VALENCE, France — The internet has its royal panties in a bustle, once again. Today’s unveiling of the portrait of Kate Middleton, or rather the British Duchess of Cambridge, met with gasps of horror, followed by a cascade of sarcastic media and Twitter wit. The subject of much of the outrage and verbal discourse being the pressing matter of whether artist Paul Emsley portrayed the future queen as being pretty enough.
The duchess, who viewed the portrait this morning, was quite open about being pleased with it, saying, “It’s just amazing, I thought it was brilliant.”
The portrait, which was commissioned by the royal family for display in the National Portrait Gallery, was painted in an expectedly conservative classical realism of thin layers over a perod of many months. The artist worked directly with the duchess during two sittings, then continued painting from a photo. The painting is the first official royal portrait of the young woman.
“The brief was that it should be a portrait which in some way expressed her natural self rather than her official self,” said Emsley. “When you meet her, that really is appropriate. She really is that kind of a person. She’s so nice to be with and it’s genuine and I felt if the painting can convey something of that then it will have succeeded.”
The Glasgow-born painter Emsley, whose previous commissions include Nelson Mandela, was well aware that the public eye of scrutiny would be fixed upon the finished product of the portrait. “It’s probably the most important portrait I’ll ever do, and when you realize that, you do start to think rather carefully about what you’re doing perhaps more than you usually do, and that made me more cautious than I normally am.”
Cautious or not, Emsley’s take on the duchess has met with outcry from critics, media, and the general public. Editor of the British Art Journal and Daily Mail critic, Robin Simon said, “Fortunately, the Duchess of Cambridge looks nothing like this in real life. I’m really sad to say this is a rotten portrait.”
Sunday Times critic Waldemar Januszczak is also quoted as saying that the portrait of Kate Middleton makes her appear “older than she is and her eyes don’t sparkle in the way that they do and there’s something rather dour about the face.”
Founder of The Jackdaw and former Art Review magazine editor David Lee affirms, “This is the most bland and predictable royal portrait in living memory. It is the sort of safe, uncomplicated, pedestrian image one might expect to see in a High Street photographer’s window. It looks as if the painter asked the subject to ‘Say cheese!’ and then told her to scram and buy some clothes while he painted the photograph.”
The Huffington Post calls the portrait awkward. The Atlantic asks if anyone likes it. The Guardian compares it to something from the Twilight franchise. The Daily News wrote, “Art critics say the painting, unveiled on Friday, doesn’t do Kate Middleton’s beauty justice. She appears worn and beyond her 31 years, they say.” On Twitter, the criticism is birthing a meme. Whether it be a parody Prince Charles account tweeting a Beast Jesus version of the portrait, or another user invoking a striking comparison to the 1980s television show Beauty and the Beast, fun and mockery is to be had by all.
Kate Middleton’s royal portrait is the first painting in history that needs to be photoshopped. http://t.co/gu12HNfW
— Zach Braff (@zachbraff) January 11, 2013
Granted, the portrait is expected, even bland, but do these comments reflect the painting, or rather the unflattering light in which Kate is portrayed? Is the problem, in the eyes of the critics, media, and general public, an issue with the actual painting, or rather with a standard set for such a public persona, and for women in general?
Kate Middleton is expected to be glamourous, and sexy, yet classy. She’s a bankroll for tabloid paparazzi and an endless subject of awe and scrutiny. Has the sin, in this case, been commited by the painter, for aging her, simplifying her, and taking away her shine? Or perhaps the fault lies with the subject of the painting, Middleton herself, who desired to be portrayed this way. But there is another, darker hypothesis, that the blame should be given to a society that expects a young, beautiful woman to be even younger and more beautiful than she really is.
The last few years at the museum have not been without controversy, and Decatur will inherit a record of workforce struggles.
Refugees of the Moria camp in Lesvos, Greece are behind the camera in the film Nothing About Us Without Us.
This adventurous theater festival returns in person with 36 artists and companies from nine countries performing at different venues across the city.
Helen Molesworth’s true-crime sensation marginalizes the artist’s life and legacy.
Members of NatSoc Florida performed the Nazi salute and chanted “Heil Hitler” at a local LGBTQ+ charity’s fundraiser in Lakeland.
Learn more about the New York-based, globally linked program and its upcoming discussions on art and society in the time of AI and data governance.
Nothing on the canvas wholly captures what it means to belong on land or at sea.
Dyson is part of a growing number of contemporary artists to imbue geometric abstraction with a sociopolitical dimension.
The program, along with recently announced visiting critics, will provide long term funding, promote access, and safeguard experimentation for future students of color.
In an exhibition that consists of mostly small-scale black and white works on paper, viewer engagement almost magically awakens the sleepy room.
Maria Maea’s All in Time continues an intergenerational conversation and exemplifies the artist’s process, not simply the finished pieces.
Koestler Arts works with incarcerated people and patients in secure mental health units, aiming to improve their lives through creativity.
Local artists and culture workers are wondering how the arena will impact the arts landscape, including museums and alternative spaces.