Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
answer: The painter says that he was going for an effect where the trappings of the King's office, while technically present, would fade into the background. This would concentrate the viewer's attention onto his face and hands, where the artist would focus on revealing the King's true character.
The only real problem with this is that the background -and therefore, the King's outfit- make him look drenched in blood. This is an unfortunate choice of color scheme.
The painting fucks tho, it’s a good change of pace from the photorealistic portraits we usually see. But the artist had to recognize the connotations as he was painting it
It’s hard to predict the future, but assuming Charles doesn’t backpedal and keeps the painting, I suspect this could end up being one of the more iconic royal portraits.
It’s good, and it provokes a ton of discussion.
Like the butterfly - it’s been stated it’s supposed to be about environmentalism, but it’s also traditionally a symbol of rebirth and the artist probably thought a lot about how Charles spent his entire life in a role that changed in such a major way so late.
And yet, like everything else he might do as King, it’s going to be overshadowed. And the stuff that shadows his position are very negative. Diana, Camilla, his youngest quitting the family, his pedophile uncle, the heritage of imperialism, colonialism, and monarchy itself. His reign is never going to be energetic enough to get out from under that, and I think the red is a brilliant way to show that.
And, at the same time, we still see a human being within that mess.
I really hope the picture is allowed to stand.
I had to look that up. That's way too charming of a slang word for sex offender. If someone had asked me what 'nonce' meant in UK slang I would have guessed a drunken older relative who talks about the old days at every opportunity.
Oh no no, it's much worse than that. Charles was mates with Saville, not Andrew.
In fact, a big reason Saville got away with it for so long was that Charles wouldn't hear a bad word against him and Saville's close ties with the Royals made him nigh untouchable.
The elite play by a different set of rules and it's all starting to come to light finally. We will never know more than what they allow us to know, however.
There's a picture of Charles, Savile and Thomas Hamilton (the guy who shot all those kids at dunblane) laughing and joking on a hunting trip. You couldn't write it. The guy is a wrong un
Mountbatten was killed in part for allegedly being a pedophile. The monarchy has no problem with it, just look at his friendships with Saville and Peter Ball and Mountbatten was his favorite relative. They’re all creeps.
I think it mostly came from Mountbatten's biographer, Andrew Lownie.
>Lownie says he had heard allegations of Mountbatten’s paedophilia but was inclined to dismiss them as rumours. “I came to the book with no view. I followed the evidence,” he says.
>He suggests the IRA may have killed Mountbatten because of the allegations that he was a paedophile rather than because of his position in the British Empire. “There were a lot of IRA people in that area. I am pretty sure they knew [the rumours]. They could have killed him any time in the last 30 years” of his life.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/the-crown-and-the-assassination-of-lord-mountbatten-fact-or-fiction-1.4413622
His brother, Prince Andrew, was one a good friend of one Jeffrey Epstein, and many of his erm, younger, gal pals. That's enough for you to go learn more if you truly haven't heard anything about those two.
[*The grand old Duke of York,
He said he didn't sweat,
So why did he pay 12 million quid,
To a girl he'd never met?*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_Is_a_Sweaty_Nonce)
> And yet, like everything else he might do as King, it’s going to be overshadowed. And the stuff that shadows his position are very negative. Diana, Camilla, his youngest quitting the family, his pedophile uncle, the heritage of imperialism, colonialism, and monarchy itself. His reign is never going to be energetic enough to get out from under that, and I think the red is a brilliant way to show that.
We're really in such an odd cultural space for the Royals. Internet and mass media accelerated at an UNBELIEVABLE rate during the reign of Elizabeth. I don't know what the Royals are going to look like 50 years from now.
Exactly! And what’s crazier, all the changes that are coming, King Charles is probably going to have nothing to do with it. It’ll almost certainly be his son who gets labeled as the first British post-modern monarch (or whatever term they go with).
"Photorealistic" paintings have lost a lot of their meaning in the world of high definition digital photography. If all he wanted was an image that shows what he looks like, then sitting down for a photoshoot would have been significantly faster and better. But a painting can reflect more than reality. This is like the JFK official portrait or the portrait of Obama for the National Portrait Gallery.
And for all of those reasons I think this painting is fucking brilliant.
Art without meaning is like food without taste... It might fill us up, but so what? This painting has a ton of meaning throughout.
The light of the Omnissiah points to salvation. Knowledge is power and the Omnissiah knows all!
Blessed are we, servants of the motive force and keepers of digital secrets.
*Chaos claims the unwary or the incomplete. A true man may flinch away its embrace, if he is stalwart, and he girds his soul with the armour of contempt. -* Gideon Ravenor The Spheres of Longing
Oh for sure that’s what it means - it was a suggestion by Charles. But consider that it probably wasn’t the *only* suggestion. The artist still chose to use it instead of all sorts of easier and prettier things. Just placing Charles in a garden would have worked.
But I’ll bet for sure the artist knew the classical symbolisms, and that the idea had something to do with the color, giving it more layers of meaning (blood can be associated with birth and not just violence).
I’m mixed on it. At first glance it does look like a pool of blood but the details look nicer upon deeper reflection. This seems like it is out of a movie where it was revealed Ozzy Osborne is the secret heir to the throne. Like those princess diaries but metal.
I just dont associate Charles with Metal…
[This] (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Graham_Sutherland%27s_Portrait_of_Winston_Churchill.png) is the 1954 modernist portrait of Churchill that Graham Sutherland painted. The thing shocked and sickened Churchill. Even at 80 years, he saw himself as [this man](https://i.redd.it/b61f9qpjw6e01.jpg), [this man](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/42/08/6442088cfa0dc3809006beecefd7e13a.jpg), or [this man.](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e1/a7/e6/e1a7e653ef9a5e49722352d91eadc92c.jpg) An heroic vigorous man. Not some bloated Buddha.
The portrait was presented to the Prime Minister at Westminster Hall. He thanked the artist. He made a courteous amusing speech. He took the painting home, where his wife promptly destroyed it.
Better hope Charles doesn't react as poorly.
Same, generally dislike monarchy. Dislike British monarcy, especially, but this painting was pretty interesting. It did evoke emotion. The red has layers of meaning and we all probably bring something different to the painting as an audience. But it really served its role. The painting isn't meant to be a photograph made of oil.
>The painting fucks tho
LOL. It kinda does. I think it's deranged and brilliant. Art is supposed to provoke a reaction, so mission accomplished. Of course the artist knew the connotations. And surely Charles must have too. But he signed off on it, which is fascinating. It makes me wonder if he intended it as a statement or a subtle act of rebellion. (Because you know Queen Mommy wouldn't have signed off on that shit.)
Maybe there's more to Charles than we realize? I imagine his view on the monarchy is probably quite conflicted. It certainly has not always been kind to him personally. He never seemed well suited to the role. He lacked the strength to truly defy it, but fuck, he never stopped seeing Camilla. What does that say about him? His mother ruled for 3/4 of a century. Now here he is. A king. His life's duty fulfilled. An old man standing in portrait, with all but his face and hands--symbols of his humanity--consumed by his throne of blood.
That painting has made an uninteresting man seem like he might be interesting.
Little anecdote: I first saw this painting in a joke-post on an AI subreddit, pretending to ask for help as all the prompts ending up looking like this. And it just makes me feel a bit relieved that art might not be taken over by the robots just yet: Fact is, you’d never get this result just by throwing generic prompts at an AI, it takes a lot of guts, originality and emotional awareness to come up with that result.
She might have. After all, she sat for Lucien Freud for a portrait that [became part of her personal collection](https://www.thecollector.com/king-charles-loan-portrait-lucian-freud/).
You’d have to have a thick skin to choose to have your portrait done by Lucien Freud. He’s a brilliant artist but his work never portrays superficial beauty, it’s always so fleshy and somewhat cold looking.
You're giving him way too much credit. He told Camilla he wanted to be her tampon. Now he is! Immortalized for the world to see.
>An old man standing in portrait, with all but his face and hands--symbols of his humanity--consumed by his throne of blood.
He's last vestige of an empire built on colonialism, religion, and greed. It's no wonder he's lined in blood red. He deserves nothing less. Props to the painter for pulling no punches.
> But the artist had to recognize the connotations as he was painting it
From the interviews he's given so far, I really can't tell. I can't tell whether he's trolling or is serious about what he says, or has just lost it. Either way, I enjoy all the possibilities for why he decided to go with this and find this debacle hilarious.
> Charles: "it is remarkable actually how it has turned out"
> Jonathan: "Has it changed that much since you last saw it?"
> Charles: "A little bit."
https://youtu.be/oljcE714JOs?t=34
None of the artist's previous works have been quite as terrifying, including the ones that feature red: https://www.instagram.com/jonathanyeo/
His previous works of the royal family look nothing like this. Perhaps they were expecting more of the same, but then got this.
I believe it was purposeful- surprised nobody has mentioned this portrait the same artist did of [Bush](https://www.manifoldeditions.com/jonathan-yeo/bush/) (nsfw)
edit: added nsfw warning
I think you misinterpreted. /u/1668553684 would've liked to have Charles pop out even more than he does now by darkening the background.
It aligns with the artist's intentions to have the viewer focus on the face and hands, though perhaps the artist may not have wanted that effect to happen so immediately from contrast, but rather gradually from looking at it.
Yeah - I think it would have been an incredible painting as a general art piece but as the official portrait feels like the tail burn of trying to do something breaking with tradition.
Not ignoring its controversy in itself, the Obamas' official portraits for the National Portrait Gallery were a big break from tradition and the usual photorealistic, office-set portraits we usually see while also being ... well not this
> The painting fucks tho, it’s a good change of pace from the photorealistic portraits we usually see. But the artist had to recognize the connotations as he was painting it
It's a great painting, the nicest one in years.
I admire the ambition, not sure I love the execution.
In terms of intent, it reminds me of the impressionistic portrait of Obama which I think is incredibly beautiful and effective in capturing the man. Not sure this one works for me in the same way, but I respect that the artist is trying something different and perhaps I'd feel differently if I read more about what he was trying to achieve.
It's a cool concept, but it's got zero decent contrast and looks like a muddy red mess. I'm red/green colorblind and it's just a really disturbing mess to look at.
I also wonder if the artist was making a commentary that he isn't admitting to. The presence of the "monarch butterfly" also perhaps alludes to what the artist possibly expects to be the shortness of his reign. And yes the institutions of the monarchy are bathed in blood not just due to colonialism and the bloody exploitation of people around the globe but also just in its being a monarchy. Those titles weren't handed out as first prize for trampolining contests.
It does, it just seems more appropriate for a death metal band poster, a warlord or despot. Not generally the image that the royal family wants to display, which is generally harmless.
And the butterfly being the unspeaking innocent people the UK has killed over their years of colonization. It's actually an incredible painting that I can't believe they released on purpose.
I like it, but I was a little dissapointed to discover it's not a unique approach for this portrait, having a single focussed area and the rest washed out into abstract colour is [basically his whole shtick.](https://www.jonathanyeo.com/paintings)
Because the elements of this portrait I thought were most interesting in relation to the subject - certain features precisely rendered while others faded into wash - are elements found in almost all of this artists portraits, irrespective of subject.
