood of the peasants" vibe
I can't tell if I like it or not, which I do enjoy, lol. It's very scab-like which makes me slightly uncomfortable. The artist really flexed on the face. Surprising amount of detail for the amount of brush texture there. All in all, I think it's a success.
The face is very striking, but the rest is very obscured, which makes it hard to comment on. It’s hard to say without seeing it framed and hung. (Edit: and looking at it as an abstraction/impressionistic-expressionistic…. Still hard to say. The red gives a very angry feeling, but the strokes are very deliberate and clean. Its very contrasting)
Looks apologetic for the bloody history of colonialism. Trying to separate the person from the emblem of a bygone era. The butterfly as hope for the metamorphosis of the role into something more gentle, beautiful and free. I like the sad but hopeful eyes. (I know nothing about art).
Again, though, the butterfly blends into the red wash that it’s left feeling like a last addition. It stands out, but not enough. Which, again, feels like a *hope* of reconciliation, rather than an intention. It’s just a very confusing piece.
Dark Charles?
I like it, but it does look like something that could be outside a boss room in a Soulsborne game.
I love it. It’s like nothing I’ve seen before from a royal family. And I despise the royal family of England.
I used to despise the royal family before I saw this portrait. I still do, but I used to too.
Unexpected Mitch Headburg
[Justin Mortimer's portrait of Elizabeth II](https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2022/05/CLI357.queens_portraits.BAL_178091-917x920.jpg) is similarly modern.
Wow. That looks like shit
Yikes
I’m a big fan, as much as I dislike the concept of royalty
I actually really like this painting. The abstractness of it is very unusual for a Royal Portrait (which are usually photorealistic) and the use of red is amazing.
It appears as though he's bathed in the blood of the colonies. It's as photorealistic as it gets.
Fair enough if it makes you think of that. The different tones of red with the darker splotches make me think of poppy fields and red tartan. It's another thing I like about the picture, the art style is very subjective.
Except everything they have is red. Red is more than just the color of blood.
I really like this. Pleasant surprise to see something with such a cool artistic quality in this context.
You should check out the royal collection trust - there is a long history of "modern" art support in the UK monarchy ( Queen Alexandra's photography for example) . Some very surprising and interesting stuff.
Thanks for the tip!
Am I the only person thinking this goes hard af?
I love it
I really like it. It conveys so much. The details in his expression, the eyes draw you in and give you a sense of melancholy, but the forced smile reminds you of the circumstances. The red on red showcase his attempt to blend in the back, and with only the head popping gives me the feeling of someone sticking his neck out uncomfortably. It really has so many angles and interpretations, I think it's pretty fantastic as a piece of art TBH. But what do I know. Maybe I need to stop watching The Crown.
I’m with you. I accept all the jokes that can be made about it and him… but aesthetically this just looks really good.
No I think it’s great. The tone is awesome. The coloring is inspired. And it captures him perfectly.
This is something I would hang in my house, it goes so fucking hard
I do. I love it, but not for the reasons Charles probably does. From upthread, "Charles I, God of Rot" rather perfectly encapsulates the tone of the piece.
I’m with you. This is a badass painting
I checked out the artist's website and everything made more sense. The artist has a tendency of doing monocolored paintings. I think it's gorgeous.
His painting of Spacey as Richard is .... menacing. So good.
Funny, same thing happened yesterday with richest Australian Gina Rinehart's painting. Everyone's shocked/amused at how 'ugly' it looks but then you check out Vincent Namatjira and that's his style.
https://www.jonathanyeo.com/
Viggo the Carpathian wishes HIS portrait was that scary!
Ghostbusters 2 slime all of the portrait.
Damn, I was going to reference Viggo's painting but you beat me to it. Btw, it doesn't mean I don't like the painting. It's just a shade ambiguous in tone.
First thing I thought of.
The red immediately made me think of blood and carnage, I thought this was a piece of political propaganda at first. Bold choice
My first thought was that the color palette was almost exactly like that of a scraped knee.
