 |
|

01-22-2013, 08:16 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,548
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Poor baby. Artists need to grow thick skins in order to survive. Maybe he will do a better job the next time someone commissions him to paint their portrait.
|
He has thick skin and he expected some criticism but the criticism he received over this painting really was over the top and it did turn personal.
|

01-22-2013, 08:23 PM
|
|
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Campbelltown, Australia
Posts: 97
|
|
|
The Duchess looks 50 in this portrait? You obviously have a different idea of 50 yo women than I (speaking as a 52 yo woman). I think that it is a nice, relatively realistic image of a 30 year old. She looks no older than my 28 -30 yo nieces.
Have we all become so used to photos in magazines touched up to within an inch of their existence, that we've forgotten what 20yo, 30yo and 40yo looks like in truth?
|

01-22-2013, 09:05 PM
|
 |
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 195
|
|
Quote:
|
I don't like the amount of abuse leveled at this painter, either. It's gotten too personal and vicious.
|
This sort of thing would disuade any other potential portrait-of-Catherine painters out there.
I myself thought it was painted beautifully, and looked very much like her; and speaking as an artist myself who has painted portraits, that's very hard to do. Some of The Queen's portraits over the years didn't really look like her. I'm sure he painted to his very best standard and ability, and that's all we can ask of anyone.
|

01-22-2013, 09:07 PM
|
 |
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 195
|
|
Quote:
|
Have we all become so used to photos in magazines touched up to within an inch of their existence, that we've forgotten what 20yo, 30yo and 40yo looks like in truth?
|
So true. I remember even in the Diana days, the whites of her eyes on magazine covers would be brightened and the slightest blemish removed (as could be seen with other versions of the same photo).
|

01-22-2013, 09:13 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,548
|
|
|
Then again, I think when you are a good artist, leader or whatever, you will invite criticism. I think Paul is doing a great thing by being strong and standing by his work. I think Catherine and William loved the painting and I think their satisfaction was very important to Paul and NPG.
|

01-22-2013, 09:19 PM
|
|
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Campbelltown, Australia
Posts: 97
|
|
|
There was a better example than that has stuck with me becausecthe touching up was so extreme. Way back when Prince Edward was married, 2 different magazines carried the same coloured photo on their jackets. In one magazine, the Countess had a fine smattering of freckles, on the other she didn't. Same photo, one copy almost natural, the other very artificial.
Re Diana and the Duchess of York. In the 80s, there was a sketch comedy programme here. One of the skits used to be about the editor and art editor of a fictitious women's magazine and how they were going to manipulate the image of the celeb of the week. Make Diana taller and slimmer, and Sarah shorter etc.
|

01-25-2013, 03:17 AM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 1,891
|
|
|
Hopefully the next person who actually paints a portrait of Kate will actually do a good job. I'm so tired of defenders of this mans bad work trying to make out that the only reason people dislike the photo is because it's not a picture. There have been much better portraits of other royals that looked fantastic, one that immediately comes to mind is one of Princess Mary.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
|

01-25-2013, 06:48 AM
|
|
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Campbelltown, Australia
Posts: 97
|
|
|
I'm confused. Is it a painting or a photo? Also Xenia, art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. FTR, an image reproduced on a medium e.g. canvas, paper etc by definition is a picture.
|

01-26-2013, 02:45 AM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 1,891
|
|
|
And here comes ten never ending comment "beauty is I the eye of the beholder" trying to stop those who don't find something beautiful from having an opinion. Well this beholder thinks Kate is pretty and her portrait is a travesty.
Good gracious this board is full of people commenting on every aspect of Kate and every other royal lady; from her clothes to her hair to her wedding veil. Has it ever crossed the minds of those defending this portrait that some people just simply don't like it and it has nothing to do with photoshop magazine pictures etc.
The best portrait I have seen is of Princess Mary of Denmark in the blue dress. Not a photo but a portrait like Kate's only much better done. I'd post a photo but I'd prob get in trouble plus u've prob already seen it.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
|

01-26-2013, 03:08 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 306
|
|
|
I don't like that portrait - it has a mean expression in the face - My dislike has nothing to do with 'blemishes' or looking tired or what ever ...
|

01-26-2013, 03:46 AM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,548
|
|
|
I think it's pretty much accepted that not everyone will like the portrait. The artist was treated pretty badly though.
|

01-26-2013, 08:04 PM
|
|
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Campbelltown, Australia
Posts: 97
|
|
|
Well Xenia, why is your opinion of the portrait the correct one ,while mine is not? We obviously have different perceptions and sense of aesthetics. I happen to like this rendering of the Duchess' likeness, you don't. That's the end of it. We have different taste in style.
|

01-26-2013, 11:40 PM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 1,891
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillian
Well Xenia, why is your opinion of the portrait the correct one ,while mine is not? We obviously have different perceptions and sense of aesthetics. I happen to like this rendering of the Duchess' likeness, you don't. That's the end of it. We have different taste in style.
|
Where exactly in any of my posts did I say that my opinion was the right one? I've posted numerous times in this thread so I will leave it to you to go through them and find where I were said my opinion was right. I will never understand why certain people on this board feel the need to make up lies about what other posters have said or are feeling.
If you like the portrait fine! But don't belittle the opinions of those who don't.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
|

01-29-2013, 07:46 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 283
|
|
|
I actually liked the portrait and thought the likeness was good. I feel bad because of the terrible things said about the artist. Press are vicious.
|

02-01-2013, 06:04 AM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 724
|
|
|
__________________
“Yes, well, I really hope I can make a difference, even in the smallest way. I am looking forward to helping as much as I can.”
Catherine Middleton
|

02-01-2013, 11:07 AM
|
 |
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,057
|
|
|
I've seen accounts where copies of the POW portraits were auctioned for charity at the request of His Royal Highness. Perhaps that had been thought of for this case. Just a guess.
|

02-02-2013, 06:28 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,685
|
|
|
I kinda wish he hadn't said anything about the alternative painting now I kinda wanna see it!
|

02-02-2013, 06:33 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 4,642
|
|
Yes, that's such a tantalizing statement. Put that painting out there and show it to us!
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
|

02-02-2013, 07:09 PM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 574
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baroness of Books
Yes, that's such a tantalizing statement. Put that painting out there and show it to us! 
|
I assume eventually both paintings will be hung side by side in the NPG. It may take awhile, but I do think that we will see them both.
|

02-02-2013, 07:13 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 4,642
|
|
|
^^^Probably when all this furor wears down.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
|
 |
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional Links |
|
|
|