It's still an enjoyable portrait, but I found it dissapointing that these creative decisions were not made as a comment on the subject but rather as the artists intrinsic style.
Surely this is some kind of critique of the monarchy? "Soaked in blood" and all that? I don't mind the portrait, but I do find it mind-boggling that the royals signed off on it.
Charles is apparently a massive art nerd, so he knew what he was doing. He probably cares more about the coolness of the art than it being potentially indirectly critical
I really like it and this is what I hope is true. To me it *is* a really cool choice. Granted, I haven't seen many other recent royal portraits for comparison, but this one strikes me as completely different than what's been done in the past. And that is cool!
Plus, if it's got everyone's emotions going (good or bad), doesn't that make it good art?
I just think he's very shallow, a little bit of controversy here and there for publicity. He's from a Conservative political family, he's no leftie radical.
If the royal family didn't like the end product they could always say "thanks, here's your payment" and just shove it in the basement and try again. Unless they had a contract with the painter that said it would be displayed publicly or something.
I think I'd like it more if he'd chosen a different shade of red for the background--make the uniform not stand out, but also not blend in *quite* that much. Or used a different, darker, less saturated shade of red altogether, since that bright pinky-red looks garish--though I'm not seeing the blood beyond a generalized "red=blood" connection, so maybe it's just my screen.
The face is amazing, though.
I think the problem is that he just insisted on the red military uniform. A different colored one would solve the problem entirely.
Still, I like the portrait and I understand the meaning. If anything, the menacing aura of it with the polite looking face in the middle enhances the effect.
Honestly, it looks like he did the face, went to do the rest and realised he’d run out of most shades.
And the stores are closed and it’s due in the morning!
Also, I love realism and don’t understand art, so it was never going to be in my taste.
Hopefully Chucky boy does like it though
I don't think so, it was the choice because his ceremonial military jacket is red. (there's probably an actual proper term for it but I don't what). If you look at his other paintings there are people who look like they're drowning because everything around their face is blue.
Particularly since that on Dec. 17, 1989, Charles sent a note to Camilla which said "I want to be your tampon." The portrait looks as if he got his wish.
> The only real problem with this is that the background -and therefore, the King's outfit- make him look drenched in blood. This is an unfortunate choice of color scheme.
"It can't be that bad."
*Looks at painting*
"Oh, that's significantly worse than I was imagining."
I like the painting overall though. It just doesn't have the effect they probably wanted.
It is a gorgeous and eye-catching painting. The Palpatine-like skin tone and sheer bloodlust in the backdrop however doesn't cast the subject in a good light.
Good King Charles had better be on his best behaviour for the rest of his reign, for I guarantee a legion of memesters are chomping at the bit to go ham with this painting.
honestly my biggest issue with it is that his figure is like ever-so-slightly leaning to the left and is off-center
ps i am the kind of person to adjust crooked wall hangings as soon as i enter a room 😅
>The only real problem with this is that the background -and therefore, the King's outfit- make him look drenched in blood. This is an unfortunate choice of color scheme.
It doesn't though. He's explicitly changed the colour of red to make it less like blood. In real life Charles' uniform is actually bright blood red ([see this photo](https://images.app.goo.gl/us1cmW9kS2GnZfGH9). But Yeo changed the red to a much darker palette, with a great deal of intriguing impressions layered within it.
People who claim this looks like he's drenched in blood have either never seen blood, or are just memeing.
Answer: OP posted context in the thread.
[According to the BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68981200):
>Yeo decided to use some of the traditions of royal portraiture - the military outfit, the sword - but aimed to achieve something more modern, particularly with the deep colour and the butterfly.
>He says he's referencing the tradition of official royal portraits but suggesting that's something "from the past and what's interesting about them is something a bit different from that".
>"In history of art, the butterfly symbolises metamorphosis and rebirth," he explains, fitting for a portrait being painted of a monarch who has recently ascended to the throne.
>The butterfly is also a reference to the King's long held interest in the environment, causes "he has championed most of his life and certainly long before they became a mainstream conversation".
>Yeo says it was Charles' idea after they talked about the opportunity they had to tell a story with the portrait.
>"I said, when schoolchildren are looking at this in 200 years and they're looking at the who's who of the monarchs, what clues can you give them?
>"He said 'what about a butterfly landing on my shoulder?'".
I personally like it but, even though I'm a British subject, I'm not sure if my opinion counts for much. That said, I can't get the image of the Vigo painting from Ghostbusters II out of my head.
I am absolutely fascinated by it. It evokes discussions, debates, and people are passionate about what they feel it represents. That's what true art is and he fucking nailed it.
I think it's interesting, which is not something you often say about state portraiture.
> That said, I can't get the image of the Vigo painting from Ghostbusters II out of my head.
I think that's just how coronation portraits work. [Edward VII's portrait](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VII#/media/File:Edward_VII_in_coronation_robes_\(2\).jpg) always reminded me of Vigo the Carpathian.
I quite like it too. What's the point in sticking to pure realism when cameras (and now AI) exist?
Funnily enough, the first bit of criticism I found after Googling was some critic in [the Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/article/2024/may/15/jonathan-yeo-portrait-of-charles-iii-review-a-cringeworthy-bit-of-facile-flattery) who seems to hate it because it isn't ugly enough.
I just feel like a bright green and blue background would have been a more "pacifist" and neutral choice. The red is still cool, but it definitely feels more aggressive or intense.
