Portrait of Phillip
andyh
Lethal Injectn
>Hit or miss?
>Mrs.H
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3095881.stm
=================
Quotes from the article:
"Pearson Wright's style is to distort his subjects by lengthening their natural
features. "
No kidding. Yikes!
"After being shown the early work on the original painting, Pearson Wright said
he asked the prince if he thought it was a good likeness, to which the reply
was: "I bloody well hope not." "
I don't blame him. I think it's an utterly awful portrait! I can't understand
why Phillip would choose the artist in the first place if he knew his style and
the sort of things he'd done earlier.
andyh
"Lethal Injectn" <lethal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030728192408...@mb-m07.aol.com...
Yes it's a little distorted, but still a pretty good likeness though. He's
got the nose and all those life lines down to a T.
Mrs.H
G-B
andyh wrote:
====
I can appreciate the...what - the art of it and the detail but I think
it's dreadful. I don't know why 99% of artists today distort
everything. I usually feel it's because there are no Rembrandts today
but this chap's piece is quite detailed - just distorted.
Gioff
Tom
> Hit or miss?
> Mrs.H
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3095881.stm
for what it is, in the style that it is, i say a hit.
BUT, that doesnt mean id want it hanging in my house. ; )
DragnFlyy
Mrs.H
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3095881.stm>>>>
I wouldn't be too happy about it if I were Prince Philip.
sacha Hubbard
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 29/7/03 12:24 am:
> From: "andyh" ahamste...@earthlink.net
>
>> Hit or miss?
>> Mrs.H
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3095881.stm
>
> =================
> Quotes from the article:
> "Pearson Wright's style is to distort his subjects by lengthening their
> natural
> features. "
>
> No kidding. Yikes!
I thought that was the normal technique of the average cartoonist. And I
think that's what this is.
>
> "After being shown the early work on the original painting, Pearson Wright
> said
> he asked the prince if he thought it was a good likeness, to which the reply
> was: "I bloody well hope not." "
>
> I don't blame him. I think it's an utterly awful portrait! I can't
> understand
> why Phillip would choose the artist in the first place if he knew his style
> and
> the sort of things he'd done earlier.
>
I'm not sure he did choose him. I think it was commissioned by someone else
and this was the artist chosen but I'll have to see if I can find that info.
--
Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)
JFlexer
I like it... I think it is interesting and it makes me think about why the
artist made the choices he did... but I also liked the controversial
portrait of the Queen that was executed by a different artist awhile back...
(also the portrait of Anne!)
The thing to consider here: Why was it painted?
If it was intended to be a realistic portrait hung in a palace as a memorial
to pass through generations? Well, then, not a good choice of an artist.
If it was created as a work of art, to express a particular view of the
subject and to make the viewer think... then it was a good job. It
shouldn't be judged like a photographic portrait... It should be analyzed -
first to determine purpose, and the agreement or disagreement with the
artist..
This type of portrait isn't the artistic equivalent of FACT, but of artistic
OPINION and should be treated as such.
I get frustrated when people (I realize that the palace may not have
commissioned the portrait) commission a portrait by an artist who deals in
surreal/impressionistic art and then complains about the results. Andy
Warhol, Picasso, Salvador Dali all come to mind as famous artists of recent
history who had annoyed subjects when the work was complete... but if you
hired any of these folks - it seems foolish to expect a level of realism
equivalent to a photograph...
-J
Andy.3rd
>OPINION and should be treated as such.
>
>I get frustrated when people (I realize that the palace may not have
>commissioned the portrait) commission a portrait by an artist who deals in
>surreal/impressionistic art and then complains about the results. Andy
>Warhol, Picasso, Salvador Dali all come to mind as famous artists of recent
>history who had annoyed subjects when the work was complete... but if you
>hired any of these folks - it seems foolish to expect a level of realism
>equivalent to a photograph...
>
>-J
I object to it even being called a portrait! It *is* a painting or an atistic
impression but a portrait (which-imho-is a realistic lifelike likeness of the
subject) it is NOT!
His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM
"Mrs. J. J. McHale- a wannabe "authority" and the Usenet's most promiscous
posting-whore"
Atlantis Magazine
"JFlexer" <jf0962...@fbuster.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bg6h9...@enews4.newsguy.com...
What he said. :)
I like it very much -- the artist's choices made me look at it longer and
with more thought about Philip's character than a straightforward
photographic portrait would have done...
Lethal Injectn
>>>> I get frustrated when people (I realize that the palace may not have
commissioned the portrait) commission a portrait by an artist who deals in
surreal/impressionistic art and then complains about the results. Andy
Warhol, Picasso, Salvador Dali all come to mind as famous artists of recent
history who had annoyed subjects when the work was complete... but if you
hired any of these folks - it seems foolish to expect a level of realism
equivalent to a photograph... >>
I agree with your comments on expectations, etc. However, I read the article
to mean that Phillip knew the artist's previous work and, as President of the
RSA who commissioned the work, had a great deal of input into choice of
artists.
