Critics divided over Duchess of Cambridge portrait

New Posts

Reader

Reader

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
95
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19250445&ps=967&cat=&cps=0&lang=en

LONDON (AP) — The Duchess of Cambridge seems to like her first official portrait, which is lucky for the artist. Many critics don't.............

Shortly after the portrait was unveiled Friday at the National Portrait Gallery in London, critics began grousing.

"It's a great, great opportunity missed," British Art Journal editor Robin Simon said. "The best thing you can say about it is that she doesn't actually look like that."

More at link.....

This is pic with article....

picture.php
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/11/duchess-of-cambridge-portrait#

This article has a picture without the people in front and a video with the artist, Paul Emsley.

Quotes:

The duchess had slipped in with her husband before the gallery opened – mindful of the media scrum at the actual unveiling, which included television crews from Germany and Russia. "It's just amazing, I thought it was brilliant," she said.............

Experts were divided. The art critic Waldemar Januszczak was "disappointed". The duchess had been "let down" by "another pretty ordinary painting of a royal of the sort that we've really been churning out for the last few hundred years in Britain". The eyes lacked "sparkle" and "there's something rather dour about the face," he told BBC News. Robin Simon, British Art Journal editor, said simply it was "a rotten portrait".
Click to expand...
 
I think it does look like her...what am I missing...
 
When I saw that thing (and before knowing critics were divided), I thought it was not flattering at all.
 
It has its dark charms - part classical, part what might be called mock-classical (think the 'Twilight' series). But also it looks sort of like it might have been hanging in a room with a large fireplace for a few centuries, and thus could stand a cleaning.
 
That can't be a real smile. Well, maybe the "beginning" of a smile, before it fully blooms. Or it looks like someone who is trying to suppress a smile.

And her eyes are pretty dead.

Very unflattering to such an otherwise beautiful, vibrant woman.

But maybe it has to do with palace protocol, and all that jazz.
 
Agreed - somehow the artist managed to completely eliminate Kate's prettiness.
 
I think she looks quite pretty in it. It's an antidote to the flash and the glare of the tabloid photos and the repetition ad nauseum of those images.
 
I love the portrait. She looks very natural. I love the pursed lips. It is as someone above said Mona-Lisa-esque.
 
It does look very un-Diana-esque. Maybe that's the angle they were going for.

She's very beautiful; I just think this portrait doesn't do her justice.
 
Awful portrait.She looks old and bloated.The eyes look haggard.

Kate it Ain't!
 
It is my opinion that the portrait does not show Kate in the best of light. She is so much prettier then this portrait shows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 4,501 (members: 200, guests: 4,301)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
4,301
Total visitors
4,501
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,361
Messages
17,968,049
Members
228,758
Latest member
rarellano5280
Back
Top