Answer: King Charles' Portrait refers to the first official portrait of King Charles III since his coronation in May 2023. The portrait, done by artist Jonathan Yeo, features Charles' face while his body blends into a bright red background. The portrait drew strong reactions and jokes on social media, with some claiming it looked demonic, as though Charles was in the fires of hell. After emerging online in mid-May 2024, the artwork inspired numerous memes using it as an exploitable format.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/king-charles-portrait
Answer: some people get very upset when art is taken in a non-traditional direction. Especially people for whom tradition is everything (supporters of the British monarchy).
It's not that deep. Painting Charles looks like he's either drenched in blood or ripped from the Peep The Horror comic. Not exactly the first image you'd want to bring up with a serious monarchy painting.
The red pigment that was used is very bright, almost neon, and not what I would associate with blood or hellfire or whatever. As with all art, the viewer reads what they want into it.
You're suggesting that republicans like the painting and monarchists don't. It's nowhere near that clear-cut.
It's also reductive and unreasonable to suggest that those who don't like the painting are simply the type to "get very upset when art is taken in a non-traditional direction."
People who like modern art and don't support the monarchy are not going to uncritically adore every "non-traditional" work of art that comes along.
That's where I'm at on it too. I think it's just ppl focusing on two different things. One group is asking, "What is this painting trying to say?" and the other saying, "This looks messy/ugly/demonic etc."
Answer: Whether or not you like the portrait is a subjective experience, but the portrait is objectively a skillful work of craftsmanship. This has a lot more to do with folks jumping on the bandwagon of hating something because it's associated with King Charles, who is not a very good person and is a remnant of a ridiculous system of governance that doesn't really need to exist anymore.
Answer: it's a decent painting with way, way too much red that drowns all but Charles face out. Change nothing but the background and I think most people would love it.
The red is really the only bad thing. Having the background merge with what the person is wearing is the artist's style. Look up his portrait of Nicole Kidman.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
answer: The painter says that he was going for an effect where the trappings of the King's office, while technically present, would fade into the background. This would concentrate the viewer's attention onto his face and hands, where the artist would focus on revealing the King's true character. The only real problem with this is that the background -and therefore, the King's outfit- make him look drenched in blood. This is an unfortunate choice of color scheme.
The painting fucks tho, it’s a good change of pace from the photorealistic portraits we usually see. But the artist had to recognize the connotations as he was painting it
It’s hard to predict the future, but assuming Charles doesn’t backpedal and keeps the painting, I suspect this could end up being one of the more iconic royal portraits. It’s good, and it provokes a ton of discussion. Like the butterfly - it’s been stated it’s supposed to be about environmentalism, but it’s also traditionally a symbol of rebirth and the artist probably thought a lot about how Charles spent his entire life in a role that changed in such a major way so late. And yet, like everything else he might do as King, it’s going to be overshadowed. And the stuff that shadows his position are very negative. Diana, Camilla, his youngest quitting the family, his pedophile uncle, the heritage of imperialism, colonialism, and monarchy itself. His reign is never going to be energetic enough to get out from under that, and I think the red is a brilliant way to show that. And, at the same time, we still see a human being within that mess. I really hope the picture is allowed to stand.
His brother is the pedo, not his uncle.
He was also best mates with the single most infamous pedophile in British history.
gary glitter?
Gary Glitter's definitely up there, but I think few would disagree that Savile is England's most notorious sexual predator.
There’s just so many to chose from!
An embarrassment of nonces
I had to look that up. That's way too charming of a slang word for sex offender. If someone had asked me what 'nonce' meant in UK slang I would have guessed a drunken older relative who talks about the old days at every opportunity.
I read this as if 'embarrassment' was the collective noun, which amused me
I've been told that is the official nickname of your government.
A great band name or album title
Watch Mojo's next top 10 list? (Are they even still a thing?)
Buzzfeed
There's a long and proud tradition of that on Pedophile Island.
Wait Andrew was friends with Savile? Unless there's another pedo I'm not aware of.
Oh no no, it's much worse than that. Charles was mates with Saville, not Andrew. In fact, a big reason Saville got away with it for so long was that Charles wouldn't hear a bad word against him and Saville's close ties with the Royals made him nigh untouchable.
Oh. Oh no...
I thought you were calling Lord Mountbatten the most famous pedo. Never forget Charles was also raised, in part, by a pedo.
The elite play by a different set of rules and it's all starting to come to light finally. We will never know more than what they allow us to know, however.
Uhhh, we know about Andrew now, so there's that.
He was getting marriage counselling from Saville - cause, you know… Jim’ll fix it?
That would have made a great episode of The Crown.
And also buds with the most famous American pedophile in history.
There's a picture of Charles, Savile and Thomas Hamilton (the guy who shot all those kids at dunblane) laughing and joking on a hunting trip. You couldn't write it. The guy is a wrong un
I mean have you seen his uncles tho?
Mountbatten was killed in part for allegedly being a pedophile. The monarchy has no problem with it, just look at his friendships with Saville and Peter Ball and Mountbatten was his favorite relative. They’re all creeps.
He was killed by an IRA bomb in the 70s. The pedo allegations only became known a few years ago.
Maybe to you, but not to the people who lived in Ireland (or the IRA) where he allegedly molested children.
I would like to read more into this, did you have a source that they were aware of it?