The article states: "The prince - who is celebrating 50 years as the RSA's
president - was aware of the artist's previous work. The prince picked Pearson
Wright to paint his portrait after seeing his picture of six presidents of the
British Academy. It showed the presidents around a table decorated with a dead
chicken."
Hence, my original question about why Phillip would choose such an artist in
the first place given what he knew of the artist's style.
As for types of portraits, you commented: "This type of portrait isn't the
artistic equivalent of FACT, but of artistic
OPINION and should be treated as such."
I agree that all art is, at its most elemental level, a question of artistic
opinion and perception. However, to me, "portrait" has a certain connotation
which involves a more traditional, conservative style. I see it as a genre
which, by its very nature, requires it to be faithful to the subject, not to
the artist's personal sensibilities or visions. At least, it shouldn't be,
IMO, when it is a commissioned work.
G.Roberts
One glance at www.thesaveloyfactory.com will convince agr contributors of
Stuart Pearson Wright's skill as an accomplished, conventional, contemporary
portrait painter, (e.g.Anna Friel, Alistair Gillam).
I have seen his picture in the British Academy, 'Gallus gallus Still Life
with Presidents', and it is 'fun', gentle, and makes one smile. And it is
contemporary. Even to the extent of depicting through the window the
Millennium Wheel in the background - and when one glances out of the window,
there is that very Wheel showing above the buildings and trees. Perhaps
Phillip was expecting / hoping for, too, a similar 'fun', fullish-length
portrait in a contemporary setting, not this disappointing, spatially and
temporally-isolated, head and long, scraggy neck painting.
On the other hand, is the artist simply challenging the viewer and saying:
"Here is the portrait of a (seemingly) naked man of advanced years, shorn of
all reference features: uniform, medals etc. What can his face tell us of
his life and character?"
And does it work?
G. Roberts
Charlene
Does it remind anyone else of Don Quixote?
Charlene
JFlexer
<snip>
>
> I agree with your comments on expectations, etc. However, I read the
article
> to mean that Phillip knew the artist's previous work and, as President of
the
> RSA who commissioned the work, had a great deal of input into choice of
> artists.
>
> The article states: "The prince - who is celebrating 50 years as the RSA's
> president - was aware of the artist's previous work. The prince picked
Pearson
> Wright to paint his portrait after seeing his picture of six presidents of
the
> British Academy. It showed the presidents around a table decorated with a
dead
> chicken."
>
> Hence, my original question about why Phillip would choose such an artist
in
> the first place given what he knew of the artist's style.
I don't think he's unhappy with the portrait that is shown... the article
indicates that the lack of response to this portrait is consistent with
others where the palace's reaction is in the range from satisfactory to "we
like it..."
According to the article, this is the second painting... the FIRST was
deemed inappropriate... curiously, it was a full-length portrait... I
wonder what qualities the artist included that would make BP deem it
inappropriate. The artist is still in possession of the painting and
apparently will 'reveal' it later.... can't wait...
> As for types of portraits, you commented: "This type of portrait isn't the
> artistic equivalent of FACT, but of artistic
> OPINION and should be treated as such."
>
> I agree that all art is, at its most elemental level, a question of
artistic
> opinion and perception. However, to me, "portrait" has a certain
connotation
> which involves a more traditional, conservative style. I see it as a
genre
> which, by its very nature, requires it to be faithful to the subject, not
to
> the artist's personal sensibilities or visions. At least, it shouldn't
be,
> IMO, when it is a commissioned work.
I agree that if BP was after a 'portrait' of a traditional nature, then they
chose the wrong artist. But, given that Pr. Phillip was very aware of the
artist's work - I don't think he chose expecting a 'traditional' portrait.
And, it seems, he's not unhappy with this portrayal.
As I said above, I'm very curious to see the first painting...
-J
Lethal Injectn
>>>As I said above, I'm very curious to see the first painting... >>
I did too. Then I considered the possibility of it being a partial nude.
(It's not wholly impossible given the facts, the artist's style and his
rendition of Phillip in the 2nd portrait.)
I don't think my system could handle seeing Prince Phillip without any clothes
on.
yaffaDina
Good Grief! I barely looked at this thread -- portrait of Phillip! I
have obviously missed much (or not much he he)
yD
Lethal Injectn
<snipped to point being responded to>
>On the other hand, is the artist simply challenging the viewer and saying:
"Here is the portrait of a (seemingly) naked man of advanced years, shorn of
all reference features: uniform, medals etc. What can his face tell us of his
life and character?" >>
A *very* good point! And beautifully expressed too. I'd never considered that
perspective and, now that I do, I think you're probably right in your
interpretation. Obviously, I have to get over thinking that portraits have to
be done in the style of Joshua Reynolds, Gainsborough, David, etc. Yet, to be
honest, I'm still a bit torn because --- narrow though my definition may be ---
what you're describing is more like a real artistic piece (where the artist is
free to indulge in his artistic vision) and less like a traditional,
commissioned portrait (where the artist is under obligation to a client to
produce a faithful reproduction). I probably need to broaden my definitions
and horizons. :)
Lethal Injectn
>>Does it remind anyone else of Don Quixote?>>
Now that you mention it.....
Honestly, if I were Phillip and saw that portrait, I would have said a lot more
than "I bloody well hope not!"
Lethal Injectn
(snipped to relevant point)
>>I don't think he's unhappy with the portrait that is shown... the article
indicates that the lack of response to this portrait is consistent with others
where the palace's reaction is in the range from satisfactory to "we like
it..." >>
I forgot to add to my prior post:
I think he dislikes it quite a lot. The following is an article which
elaborates on his "Bloody hell, I hope not!" reaction:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1005503,00.html
Excerpt:
" Both sitter and artist were unhappy long before it was finished. Pearson
Wright said he would have needed at least 12 sittings, but was refused any more
time. Lucian Freud had a similar problem with his Jubilee portrait of the
Queen.
At the end of the first sitting the prince inspected the work and exclaimed
"godzooks" or "godzounds", the artist was too alarmed to remember which.
Despite Pearson Wright's attempts to put him at his ease - "I asked him about
Greece, and about the kids" - the relationship did not blossom. At the end of
the second sitting the prince said: "As long as I don't have to have it on my
wall."
There are a few clues as to why the original version may not have found favour.
Prince Philip chose Stuart Pearson Wright from a shortlist, on the basis of a
portfolio which included his BP award-winning group portrait of six presidents
of the British Academy, gathered around a table decorated with a dead chicken.
At the time the artist explained: "I would really have liked to paint the
sitters naked, in all their vulnerability ... because it wasn't possible to
depict them naked, I painted a dead chicken."
Pearson Wright recalled that he had been waiting, nervously, in Buckingham
Palace practising the bob of the neck bow the court officials had taught him.
"Then all of a sudden this little old man shuffled into the room. I'm not sure
if he was actually wearing carpet slippers, but that was my impression." So had
he painted the prince in his spiritual carpet slippers? "I'm not at liberty to
say." "
sacha Hubbard
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 30/7/03 9:19 pm:
I'm not sure his could either!
Lethal Injectn
>>>> I don't think my system could handle seeing Prince Phillip without any
clothes on. >>
>I'm not sure his could either! >>
And there went my coffee! I'll have you know, this was a new dress too!
Thank God for black. ;P
G.Roberts
But the trick of the artist was to suggest nudity by the simple expedient of
lengthening the bare neck. And yet, and yet, perhaps there was no
trick.........!
Already one can see that it is a talking point.....
G. Roberts
JFlexer
But these all refer to the FIRST painting, which everyone agrees was not
liked by anyone....
The second portrait was painted from photographs - the Prince was not
present during it's creation...
-J
Susan Cohen
>
>
> The second portrait was painted from photographs - the Prince was not
> present during it's creation...
>
had been manipulated, & wondered how he could get away w/that.
SusanC
> -J
>
>
deneph
I think it looks like one of those puppets from that British show.
What was that called? Phil Collins used them in a video. That's what
it reminded me of.
~D
sacha Hubbard
stewa...@yahoo.com wrote on 31/7/03 10:35 pm:
Spitting Image?
Susan Cohen
"sacha Hubbard" <sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BB4F5128.26CB%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
> in article a01ad26.03073...@posting.google.com, deneph at
> stewa...@yahoo.com wrote on 31/7/03 10:35 pm:
>
> > What was that called? Phil Collins used them in a video. That's what
> > it reminded me of.
> >
> > ~D
>
> Spitting Image?
Yes, that one.
Susan
andyh
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3f299...@vienna7.his.com...
I think the portrait is kinder.
Mrs.H
>
Lethal Injectn
>But these all refer to the FIRST painting, which everyone agrees was not
>liked by anyone....
>
>The second portrait was painted from photographs - the Prince was not
>present during it's creation...
>
>-J
=================
You're right. I misread and forgot that Prince Phillip didn't pose for the 2nd
portrait. My mistake.
Geo
"andyh" <ahamste...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oRhVa.123250$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jean Sue Libkind
wrote on 8/8/03 7:23 AM:
Looks like he altered it on the computer by lengthening it but not widening
it in ratio.
js