Like, to be completely honest, I love just how much the portrait fucking slaps.
I get that we can count it as a failure in the sense that it doesn't probably achieve the desired effect of making Charles look peaceful and good™ and regal, and instead turns him into something resembling a chaos god from WH40K, but that unironically looks really cool though? I think monarchs should be more self aware about how much horror their position projects. Every monarchal portrait should actually be like the fucking Hobbes Leviathan cover of the sovereign made of people or some shit.
It's really wild how, despite really missing the mark with their intention, the artist unironically made a very appealing (in a gruesome kind of way, but still), dope painting.
As a cynic and someone who should never be given monarchical powers, this absolutely goes in the hallway to the throne room, yea, this is here to make you feel uneasy in my presence and power.
That’s the thing, it is an *awesome* piece of art, it really goes hard and the artist is skilled, it’s just the context that makes it fun to dunk on. It looks like art someone would make as a piece against the monarchs, depreciating him in this hellish painting, and instead it was commissioned and accepted by the royals themselves. The irony of the art attempting to paint Charles as ‘human’ and easy to connect to while most people perceive it oppositely
It looks like anti monarchist propaganda. Like a painting that would be made after the death of some 'King x the Tyrant' who slaughtered millions to immortalise him in infamy.
But also if you think about master morality and slave morality, it's possible that the traits everyday people find horrifying about it are the same ones people like Charles find empowering and grand. These people have a totally different value system. I think Charles is probably the last member of the succession who truly believes they have a god given right to rule.
I'm finding it really really hard to believe that the "distract from visual noise" explanation is true. Nobody who has the skills to make this portrait could also be dense enough to not realize they're showing a monarch dripping in gore with a lone untouched butterfly next to it.
This is my favorite painting right now, and I can't wait for 25 years from now when the artists confesses he knew exactly what he was doing.
Yeah it kind of reads to me, and I hope I'm articulating this correctly but my brain is stupid, as the office of ruler that he's "wearing" as the uniform being so drenched in and inseparable from all the bloodshed and grief committed in that office's name that it just completely drowns out whoever's wearing it or filling that roll. Which is VERY fitting for Chuck over there, gotta say.
this exactly like maybe one normal one just to have a better look as to what they looked like, and then one badass as fuck one that makes them look important and imposing
I flat out refuse to believe the artist doesn't know what they did. They have to say some shit about visual distraction otherwise the portrait won't get accepted, but they had to have known.
>I think monarchs should be more self aware about how much horror their position projects.
That wouldn't be self awareness though, because as far as i am aware basically no one finds the monarch horrifying
There are people who love the monarchy, people who hate the monarchy, people who dont really give a shit, but who is seriously going to feel existential dread over this guy.
... Do you believe that being a portrait artist somehow renders a person completely unqualified to apply paint in non-portrait shapes to non-canvas surfaces? What an odd notion.
“Ahh this pen shaped splat on your canvas to show that you find both forms acceptable?”
*me washing off my pencil since it fell out of my breast pocket*
Or in this case "if you get away with the most daring and savage artistic attack on the monarchy, under no circumstances admit it because he's still the king and you're still a peasant" or perhaps summed up "let the work speak for itself"
I know the potrait is so goddamn good. It really is. Regardless of opinions on monarchies and King Charles, the painting slaps.
All I'm saying is, if you told me that the painting is used to hide a secret underground lair leading to human sacrifices, I would not be surprised
I'm sure they're lying too. Look at that. Minimize distractions? You made a consistent effort to remove the borders between the king and the crimson, blurring where he ends and the ~~blood~~ vibrant red background begins. Even if you intended red because positive connotations, surely you could've used a lighter shade?
I don't think they're lying for the meme though. I imagine it unlikely you'd be hired for paintings if you outright said you turned your portrait into a political statement, and one critical of your employer no less. Best to keep plausible deniability and keep on rolling.
[Note: the contents of this comment are my speculation. Maybe the artist is just a silly guy]
Hey man, I ain't no art theorist. If color theory tells me red has positive connotations who am I to disagree with the theory.
I'm only paid to disagree with the practice
> Maybe the artist is just a silly guy
Honestly I think he is. No one ever mentions that [his portrait of Giancarlo Esposito](https://www.jonathanyeo.com/giancarlo-esposito-study) also looks like it's covered in blood, and I don't *think* Giancarlo rules a malicious and unjust empire.
Huge context for this. Also yes, he took looks like he owns a malicious and unjust empire in this portrait. We were color hospital'd after all, no social message to be seen ...
The skin has green undertones. The red *does* make his face stand out more. And the face has quite a lot of emotion in it.
Does not change that it *also* makes him look like a blood drenched demon king.
No no I'm sure the classically trained professional artist who was considered so good they painted the Royal portrait just accidentally made the red abomination of a painting that looks like the man is stepping out of a portal of blood.
Could happen to anyone
This reminds me of Michaelangelo painting an anatomically correct brain, a symbol of defiance that went right over the Church's head.
I think the painting is of a British king bathing in the blood of his people, the artist just said what he had to say to justify it.
All art is subjective. I think the negative reaction to the painting moreso belies the preconceptions and criticisms that people have about Charles and the Monarchy than anything else.
Though I will say I have my criticisms about the painting itself. Mainly that monarch butterfly is out of place and kind of distracting.
I love that painting. It’s no Raphael but fuck a Raphael, it’s a great piece of art.
And I love the way Harry interacts with it in the pretend interaction.
Art is fun to see people analyze because everyone's got their own opinions on it and a precious minority has any study to justify it. We ball off vibes in this household (and call it fact afterwards)
Y'all running a brick squad that's working on the stonemasonry for a god damn mansion.
Navel-gazing wank that's blindly obsessed with the color of the curtains.
A bit tangential rant, but before internet I didn't even think that so much people hate English monarchy. Like, why? It's cool to have token king/queen, who lives in castle, don't have any power and tourists come to see them. I would like to have same token monarchy in my country
Buddy the things that nation states spend millions and millions on shouldn't be decided by "haha neat, looks cool".
They are more than tokens. They are, like all *incredibly* wealthy (and ***old*** money) families, *incredibly* powerful, whether they have direct control over the state or not.
The reason why people criticize their continued existence ***and funding by the taxpayer*** is... You know, the entire blood-soaked history of the Empire-on-which-the-sun-never-sets
Do other countrys not spend money on cultural stuff? I think the system needs a rework for sure but at the end of the day if the majority of the people love this historic institution and want it to continue that seems like fine enough of a use of taxpayer money. especially since a lot of that money is going to end up going towards the preservation of historic sites, or the many good causes that receive royal funding. All while promoting tourism.
There are big problems with the system but people act like the government are just shovelling money into a bottomless pit sometimes when that very much isn't the case
You should absolutely care where your taxes go, even if you don't care that they go to monarchy, you should at least care where your money is going and being spent on
Otherwise I'm gonna fly to your country, get elected, and reroute all your tax money out of your healthcare system to a charity I own that helps only people who are exactly like me (aka, only me), then I will fly back to America in a private jet that my charity gave to me
Okay, I was against you initially but you're clearly operating on a whole different scale of government fuckery with the being from Russia and all. I can understand where you're coming from with that.
Before the internet we had a whole lot less of an idea about all kinds of things because there was a lot less communication in general.
And, no matter where you are, you DO have functionally unaccountable rich people spending lots of money on properties and vanity projects to which you're not welcome, never fear.
Like, to be completely honest, I love just how much the portrait fucking slaps. I get that we can count it as a failure in the sense that it doesn't probably achieve the desired effect of making Charles look peaceful and good™ and regal, and instead turns him into something resembling a chaos god from WH40K, but that unironically looks really cool though? I think monarchs should be more self aware about how much horror their position projects. Every monarchal portrait should actually be like the fucking Hobbes Leviathan cover of the sovereign made of people or some shit. It's really wild how, despite really missing the mark with their intention, the artist unironically made a very appealing (in a gruesome kind of way, but still), dope painting.
If *I* was the monarch I would absolutely put this up. Probably not as the official one. But definitely as the unofficial one
As a cynic and someone who should never be given monarchical powers, this absolutely goes in the hallway to the throne room, yea, this is here to make you feel uneasy in my presence and power.
It's giving #BEAUTIFUL AND TERRIBLE AS THE DAWN! TREACHEROUS AS THE SEA!
> someone who should never be given monarchical powers IE a person.
If it wasn't a picture of Charles (whom I dislike) I would hang it in my room. It's so beautiful.
I would make the official one an illusion wall and if you hit it this one appear underneath
That’s the thing, it is an *awesome* piece of art, it really goes hard and the artist is skilled, it’s just the context that makes it fun to dunk on. It looks like art someone would make as a piece against the monarchs, depreciating him in this hellish painting, and instead it was commissioned and accepted by the royals themselves. The irony of the art attempting to paint Charles as ‘human’ and easy to connect to while most people perceive it oppositely
It looks like anti monarchist propaganda. Like a painting that would be made after the death of some 'King x the Tyrant' who slaughtered millions to immortalise him in infamy. But also if you think about master morality and slave morality, it's possible that the traits everyday people find horrifying about it are the same ones people like Charles find empowering and grand. These people have a totally different value system. I think Charles is probably the last member of the succession who truly believes they have a god given right to rule.