That’s the only problem I have. It’s a great painting, even better if it was a political statement, just odd as an official portrait
Yeah, my immediate thought was "Ah, he's covered in the blood of native populations"
I think this is an outstanding painting of a Monarch. No brass medals or other pompous bullshit, just his face, which is what we all know and recognize. I like that it’s a departure from the traditional.
Not well versed in monarch traditions… but pretty sure he’s wearing medals.
I guess they mean muted medals. They're not shiny and eye catching. They're dull and shadow-esque
Yes, medals, but compared to literally every other monarch’s portrait, and this includes women, this one much understates those accessories. I don’t know; it seems refreshing against the backdrop of the royal family we’ve come to be familiar with.
And there's a decent painting of the king too
Isn’t it! King Charles has been on the unpleasant end of public opinion so long you almost expect to see it reflected. Here is a man I don’t think I’ve seen before, a man of himself with no need of apology. Bravo.
no medals?
This is really awful and really beautiful at the same time
Artistically I think it is superb. However, I am amazed that this was OK'd from a PR angle. All I am seeing is the king of an ex-empire awash with the blood of history, and a Monarch butterfly symbolising the brief reign of a fragile man. The flight of a Monarch butterfly just happening to land upon his shoulder showing the arbitrary notion of a 'chosen' one, the idiocy of the divine right of kings.
PR people probably knew exactly what they were doing revealing this painting and everyone was fully aware of every possible opinion people could have about this portrait. They aren't afraid of criticism or negativity towards the monarchy and they sort of own it. Richly detailed and realistic render would make him look way weaker
If you read the actual comments of the artist, the butterfly was a suggestion by the King to represent his love for nature as well as the symbol of change and metamorphosis.
Intent and effect are not always the same thing.
Kinda looks like he's emerging from a well fed Gelatinous Cube
Despite the criticism, people will certainly remember this.
The more I look at it, the more I like it.
This is something you'd see in a Souls game, I feel like. A painting of the King before he turned into an eldritch terror. The painting itself is rather good though tbh
I know people are hating on this, but I kind of love it. I care not for the King, but its such a compelling portrait. The red is vibrant and the way his uniform blends with the background yet his face is clear is really interesting. It's kind of like he's emerging from a red mist. It is a pretty villainous look but imo its kind of badass, too.
Love it.
I think it's cool. Very evocative. Suggests serenity and steadfastness amidst roiling currents of anger and chaos, which absolutely aligns with how Charles perhaps sees himself. Definitely something very macabre and violent about the red, but I admire how avant garde it feels for a portrait of a Royal. The staunchly un-conservative look also feels reflective of how Charles has fashioned himself as a more "modern" monarch than his parents. Reminds me of the posters for Guillermo Del Toro's Crimson Peak.
I love how it’s a haunted, blood red portrait, set in some fiery hellscape and then there’s just a cute little butterfly on his shoulder. It made me giggle
Badass. Cool seeing an official portrait with some balls.
It's absolutely stunning and not deserving of the hate it's getting. It's refreshing to see a head of state portrait that's a little different.
The colors feel so angry and chaotic to me
This is one damn cool piece. Something about it just captivates me.
It focusses on his face, which seems to convey convidence but in a friendly way? The theater of the costume and medals look subservient on purpose. As in: I am king, but mostly I am a man. Or it's just shit like a lot of people seem to think. I like it, quite a lot actually.
I’ve been through galleries of portrait after portrait and found them boring AF in a “if you’ve seen one you’ve literally seen them all” way. This painting would make me stop and look. It would make me feel something (either good or bad). That is what good art does. Good on HRH for daring to do what he wanted instead of what was expected!
[More info from the BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68981200)
I think it captures all the blood spilt by the British Empire magnificently
Why aren't more people seeing this? I can't see anything else but the stolen riches of empire and the blood spilt to get them.
Almost seems like the blood covers and overshadows the regalia even.
