{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

John Redmann January 11, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Is there any point where this could cross from ‘picture making’ (to borrow a phrase from R. Hughes) into art or is Chris Lloyd being overly generous out fear of the royal family?

Reply

nonono January 17, 2013 at 12:03 pm

What do you imagine the House of Windsor could possibly do?

Reply

John Redmann January 18, 2013 at 1:14 pm

It was a joke that plays on the power of royal families, back in the day they could have your head… (again that was a joke, I think today all they can do is fire you and have you jailed)

I think his review of the piece was overly generous. I think it looks like an awkward portrait; I applaud the fact that it doesn’t look exactly like every previous royal portrait but it isn’t anything really noteworthy.

Lets look at it another way, when you compare this to some of the best portraits the world has seen (eg Mona Lisa or Adell Blach Bauer), how does it measure up? Not even close. Moving down a teir, portraits by Andy Warhol or Chuck Close, how does it measure up here? Again it falls pretty short.

I’m not implying that you can pull out a ‘ruler’ and measure the quality of a work of art (although you could easily argue that value is a pretty good indicator of quality or worth to humanity), but I am saying this is just a painting. it’s probably okay but nothing noteworthy. It doesn’t jump out as being some hyper-realist breakthrough or add a new dimension to Kate.

I feel that Chris is being overly generous with his commentary. I get it, he has a job to do and he works for the royal family, hence my joke.

Reply

Jesse Edwards January 13, 2013 at 12:50 am

impressive

Reply

Brian Sherwin January 14, 2013 at 9:48 am

The Queen had a pistol at his back… she can time travel — AND can turn invisible. I think she may have been Jack the Ripper as well.

Reply

alix finkelstein January 16, 2013 at 12:35 pm

I like it. It’s weird and a little creepy.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: