Feedback Friday : Critique of King Charles III's Portrait by Jonathan Yeo
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- Eric will do 6 art critiques, including one of the new controversial portrait of King Charles III by Jonathan Yeo
WE BELIEVE ANYONE CAN LEARN TO PAINT and our goal is to show you how. Watching 5 LESSONS in a row will give you the confidence to start painting.
If you're a beginner, Eric has a series of three free lessons to teach you the very basics of painting, for free. Visit: www.paintbynote.com
Get our free ebook 97 Incredible Art Secrets here : 97ArtSecrets.com/youtube
Art School Live is hosted by art magazine publisher Eric Rhoads, founder of Fine Art Connoisseur and Plein Air Magazines. We produce art newsletters, magazines, events, retreats, artist tools and training. To see everything we offer visit streamlinepublishing.com/
Please Like, Share, and Subscribe to Art School Live here: bit.ly/ArtSchoolLive
First impressions are really important. When I first saw the portrait, I thought it literally looked like hell burning. The butterfly from a distance appears as just a shape- the tail of the devil comes to mind. The face appears to be dripping and the hands appear deceased. The blending of the body with the background emphasize to me the engulfment of flames as thought we are looking at an apparition not someone in the physical world. It isn’t a criticism of the artist. It seems as though this is exactly what he wanted to create.
I agree with your impressions!
Yep! It is awful!
It's an honest representation of the real character. Only one tiny bit of goodness, represented by the butterfly, is emphasized by the royal press, while the majority of the human monarch's actions are consumed by covert hellishness.
I was kind of shocked when I first saw it. But it’s very compelling to me now.
A disembodied head floating in a goo of red.
I love it❤
The head hovers until your eyes relax. Not traditional but great in my opinion. It has so much energy.
The red is causing all of the problems. No matter how you try to defend it and get out of the meaning of the red in our cultures, you are not able to get out of the red. It is there at the first look, causing you to get scared. There is no way or reason you can give to defend that. I mean: you just jump out of it, as the king when seeing, no matter how much his mind reacted against the first reaction by saying: "Well done". That is kindness. The red, red, red. Let us pray for salvation, brothers.
The king has no clothes
Maybe it is supposed to ne scary.
I loved, loved, loved it - the background reminded me of Fraulein Lieser by Gustav Klimt which I so adore. I hate that I missed the livestream but will have to watch replay tonight. Can't wait to hear and read the chat.
You’re right but in that picture the lady is blue and green shades and the background red shades . I can’t understand why the background and Charles”s body are rendered in the same manner and diffuse into each other and the face and hands so realistically painted .
@@joannaryan9805 my mother states my judgement is impaired because I love red so much, even my tea kettle, my eye glasses, my car are red 😆
The emperor has no clothes
This has been so helpful!
Totally agree with your critique.
Another artist said the sienna spots of color are the color of dried blood
Hello from beautiful Arizona! 🌵 Thank you for these critiques and to the artist who submitted their paintings.
I try to learn by treating this like a quiz and pause the video and try to do a critique and see if anything I come up with matches Professor Eric's critique
Wow! This was great! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this for us! It was sooo helpful! I learned a lot.👍
I actually like the King's portrait. It's kinda deep. I think the restated arms can be seen as all the other monarchs that came before him and are now behind him in the background...also the monarch butterfly is behind him. He is playing a role. He is literally a figurehead. Even though I tend more towards realism usually, works with depth and meaning override my 'taste'. Also, king Charles' hands really look like that. Still, thank you for helping me take an actual look at the painting Eric, I enjoy your lessons very much and thank you for all you do, I appreciate it very much. Greetings from Holland!
thanks for the feedbck Mary.
Hands. You are right on. The left hand looks crippled.
Demon portrait
46 minutes of critique (“feedback”) of other people’s work before a 10 minute critique of the King Charles III portrait. I enjoyed that critique and quite agreed with it, but I think this should have been two videos. One feedback on paintings and another on just the controversial portrait of King Charles III.
A good lesson for next time. :-)
Where is nature there, which is what the king loves the most. The best royal portraits are all of the in nature. Indeed, nature is what makes them lovely, and make the king lovely too in there.
Wow! Such an incredible, spot on critique of my painting, Eric. I so very much appreciated your suggestions and all you do!
...share art, share a smile 🙂
Glad its helpful. Sometimes we can't see these things ourselves. I know I can't.
As we English might say, "it's bloody awful".
That's what we say in America too 😂 it looks like someone bled all over it too
It differentiates a modern monarch from the long shadow of his mother’s reign. Charles is probably very happy with it, and I think it’s a very successful portrait. As far as modern art goes it’s VERY tame, too. Yeo has done a very good job with it. If you think it’s awful why, do you REALLY want all paintings to look the same, which is your prerogative of course, but not very helpful for the Arts. It’s a fine portrait IMO, and I like that it exposes some of its process in the background, again this shows, in the actual material, qualities Charles himself would probably like to be associated with, transparency, honesty, a resolved struggle, work! The more I look at it the more I disagree with the no doubt instant judgements of those who want a ‘traditional’ artwork. My genuine advice would be to spend more time looking at it, the more time I spend looking at it the more I come to appreciate what a deep and subtle piece of work it really is…
@carlkligerman1981 I actually did look at it. I'm not saying it's not a good work, I personally have very little knowledge of art. But as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And my eyes hurt when I look at that painting. Sorry if that bothers you. Have you looked at how darkly the artist painted Charles' eyes? I mean, what for? Is he trying to send a subliminal message?
Have you also seen the satanic image in the mirror image? If you really look at it yourself trust me, you'll see it, and I'm not into garbage like that. So sue me.
Seems to be blood and shit
@@carlkligerman1981 Your supposition is that if I looked at it long enough, I would agree with you. I don't believe that to be the case. In fact, on subsequent views I find more problems with the facial likeness and I like it rather less than the first time. Let's agree that art is subjective and you can like it, and I can dislike it.
At first sight I was horrified at this portrait but now - and before I heard this critique - I really like it. I’m seeing softer pink more than red - the butterfly over his shoulder - the monarch relating to his love of nature but most of all the overwhelming kindness in his eyes.
I love the Kings Portrait, its full of energy fair play to the artist.
I wonder if the faint suggestion of King Carles' arms once being wider and a slight grey cast in his skin hint at his age and health struggles? Just a thought.
King Charles does have 'clublike' or pudgy fingers. Don't recall if the RF ever disclosed the issue .. Bern that way for a long time ..suggested diagnosed include arthritis (one that causes tissue swelling) ..
Has always had sausage fingers
The one who named that black butterfly with after the name of Monarch had an intention, a bad intention. This is something to have in mind. So, a butterfly to clarify that he is a king is not needed. The butterfly selected needs to be there to express that is a lover of nature. His royalty is known.
To me, it's the red color that is off-putting. Maybe if it were blue (to represent royalty), it wouldn't look so harsh and shocking. The painting itself is really nice, it's just the color that seems so wrong.
King Charles in flames.
Very informative thank you . As for our Charlie I like the outcome but agree , his hands bother me
The king’s portrait looked actually OK in black and white. Maybe some other colour than red would look nicer. And what bothers me most of all is dominance of warm colour in the painting, especially such bright pinkish red.
They managed to get us all talking about it :-)
47:47
No, you're right. Actually you were too nice. It looks like a red background and a sketch, with a well rendered face, the hands are pretty good. Then the artist looked at his calendar and said " oh crap! That's due today!" and did his best tho throw some detail on his sketch. If you look closely tou can see where he tentatively repositionedthe King several times..
Charles composed with Spam.
I agree with all of your assessments, Eric. The painting just falls apart for me. I understand what the artist is trying to do, but I think it’s just bloody hell with that dominant color of red and the drawing problems don’t work for me either. The other thing that really bothers me is the gray, almost dead Fleshtone. For me a portrait has to feel like its alive with blood and beautiful nuances if realistic skin tone. Definitely not evident in this portrait.
YES! I am no fan of King Charles, but this is beyond unflattering, he looks dead!
I think he’s receding into the background as is the monarchy. It’s fitting.
Love this tutorial! I also love the portrait of the king. You just have to get in to the head of the painter and kind of check out what he does and this is actually beautiful to me!😊
I’m not keen on the Kings portrait although I think his face is wonderful. I don’t like the way the red overpowers the subject. I almost prefer it in black and white
His arms from shoulders to elbow are too short, not correct foreshortening, His small finger is too long. I think the face is excellent and very complimentary. The butterfly is too large and in an awkward place. The red is done for shock value. So many artists try to be different so they do shock art.
Pietro Annigoni, a great portraitist in Florence was asked to paint the Queen back in the 80s. He was of the Classical Renaissance style.
Mr. Annigoni was the only contemporary painter who was allowed to paint a chapel in the Saint Joseph in .
The portrait of the queen is magnificent. No need for shock,
I met Anigoni's wife and one of his models, but never got to meet him. He was amazing.
The painting is very good except for the red color. Looks like blood.
Ugh! That portrait looks like pure evilness.
I think it is stunning in its emotional impact and content as well as indicating his sense of humor. King Charles has a disorder that actually makes his hands look like that. The painting emphasizes the King as a man rather than reducing him to a role by painting his uniform realistically. Bravo!
On King Charle’s own admission he has very fat fingers so I think they are done in a kind way.
Now I have come out with a view of the painting that will make all of the controversial views get united for the sake of England and the World. His Majesty has been place in hades standing with his sword like Saint George by Donatello, to join Saint Michael and the Army of the Lord againrs all of the demonds, to bring peace to Earth and the aftarworld forever and ever. Now, how do you like this? Under this point of view it is the most glorious portrait ever, though very bloody. So, it is for all of you, guys. I hope that the king will defeat of all the demonds there before my arrival. So you keep the portrait here in this world, you praise it, and after the king has done his job in hades, I will not have to see that red, whatever it means, but nothing peaceful, and I will not have to see the red after victory there. God save the King!
Thanks, Eric....Good on you for these Critiques. King Charles portrait was rendered well and the Monarch butterfly was a nice touch but I wish the butterfly was traditional colors. I think the Artist was depicting Charles kind of dissolving into his pain and passion. It is a sad and wounded feeling that I feel when looking at this portrait.
I think the goal of art is to evoke emotion. If thats the case, the artist did his job :-)
It’s great!! His reign is definitely going to be short!!! Royal Blood! The King obviously liked it and he is a good Artist!! So piss off!LOL
I love this portrait and it's horrific to me how people jump into negativity. This Artist has a unique style he doesn't do the same old dull boring type of portrait. This is someones livelihood. He's made a name for himself. It's disgusting how its becoming socially acceptable to tear someone down publicly as and attempt to ruin him. None of you were invited to do a portrait for the King and you probably never will.
Can't fault it really.
Charles looks like hell
Eric, you were too kind in your review of King Charles' portrait.
He just said that he believes that King Charles gets his magazine so seems like a bit of favouritism honestly because this is horrific honestly
Perhaps, but if I loose his subscription, its not the end of the world, and I doubt I'll ever get a chance to meet him. I did not want to tear it down, because I think there is a lot of good in it. And as someone else said, "he didn't pick you (meaning me) to do his portrait." and I'm not sure I could do that well. He did get our attention and got everyone talking. If it had been a "normal" king portrait, it would be over quickly, yet people are still debating it. There is value in that.
@@artschoollive absolutely I do agree there is definitely a skill level in that painting.. but I do think that the artist might of had an underlying message. And you’re right no one is going to forget that painting..
Looks like he's on fire! Just too much red. It's a NO for me!
To me, it represents the British monarchy steeped in the blood of centuries of colonialism.
I wouldn’t deign to scrawl coloured marks all over Charles’ portrait. I think Yeo has created a deep, meaningful painting, and a fine likeness. The aspects of pentimenti you dislike, the re-drawing of the arms, are, I think, left there quite deliberately: associating the subject with qualities a modern monarch would no doubt like to exemplify, transparency, honesty, work and struggle, the progressively resolved… there’s more to (what is in this case a very, very tame piece of) modern art than polite, traditional notions of beauty. This portrait is unabashed, bold, and direct, and is a stunningly successful, thoughtful bit of work.
The king's "portrait" indicates disrespect,
the king portrait sucks
Hope he didnt pay much for it.
Don’t like it