Portrait of Kate

is it supposed to look that way? I mean was it done on purpose to show what she will look like in her 50s?
 
at first glance it makes her looks old, however this pic makes her look really good and resembles her imo

article-2260655-16E03FD8000005DC-90_634x421.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ss-Cambridge-artist-Paul-Emsley-unveiled.html

still amazing skill to paint like that
 
Nice "safe" head and shoulders painting. I find it appealling to my eye. Mellow and gentle.
 
It's a bit of a "who cares?" thing innit? I mean ... who is she again??

Anyway, looks like he added some puffiness to under her eyes, but, she's happy and I guess that's the main thing. I wonder how much he got paid, looks pretty smug about it in that photo ... does old Donald Sutherland ... :D
 
A lot of people care as a lot of people have a thing for the Royal family.

As for the portrait, very dull and not even a good technical likeness (especially as that is style of the portrait). So many more interesting artists could have been given this.
 
Last edited:
I don't care though, and since my post is my own opinion ...

Then again, I'm not from the UK ;)
 
I am from the UK so do I have to like the Royal family?
 
Not at all, but do you care? I said simply "it's a bit of a who cares? thing innit?" - Didn't think the Royal guard would be after me or anything over it :D
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
Bit crap TBH.
Click to expand...

Agree, not my cup of tea at all, it has aged the young lady dreadfully.

But it is all subjective.
 
joescrivens said:
thats because you are further away from it and cant see the detail
Click to expand...

correct - but how many wall hung paintings do you look at the distance of 1 foot from a backlit screen like you're looking at on your monitor :D

all in all, I don't really give two hoots - but that painter's got skills! :thumbs:

drew
 
That is a crap painting. I hope they got it for free.
 
I'm with joescrivens on this one but at least they can wheel it out again on her 50th, it'll save having to get another one done.
 
I thought Royal artists usually painted a better picture than what their eye saw?
Perhaps that was just in the days when they were worried about having their head lopped off if they upset the monarch :lol:

I don't think Kate will be happy with it :dummy:
 
maybe she really looks like that , and all the photos in the magazines are airbrushed. :suspect:

that aside imo they should have got banksy to do her official portrait :nuts:
 
Cagey75 said:
Not at all, but do you care? I said simply "it's a bit of a who cares? thing innit?" - Didn't think the Royal guard would be after me or anything over it :D
Click to expand...

I think you protest too much. Admit it, you love her don't you :)

And no, I don't care but I do realise a lot of people do for some reason.
 
probably a thread for OOF guys :) shifting
 
and this came to mind immediately :p

painting.jpg
 
I knew I'd open this thread and come across the "royal waster"....."how much did it cost us".....etc etc etc posts. (wish there was a rolly-eye smilie).

It's just a bad portrait.
 
I don't think it's a bad portrait, in that it looks pretty similar to the photo it was painted from. On the other hand, nor is it flattering. Or interesting.
 
I thought it was pretty terrible. Far too soft and it makes her look quite a lot older
 
Hi

I also thought it was more than a bit Carp, are we sure it was Kate that sat for it, or was it done when she had bad morning sickness.

They should have gone to a Portrait Photographer, at least someone competent in that craft knows how to pose and light their subject. This painted effort has not done the "Art" world any favours at all.

Paul
 
Of those who have offered opinions, how many have seen the painting? Not a photo of the painting but the actual painting?



Thought so!
 
joescrivens said:
is it supposed to look that way? I mean was it done on purpose to show what she will look like in her 50s?
Click to expand...

I suppose it was done to reflect what the artist had in mind.
If the aim was to produce an image showing her exactly as she was then perhaps he should taken a photograph instead :lol:
 
Seems a picture of parts
The eye region is detailed and hard like the photograph.
The rest of the face softer and struggling to define a smile.
There is no depth to the lighting at all.
It seems to have caught only fractional glimmers of the real her.
She is one of those people who looks far better on cine film or real life, as much of her personality is in the fleeting expression and the sympathy of her movements.

It might be tough to capture in oil, but that is what top artists are paid to do.
 
joescrivens said:
thats because you are further away from it and cant see the detail
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you see the "attempt" closer up from the correct angle it looks absolutely terrible. The jawline is all wrong - mind you, from the forehead up he seems to have done an OK job;)
I reckon a pavement artist could have done better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top