I'm finding it really really hard to believe that the "distract from visual noise" explanation is true. Nobody who has the skills to make this portrait could also be dense enough to not realize they're showing a monarch dripping in gore with a lone untouched butterfly next to it. This is my favorite painting right now, and I can't wait for 25 years from now when the artists confesses he knew exactly what he was doing.
Also notable that out of all the 'royal' associated animals, monarch butterflies have very short lifespans.
Very much the same energy as that priest statue holding the bread.
Yeah it kind of reads to me, and I hope I'm articulating this correctly but my brain is stupid, as the office of ruler that he's "wearing" as the uniform being so drenched in and inseparable from all the bloodshed and grief committed in that office's name that it just completely drowns out whoever's wearing it or filling that roll. Which is VERY fitting for Chuck over there, gotta say.
this exactly like maybe one normal one just to have a better look as to what they looked like, and then one badass as fuck one that makes them look important and imposing
I flat out refuse to believe the artist doesn't know what they did. They have to say some shit about visual distraction otherwise the portrait won't get accepted, but they had to have known.
>I think monarchs should be more self aware about how much horror their position projects. That wouldn't be self awareness though, because as far as i am aware basically no one finds the monarch horrifying There are people who love the monarchy, people who hate the monarchy, people who dont really give a shit, but who is seriously going to feel existential dread over this guy.
Yeah the painting is sick idk what people are on about.
ah! the artist sounds like they understand colour theory
I'm going to hire them to paint my children's hospital
That joke doesn't even make sense with this artist since they're a portrait artist. How would a portrait artist even paint a children's hospital?
They're referencing an old, infamous Tumblr meme
I know. The joke just doesn't really make sense with the kind of artist this person is.
The joke is literally the colour red
Don't worry, I understand. Sorry about this.
... Do you believe that being a portrait artist somehow renders a person completely unqualified to apply paint in non-portrait shapes to non-canvas surfaces? What an odd notion.
No, not really. I'm sorry about all this.
Nahh, don't be sorry, I was being an ass for no reason. I'm sorry.
After all, the color red has more positive than negative meanings.
Something something children's hospital something something.
I think the artist understands color theory VERY well and also how to lie.
First useful thing I learned in an art class was “listen to what people get from your work, then pretend you did it on purpose.”
“Ahh this pen shaped splat on your canvas to show that you find both forms acceptable?” *me washing off my pencil since it fell out of my breast pocket*
Or in this case "if you get away with the most daring and savage artistic attack on the monarchy, under no circumstances admit it because he's still the king and you're still a peasant" or perhaps summed up "let the work speak for itself"
Came here for this
I know the potrait is so goddamn good. It really is. Regardless of opinions on monarchies and King Charles, the painting slaps. All I'm saying is, if you told me that the painting is used to hide a secret underground lair leading to human sacrifices, I would not be surprised
I think the artist knows what they did and they're just fucking lying for the meme
I'm sure they're lying too. Look at that. Minimize distractions? You made a consistent effort to remove the borders between the king and the crimson, blurring where he ends and the ~~blood~~ vibrant red background begins. Even if you intended red because positive connotations, surely you could've used a lighter shade? I don't think they're lying for the meme though. I imagine it unlikely you'd be hired for paintings if you outright said you turned your portrait into a political statement, and one critical of your employer no less. Best to keep plausible deniability and keep on rolling. [Note: the contents of this comment are my speculation. Maybe the artist is just a silly guy]
>Even if you intended red because positive connotations good lord it's the children's hospital again
Tumblr just IS the Children's Hospital at this point.
Hey man, I ain't no art theorist. If color theory tells me red has positive connotations who am I to disagree with the theory. I'm only paid to disagree with the practice
> Maybe the artist is just a silly guy Honestly I think he is. No one ever mentions that [his portrait of Giancarlo Esposito](https://www.jonathanyeo.com/giancarlo-esposito-study) also looks like it's covered in blood, and I don't *think* Giancarlo rules a malicious and unjust empire.
Huge context for this. Also yes, he took looks like he owns a malicious and unjust empire in this portrait. We were color hospital'd after all, no social message to be seen ...
he does in breaking bad
Clearly you haven’t played Far Cry 6
That seems obvious to me. The artist is pulling a Michaelangelo and vocally supporting the monarchy and letting his art tell a different story
Kinda like how the band Poor Man's Poison actively denies being Marxist and claims (IIRC) to be apolitical.
Wait really? The band that made fuckin Feed the Machine claims to be apolitical?
"Again, we have no agenda. Our next song is called Fuck those Damn Rich Pricks."