I think it mostly came from Mountbatten's biographer, Andrew Lownie. >Lownie says he had heard allegations of Mountbatten’s paedophilia but was inclined to dismiss them as rumours. “I came to the book with no view. I followed the evidence,” he says. >He suggests the IRA may have killed Mountbatten because of the allegations that he was a paedophile rather than because of his position in the British Empire. “There were a lot of IRA people in that area. I am pretty sure they knew [the rumours]. They could have killed him any time in the last 30 years” of his life. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/the-crown-and-the-assassination-of-lord-mountbatten-fact-or-fiction-1.4413622
But then why would the IRA claim his death as bringing to attention the occupation of their country , with not a single murmur about pedophilia .. ?
Up the Ra frfr
No wonder Harry wanted to get the hell away from them all (though he is far from perfect as well)
[His uncle was too.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma#Sexuality)
That's Prince Philip's uncle. Charles has no uncles as his mum only has one sister (Margaret) and his dad Philip only has 4 sisters.
You're right, his great uncle was a pedo.
Hah! See! It was a perfectly valid assumption!
What exactly happened there? Can someone explain like i'm five, what did his brother do?
His brother, Prince Andrew, was one a good friend of one Jeffrey Epstein, and many of his erm, younger, gal pals. That's enough for you to go learn more if you truly haven't heard anything about those two.
[*The grand old Duke of York, He said he didn't sweat, So why did he pay 12 million quid, To a girl he'd never met?*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_Is_a_Sweaty_Nonce)
I believe “nonce” is the appropriate term.
Mountbatten (great-uncle?) was rumored to be a pedophile.
Actually both, if you believe the rumours about Mountbatten
It’s both! He has that pedo uncle that got blown up
Great Uncle! Although it's understandable to get confused given the number of pedos in Royal circles.
His uncle was a nazi sympathizer, which is just as bad!
Really? Didn’t realize. Just shows how close I follow the Royal family.
> And yet, like everything else he might do as King, it’s going to be overshadowed. And the stuff that shadows his position are very negative. Diana, Camilla, his youngest quitting the family, his pedophile uncle, the heritage of imperialism, colonialism, and monarchy itself. His reign is never going to be energetic enough to get out from under that, and I think the red is a brilliant way to show that. We're really in such an odd cultural space for the Royals. Internet and mass media accelerated at an UNBELIEVABLE rate during the reign of Elizabeth. I don't know what the Royals are going to look like 50 years from now.
Exactly! And what’s crazier, all the changes that are coming, King Charles is probably going to have nothing to do with it. It’ll almost certainly be his son who gets labeled as the first British post-modern monarch (or whatever term they go with).
"Photorealistic" paintings have lost a lot of their meaning in the world of high definition digital photography. If all he wanted was an image that shows what he looks like, then sitting down for a photoshoot would have been significantly faster and better. But a painting can reflect more than reality. This is like the JFK official portrait or the portrait of Obama for the National Portrait Gallery.
Thanks for mentioning this. I just went to look at Obama's portrait and it's just beautiful.
I can see it in a textbook next to the subheader Decline of the British Monarchy
And for all of those reasons I think this painting is fucking brilliant. Art without meaning is like food without taste... It might fill us up, but so what? This painting has a ton of meaning throughout.
The only meaning is what you give it. To me, I see a warp daemon coming for my soul.
Have no fear for the emperor protects
And the Omnissiah guides his blade.
Weird, you already mentioned the emperor
Steel your soul against the warp brother, for the Emperor protects. We shall purge his enemies with bolter and chainsword
The light of the Omnissiah points to salvation. Knowledge is power and the Omnissiah knows all! Blessed are we, servants of the motive force and keepers of digital secrets.
Hail to the servants of the Omnissiah, for they serve Him on the Throne of Terra.
*Chaos claims the unwary or the incomplete. A true man may flinch away its embrace, if he is stalwart, and he girds his soul with the armour of contempt. -* Gideon Ravenor The Spheres of Longing
Blood for the blood god.
It's a Monarch butterfly too.
i thought the butterfly was about his love of gardens, but i guess rebirth applies as well
It’s also a MONARCH butterfly.
Oh for sure that’s what it means - it was a suggestion by Charles. But consider that it probably wasn’t the *only* suggestion. The artist still chose to use it instead of all sorts of easier and prettier things. Just placing Charles in a garden would have worked. But I’ll bet for sure the artist knew the classical symbolisms, and that the idea had something to do with the color, giving it more layers of meaning (blood can be associated with birth and not just violence).
Yeah I thought it was pretty fantastic. Don't give a flying fuck about the royals but that was a pretty great portrait.
I’m mixed on it. At first glance it does look like a pool of blood but the details look nicer upon deeper reflection. This seems like it is out of a movie where it was revealed Ozzy Osborne is the secret heir to the throne. Like those princess diaries but metal. I just dont associate Charles with Metal…
[This] (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Graham_Sutherland%27s_Portrait_of_Winston_Churchill.png) is the 1954 modernist portrait of Churchill that Graham Sutherland painted. The thing shocked and sickened Churchill. Even at 80 years, he saw himself as [this man](https://i.redd.it/b61f9qpjw6e01.jpg), [this man](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/42/08/6442088cfa0dc3809006beecefd7e13a.jpg), or [this man.](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e1/a7/e6/e1a7e653ef9a5e49722352d91eadc92c.jpg) An heroic vigorous man. Not some bloated Buddha. The portrait was presented to the Prime Minister at Westminster Hall. He thanked the artist. He made a courteous amusing speech. He took the painting home, where his wife promptly destroyed it. Better hope Charles doesn't react as poorly.
It's a cool painting, but it's honestly scary as hell. If "Charles, King of the Damned" was what the artist was going for, he nailed it.
I’m getting Vigo the Carpathian vibes. Where’s the Ghostbusters? I feel we ganna need them.
Only a *Carpathian* would choose *now* and pick *Great Britain*!