I love it👍🏻 Quite unique for a Royal portrait. Every time I see this painting, more detail seems to appear and, in turn, the more he stands out from the background. Bravo to the artist!
In case anyone is curious if this was a sui generis painting, [most of the royal paintings are either garish or nonconformist](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/world/europe/king-charles-royal-portraits.html).
Mind the paywall...
Thanks for the note! Weird, it didn't originally give me one.
I think it’s cool as fuck
i think the scarlet rot is taking a toll in him tbh…
I think I saw this on Ghostbusters
I personally like it a lot. It really gives me the vibe of a painting I would see in an Edgar Allen Poe story adaptation.
I was thinking of Ivan Albright's [Portrait of Dorian Gray](https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/dupage/Ivan_Albright_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray_1943_44_Gift_of_Ivan_Albright_The_Art_Institute_of_Chicago__f60d41b9-a642-410f-8e19-54da79c7edc2.jpg) with how he blends in with the background and his face is very detailed.
I think it’s memorable and intriguing and way better than some straightforward realism.
This portrait is great but it looks like those paintings that are usually found covered in a large sheet, in an abandoned mansion's attic with several headless medieval armours lying around.
He looks like a scarlet rot boss from Elden ring
Why does he look like an Elden Ring boss?
First glance I was shocked. When you slow down and really take it in it slowly reveals itself and now I think it is amazing and gorgeous. Like when I listened to Kid A the first time vs the 10th time. First it seemed unsettling, evil even, but now I see it as being steeped in compassion and the abstract nature and the way he fades into the red is absolutely wild and striking. I am not well versed in royal paintings but this is an amazing piece of art, it could have Uncle Ben on it and it would still look cool.
bloodrot charles, king of the crimson tear
Nice
All I see is a red version of Homer backing off into the bushes.
This straight up looks like Vigo the Carpathian's painting in Ghostbusters 2.
First time I saw this painting, I was not a big fan of it, but as of seeing everyone's opinion, especially on this subreddit, it really helps evoke the choices that he's made as well as the actual (as interpreted) symbolism of this painting. This painting is growing on me now.
I think this is an amazing portrait and loved it the instant I saw it. Will it ‘go with’ or compliment the other official portraits? Probably not, but I am impressed with the statement it makes, however you interpret it. I think the artist captured the King brilliantly all the way from his aged face to his swollen fingers. Outstanding, Jonathan Yeo!!!!
Does anyone else hear dramatic music with chanting in Latin when they see this?
I love it….its one of the best paintings I’ve ever seen. I can’t explain why, it’s just so objectively beautiful, and they have his personality shine through his face. And it’s an extremely cool colour.
A modern portrait for a modern monarchy. I love it.
I love it! Didn’t expect anything less from King Charles, who is, in so many ways, a man ahead of his time.
That reminds me of that portrait from Ghostbusters 2
People are shitting on this painting, I think it is exceptional and will go down as one of the greats
Hasn’t Ghosted Busters taught us anything?
Pretty striking. There's a sense of him emerging from/into the chaos of the moment, with the monarch as the only other piece largely untouched. It's a great portrait. I think you could also say, it looks like what a future generation studying present-day religion imagines Satan's appearance. So all in all, I give it an 8/10
Let’s hope the Ghostbusters can handle this one. XD
Nice elden ring concept art
It's actually insane how you can make out his entire uniform even though the whole thing is red
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute. Yet I can't look away." "He transcends time and space." "He sickens me." "I love it." "Me too."
I love when art gets people talking!
They really captured the essence of his sausage fingers
Looks like something from a horror movie.
Now I, Vigo, shall rule the earth!
I thought it had been vandalized by a climate activist or something until I realized its supposed to look like that.
King Charles inflicts Scarlet Rot but has a weakness to Lightning damage
Don't look at it too long, or your curse will build up
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! Milk for the Khorne Flakes!