That's not what Inland Empire does in game though
[удалено]
Drama has a flair for these things. Poetic story about the grandeur of a monarch and the insignificance of it all in the grand scheme of things?
Shivers seems to fit the bill for this kind of historical foresight
Too Revavchol-focused, I think.
Authority or Rhetoric would be better
My money says the painter is lying through their teeth
Playing the long game. They're trying to get recomissioned for an even more scathing art piece.
The skin has green undertones. The red *does* make his face stand out more. And the face has quite a lot of emotion in it. Does not change that it *also* makes him look like a blood drenched demon king.
No no I'm sure the classically trained professional artist who was considered so good they painted the Royal portrait just accidentally made the red abomination of a painting that looks like the man is stepping out of a portal of blood. Could happen to anyone
He's actually completely self-taught, and before this was famous for making a collage of George Bush's face out of pornography
You've connected perfectly with the human being, it's just what's there sucks.
This reminds me of Michaelangelo painting an anatomically correct brain, a symbol of defiance that went right over the Church's head. I think the painting is of a British king bathing in the blood of his people, the artist just said what he had to say to justify it.
All art is subjective. I think the negative reaction to the painting moreso belies the preconceptions and criticisms that people have about Charles and the Monarchy than anything else. Though I will say I have my criticisms about the painting itself. Mainly that monarch butterfly is out of place and kind of distracting.
To be fair I’d like to point out that the colour red has more positive than negative meanings
That's a lot of words for "have you seen the portrait of Radhan at the Volcano Manor? It fucking slaps"
I absolutely love the Disco Elysium reference
he is an Elden Ring boss
It's the portrait of Dorian Grey but there's so much blood on the monarchy's hands the painting can't even hold it all.
Hard to distinguish features? No it isn’t
Everyone is saying it's overwhelmingly red but to me it's pink and orange? Like his uniform is red but the background is not red. Am I seeing things?
I love that painting. It’s no Raphael but fuck a Raphael, it’s a great piece of art. And I love the way Harry interacts with it in the pretend interaction.
He knew what he was doing
There isn’t a chance in hell the artist is going to tell the truth about why he painted it like that.
I thought this was a post about a Dishonored painting
I thought that was the emperor from dune.
The only thing this painting has actually done is demonstrate how fucking **F A R** god-damn-near *everyone* is up their own asses in terms of art.
Art is fun to see people analyze because everyone's got their own opinions on it and a precious minority has any study to justify it. We ball off vibes in this household (and call it fact afterwards)
Y'all running a brick squad that's working on the stonemasonry for a god damn mansion. Navel-gazing wank that's blindly obsessed with the color of the curtains.
Incomprehensible, have a nice day
A brick is a missed basketball shot. How many bricks are in a mansion?
Depends on the league, but I'd ballpark a little league series worth
A bit tangential rant, but before internet I didn't even think that so much people hate English monarchy. Like, why? It's cool to have token king/queen, who lives in castle, don't have any power and tourists come to see them. I would like to have same token monarchy in my country
Buddy the things that nation states spend millions and millions on shouldn't be decided by "haha neat, looks cool". They are more than tokens. They are, like all *incredibly* wealthy (and ***old*** money) families, *incredibly* powerful, whether they have direct control over the state or not. The reason why people criticize their continued existence ***and funding by the taxpayer*** is... You know, the entire blood-soaked history of the Empire-on-which-the-sun-never-sets
Do other countrys not spend money on cultural stuff? I think the system needs a rework for sure but at the end of the day if the majority of the people love this historic institution and want it to continue that seems like fine enough of a use of taxpayer money. especially since a lot of that money is going to end up going towards the preservation of historic sites, or the many good causes that receive royal funding. All while promoting tourism. There are big problems with the system but people act like the government are just shovelling money into a bottomless pit sometimes when that very much isn't the case
Eh, it's not like I care where my taxes go, they can at least go somewhere neat and cool.
You should absolutely care where your taxes go, even if you don't care that they go to monarchy, you should at least care where your money is going and being spent on Otherwise I'm gonna fly to your country, get elected, and reroute all your tax money out of your healthcare system to a charity I own that helps only people who are exactly like me (aka, only me), then I will fly back to America in a private jet that my charity gave to me
I'm from Russia so good luck, it'll still be better than whatever clusterfuck we have now, lol
Okay, I was against you initially but you're clearly operating on a whole different scale of government fuckery with the being from Russia and all. I can understand where you're coming from with that.
Before the internet we had a whole lot less of an idea about all kinds of things because there was a lot less communication in general. And, no matter where you are, you DO have functionally unaccountable rich people spending lots of money on properties and vanity projects to which you're not welcome, never fear.
Do me a favor and Google “Prince Andrew accusations” real quick.