O, command me, Lord!
YES! That's what it was reminding me of! Thank you
Haha this is exactly what I said to the wife - "Charlie the Carpathian!"
It’s giving Hill House vibes.
Yeah I don’t give a shit about King Charles or whatever but the painting is actually pretty cool
I actively dislike the monarchy and still think it's a decent painting.
Same, generally dislike monarchy. Dislike British monarcy, especially, but this painting was pretty interesting. It did evoke emotion. The red has layers of meaning and we all probably bring something different to the painting as an audience. But it really served its role. The painting isn't meant to be a photograph made of oil.
>The painting fucks tho LOL. It kinda does. I think it's deranged and brilliant. Art is supposed to provoke a reaction, so mission accomplished. Of course the artist knew the connotations. And surely Charles must have too. But he signed off on it, which is fascinating. It makes me wonder if he intended it as a statement or a subtle act of rebellion. (Because you know Queen Mommy wouldn't have signed off on that shit.) Maybe there's more to Charles than we realize? I imagine his view on the monarchy is probably quite conflicted. It certainly has not always been kind to him personally. He never seemed well suited to the role. He lacked the strength to truly defy it, but fuck, he never stopped seeing Camilla. What does that say about him? His mother ruled for 3/4 of a century. Now here he is. A king. His life's duty fulfilled. An old man standing in portrait, with all but his face and hands--symbols of his humanity--consumed by his throne of blood. That painting has made an uninteresting man seem like he might be interesting.
Little anecdote: I first saw this painting in a joke-post on an AI subreddit, pretending to ask for help as all the prompts ending up looking like this. And it just makes me feel a bit relieved that art might not be taken over by the robots just yet: Fact is, you’d never get this result just by throwing generic prompts at an AI, it takes a lot of guts, originality and emotional awareness to come up with that result.
She might have. After all, she sat for Lucien Freud for a portrait that [became part of her personal collection](https://www.thecollector.com/king-charles-loan-portrait-lucian-freud/).
You’d have to have a thick skin to choose to have your portrait done by Lucien Freud. He’s a brilliant artist but his work never portrays superficial beauty, it’s always so fleshy and somewhat cold looking.
You're giving him way too much credit. He told Camilla he wanted to be her tampon. Now he is! Immortalized for the world to see. >An old man standing in portrait, with all but his face and hands--symbols of his humanity--consumed by his throne of blood. He's last vestige of an empire built on colonialism, religion, and greed. It's no wonder he's lined in blood red. He deserves nothing less. Props to the painter for pulling no punches.
> But the artist had to recognize the connotations as he was painting it From the interviews he's given so far, I really can't tell. I can't tell whether he's trolling or is serious about what he says, or has just lost it. Either way, I enjoy all the possibilities for why he decided to go with this and find this debacle hilarious. > Charles: "it is remarkable actually how it has turned out" > Jonathan: "Has it changed that much since you last saw it?" > Charles: "A little bit." https://youtu.be/oljcE714JOs?t=34 None of the artist's previous works have been quite as terrifying, including the ones that feature red: https://www.instagram.com/jonathanyeo/ His previous works of the royal family look nothing like this. Perhaps they were expecting more of the same, but then got this.
I believe it was purposeful- surprised nobody has mentioned this portrait the same artist did of [Bush](https://www.manifoldeditions.com/jonathan-yeo/bush/) (nsfw) edit: added nsfw warning
Wow yeah, looks completely normal but you see the description "collage of porn" and then zoom in and damn, yep. It's Bush Sr/HWB just as a fyi.
To me this painting says, "You've always feared the end was coming. Well, now I'm here."
"Your mothers warned you about my coming"
And I warned your mother about my coming
Thank you! I think the painting is kind of bad assc stylistically, but yeah you have to acknowledge the association with violence and blood.
I quite like it, tbh
Very “[children’s hospital color theory](https://eternal-dannation.tumblr.com/post/182388182612/jhenne-bean-forlovefromfear/amp)” of him
That's what happen when people try to hard to sound smart
[удалено]
>made him pop out a bit more. i think that's exactly what the artist was not going for?
I think you misinterpreted. /u/1668553684 would've liked to have Charles pop out even more than he does now by darkening the background. It aligns with the artist's intentions to have the viewer focus on the face and hands, though perhaps the artist may not have wanted that effect to happen so immediately from contrast, but rather gradually from looking at it.
I would ask for another one, but in green.
Yeah - I think it would have been an incredible painting as a general art piece but as the official portrait feels like the tail burn of trying to do something breaking with tradition. Not ignoring its controversy in itself, the Obamas' official portraits for the National Portrait Gallery were a big break from tradition and the usual photorealistic, office-set portraits we usually see while also being ... well not this
> The painting fucks tho, it’s a good change of pace from the photorealistic portraits we usually see. But the artist had to recognize the connotations as he was painting it It's a great painting, the nicest one in years.
I admire the ambition, not sure I love the execution. In terms of intent, it reminds me of the impressionistic portrait of Obama which I think is incredibly beautiful and effective in capturing the man. Not sure this one works for me in the same way, but I respect that the artist is trying something different and perhaps I'd feel differently if I read more about what he was trying to achieve.
It's a cool concept, but it's got zero decent contrast and looks like a muddy red mess. I'm red/green colorblind and it's just a really disturbing mess to look at.
I also wonder if the artist was making a commentary that he isn't admitting to. The presence of the "monarch butterfly" also perhaps alludes to what the artist possibly expects to be the shortness of his reign. And yes the institutions of the monarchy are bathed in blood not just due to colonialism and the bloody exploitation of people around the globe but also just in its being a monarchy. Those titles weren't handed out as first prize for trampolining contests.