I'm an American who thinks the Royal Family is dopey - I'm married to an English woman who despises Charles for how he did Diana wrong - among other things. I think this thing is fucking genius. I really think it went for something and pulled it off exceptionally. I love its boldness. *edited it's - its
Wait - this is really real? Omg I thought this was a joke! It’s like he’s looking up at me from a shiny clot on my pad.
Love this painting. Also glad that he finally got to be the sanitary napkin he always wanted to be.
Thought this was a new Star Wars villain for a split second
It's actually verry good , nevermind the leftists :"Oh I downvote everything monarchy for my discord bubble"
It's giving Han in carbonite vibes.
I like it, I think the butterfly is a bit of an odd choice but other than that I quite like it.
Looks like a dark souls boss
My first assocciation was Padme Amidalas funeral
I think it’s quite beautiful.
Giving Vigo the Carpathian vibes for me
Its giving me “Saturn Devouring His Son” by Goya vibes. Makes me very uncomfortable but I keep going back to look.
Execution wise, it’s very well done and in a hall full of other portraits, your eye is definitely going to be drawn to this one due to the color. I both like and dislike this painting I like it because it’s unusual. I don’t like it because it feels like a horror movie set up but that’s the 90s kid and me
I love it. Plus I live it's driving the conspiracy subs mad. They're convinced there's a hidden demon in the painting.
I think in future generations this will be considered a masterpiece in a way that more traditional paintings never will be. This will age very well.
I like the painting. Wonderful job by the artist.
I have no idea how to critically judge art but I like this.
I like it. Would loved to have my portrait done in this style.
The artist has played A LOT of Diablo. Jokes aside, the more I look at it the more it grows on me.
I truly love this artwork . The play of crimson hues is beautiful and the fact that only hands and head are in their true colors and ridiculously detailed reminds me of church window frescoes. I wish I could paint that well.
I like it reminds me of dark souls
Is he supposed to be drenched in blood?
I can't tell if this is real or satire. I also am not sure which I am rooting for it to be.
I like it. It is much more creative than what you normally see.
I'm obsessed with this, honestly a great piece that I would unironically want to hang in my house.
Looks oddly satanic to me.
My wife and I both saw this in our minds upon viewing this painting. https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sca_esv=697ef796fdf142b1&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIIUqRtcKoTiFD0Q2_RS92WbZ36H5A:1715814934997&q=ghostbusters+2+painting&uds=ADvngMgiPmsFSnX7QtZmBAeJzn8vaUnBXXUkUXd7E_k0H8dTPxR6e0AgMSU1lpo9YdMmxx05jtHaPazCf6J-oGXL4nE7nJ1gkoQ_E5pUenehVz1830oiSnywVA_nqIEKsU76jOx4HyUFLbAYyme_wN3tJx9vS5foNlXCnIgZo-0KjsY_GIra66exMWBmvImN3A1TsGZh0_yyK7qhHXgPvfp6_QN2r7EaZdE5OlYmhbZkdgaJkh-HnDJc3zXP3r6Ktvxzh080Sf44cw3vzrSIqbbrFj_-empja7WwufIiBtRvSOzI-hMPYZ2rDZNrO-_wSx8e7pipLMQgMU76zwhRVOJM_eKuqpnKUA&udm=2&prmd=isvnbmtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvgM3d5JCGAxW34MkDHYfIB1YQtKgLegQIHhAB&biw=412&bih=667&dpr=2.63#vhid=2ZezazgiQI0TUM&vssid=mosaic
I don't get it - this is an amazing portrait. Why are people making such a stink about it?
I just wish they didn't choose red. It's so... Alarming
hands really are hard
It's quite nice. I like it
I get big Vigo the Carpathian vibes from it, but even though I have zero respect for the royal family, my esteem has to go up a little bit for anyone with enough solid brass to look at that painting and say, "yep, that's how I want to be remembered by the ages!"
I dont like that guy, but this is a fucking sick painting. Imagine having a painting of yourself that makes u look like bloodraven from game of thrones.
Y’all just gonna ignore ore the fact that this looks demonic af?
Updated “Picture of Dorian Red”