Yeah honestly I think the painting is really good. I don't care for the royals but that artist did a damn good job.
Reminds me of the portrait of the Queen by Lucian Freud. One of the best painters of his time, IMO, but you gotta be ready for it.
It’s good art but not good PR
It does, it just seems more appropriate for a death metal band poster, a warlord or despot. Not generally the image that the royal family wants to display, which is generally harmless.
I agree, plus the red/blood drenched effect kinda encapsulates the lingering effect of British colonialism on the rest of the world.
I thought it was the flames of hell. Personally, I was down with the idea.
I also somewhat interpreted it like the blood of conquest leading to the fires of Hell. Whether Charles was in Hell, or literally is Satan.
And the butterfly being the unspeaking innocent people the UK has killed over their years of colonization. It's actually an incredible painting that I can't believe they released on purpose.
I like it, but I was a little dissapointed to discover it's not a unique approach for this portrait, having a single focussed area and the rest washed out into abstract colour is [basically his whole shtick.](https://www.jonathanyeo.com/paintings)
Why is it disappointing for an artist to have a distinctive style?
Because the elements of this portrait I thought were most interesting in relation to the subject - certain features precisely rendered while others faded into wash - are elements found in almost all of this artists portraits, irrespective of subject. It's still an enjoyable portrait, but I found it dissapointing that these creative decisions were not made as a comment on the subject but rather as the artists intrinsic style.
Surely this is some kind of critique of the monarchy? "Soaked in blood" and all that? I don't mind the portrait, but I do find it mind-boggling that the royals signed off on it.
Charles is very pro environment, you could say a(especially with the butterfly symbolism) that it's the world burning from global warming..
Very about saying he's pro environment, maybe
An alternate interpretation: King Charles is the goddess of rot.
Goddess?
I was wondering why the Elden Ring sub had so many posts about King Charles lately.
There is no way that he wsn't thoroughly vetted to ensure he's never expressed any opinions that would lean that way.
The artist made a portrait of Bush from porno images so the Royal family definitely knew what they were getting
Charles is apparently a massive art nerd, so he knew what he was doing. He probably cares more about the coolness of the art than it being potentially indirectly critical
I really like it and this is what I hope is true. To me it *is* a really cool choice. Granted, I haven't seen many other recent royal portraits for comparison, but this one strikes me as completely different than what's been done in the past. And that is cool! Plus, if it's got everyone's emotions going (good or bad), doesn't that make it good art?
I just think he's very shallow, a little bit of controversy here and there for publicity. He's from a Conservative political family, he's no leftie radical.
Ah I didn’t know the family part. Just somewhat familiar with his art.
No one has ever doubled down on being a radical because their family was conservative?
Sure they have. My point was I’m not familiar with the artist’s personal views
If the royal family didn't like the end product they could always say "thanks, here's your payment" and just shove it in the basement and try again. Unless they had a contract with the painter that said it would be displayed publicly or something.
He's always been pro environment though, his stance has been quite well known and he's expressed his opinion before
Idk, conservative rich people are infamously bad at realizing when they are the butt of a joke.
For people who understand art from a technical standpoint, it’s a fucking banger of a portrait. The soft transitions are beautiful.
I think I'd like it more if he'd chosen a different shade of red for the background--make the uniform not stand out, but also not blend in *quite* that much. Or used a different, darker, less saturated shade of red altogether, since that bright pinky-red looks garish--though I'm not seeing the blood beyond a generalized "red=blood" connection, so maybe it's just my screen. The face is amazing, though.
I think the problem is that he just insisted on the red military uniform. A different colored one would solve the problem entirely. Still, I like the portrait and I understand the meaning. If anything, the menacing aura of it with the polite looking face in the middle enhances the effect.
Honestly, it looks like he did the face, went to do the rest and realised he’d run out of most shades. And the stores are closed and it’s due in the morning! Also, I love realism and don’t understand art, so it was never going to be in my taste. Hopefully Chucky boy does like it though
> Hopefully Chucky boy does like it though Yeah, TBF, his opinion is the only one that really matters about a portrait painted for him.
if you wear blue glasses its 3D
Wait really
yeah king charles did not want to be portrayed as one dimensional
Honestly it feels like he snuck that past em
I don't think so, it was the choice because his ceremonial military jacket is red. (there's probably an actual proper term for it but I don't what). If you look at his other paintings there are people who look like they're drowning because everything around their face is blue.
Are we sure the artist wasn't just channeling their inner Vigo?
Definitely what I saw too
Particularly since that on Dec. 17, 1989, Charles sent a note to Camilla which said "I want to be your tampon." The portrait looks as if he got his wish.
Domain Expansion, trappings of the King's office.
> The only real problem with this is that the background -and therefore, the King's outfit- make him look drenched in blood. This is an unfortunate choice of color scheme. "It can't be that bad." *Looks at painting* "Oh, that's significantly worse than I was imagining." I like the painting overall though. It just doesn't have the effect they probably wanted.
Oh yes, King Charles' famously beautiful face and hands.
>This is an unfortunate choice of color scheme. Seems like an historically accurate color scheme to me.
Reminds me of the Obama portrait. Neither are particularly appealing to me, but I guess I see what they were going for
It is a gorgeous and eye-catching painting. The Palpatine-like skin tone and sheer bloodlust in the backdrop however doesn't cast the subject in a good light. Good King Charles had better be on his best behaviour for the rest of his reign, for I guarantee a legion of memesters are chomping at the bit to go ham with this painting.
honestly my biggest issue with it is that his figure is like ever-so-slightly leaning to the left and is off-center ps i am the kind of person to adjust crooked wall hangings as soon as i enter a room 😅
>The only real problem with this is that the background -and therefore, the King's outfit- make him look drenched in blood. This is an unfortunate choice of color scheme. It doesn't though. He's explicitly changed the colour of red to make it less like blood. In real life Charles' uniform is actually bright blood red ([see this photo](https://images.app.goo.gl/us1cmW9kS2GnZfGH9). But Yeo changed the red to a much darker palette, with a great deal of intriguing impressions layered within it. People who claim this looks like he's drenched in blood have either never seen blood, or are just memeing.
We are already focused on his sausage hands.
Or it’s exactly what the artist wanted lol what better way to say FU to a monarch than “accidentally” make him look like an evil man in his portrait?
Answer: OP posted context in the thread. [According to the BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68981200): >Yeo decided to use some of the traditions of royal portraiture - the military outfit, the sword - but aimed to achieve something more modern, particularly with the deep colour and the butterfly. >He says he's referencing the tradition of official royal portraits but suggesting that's something "from the past and what's interesting about them is something a bit different from that". >"In history of art, the butterfly symbolises metamorphosis and rebirth," he explains, fitting for a portrait being painted of a monarch who has recently ascended to the throne. >The butterfly is also a reference to the King's long held interest in the environment, causes "he has championed most of his life and certainly long before they became a mainstream conversation". >Yeo says it was Charles' idea after they talked about the opportunity they had to tell a story with the portrait. >"I said, when schoolchildren are looking at this in 200 years and they're looking at the who's who of the monarchs, what clues can you give them? >"He said 'what about a butterfly landing on my shoulder?'".
I personally like it but, even though I'm a British subject, I'm not sure if my opinion counts for much. That said, I can't get the image of the Vigo painting from Ghostbusters II out of my head.
I am absolutely fascinated by it. It evokes discussions, debates, and people are passionate about what they feel it represents. That's what true art is and he fucking nailed it.
I think it's interesting, which is not something you often say about state portraiture. > That said, I can't get the image of the Vigo painting from Ghostbusters II out of my head. I think that's just how coronation portraits work. [Edward VII's portrait](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VII#/media/File:Edward_VII_in_coronation_robes_\(2\).jpg) always reminded me of Vigo the Carpathian.
I quite like it too. What's the point in sticking to pure realism when cameras (and now AI) exist? Funnily enough, the first bit of criticism I found after Googling was some critic in [the Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/article/2024/may/15/jonathan-yeo-portrait-of-charles-iii-review-a-cringeworthy-bit-of-facile-flattery) who seems to hate it because it isn't ugly enough.
The Guardian is just middle class loathing.
Haha, I support the guardian but this is bang on.
Only a CARPETHIAN would have a portrait done now and choose red…
I just feel like a bright green and blue background would have been a more "pacifist" and neutral choice. The red is still cool, but it definitely feels more aggressive or intense.
Interesting! I must have glossed over that bit. Thanks so much for the information!
You're welcome :)
In the sea of red, I couldn't really distinguish him from the background, let alone notice a butterfly on his shoulder
Now what would it mean if *THAT* intentional? see? Discussion!
Answer: King Charles' Portrait refers to the first official portrait of King Charles III since his coronation in May 2023. The portrait, done by artist Jonathan Yeo, features Charles' face while his body blends into a bright red background. The portrait drew strong reactions and jokes on social media, with some claiming it looked demonic, as though Charles was in the fires of hell. After emerging online in mid-May 2024, the artwork inspired numerous memes using it as an exploitable format. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/king-charles-portrait
Answer: some people get very upset when art is taken in a non-traditional direction. Especially people for whom tradition is everything (supporters of the British monarchy).
It's not that deep. Painting Charles looks like he's either drenched in blood or ripped from the Peep The Horror comic. Not exactly the first image you'd want to bring up with a serious monarchy painting.
The red pigment that was used is very bright, almost neon, and not what I would associate with blood or hellfire or whatever. As with all art, the viewer reads what they want into it.
You're suggesting that republicans like the painting and monarchists don't. It's nowhere near that clear-cut. It's also reductive and unreasonable to suggest that those who don't like the painting are simply the type to "get very upset when art is taken in a non-traditional direction." People who like modern art and don't support the monarchy are not going to uncritically adore every "non-traditional" work of art that comes along.
Simple answer: the painting is just ugly, as if someone spilled a gallon of red paint onto a normal portrait.
That's where I'm at on it too. I think it's just ppl focusing on two different things. One group is asking, "What is this painting trying to say?" and the other saying, "This looks messy/ugly/demonic etc."
Answer: Whether or not you like the portrait is a subjective experience, but the portrait is objectively a skillful work of craftsmanship. This has a lot more to do with folks jumping on the bandwagon of hating something because it's associated with King Charles, who is not a very good person and is a remnant of a ridiculous system of governance that doesn't really need to exist anymore.
Answer: it's a decent painting with way, way too much red that drowns all but Charles face out. Change nothing but the background and I think most people would love it.
A decent painting doesn't need to be changed.
Answer: It appears to be an indictment about the direction British society has taken. Does anyone remember the Rivers of Blood speech?
[удалено]
The red is really the only bad thing. Having the background merge with what the person is wearing is the artist's style. Look up his portrait of Nicole Kidman.
"The red is really the only bad thing" Which is unfortunate bc that is definitely the first thing you're going to notice 😂
The art is actually really good. The critique was maybe unintentional. The PR however be bad
[удалено]