Portrait of the Portrait Artist
c. Michael St.Mark 2013
Given the critical furore in art review circles concerning Paul Emsley’s royal portrait, London Dada deem it appropriate that the royal artist be given his own controversial art interpretation for posterity.
( Kate looks on, approvingly… do we detect a veiled smile of secret satisfaction? )
She couldn’t possibly comment.
A4 giclee print on premium Ilford pearl, “scrunched” ( ” scrunch flex portraiture” invented by M.St.M in 2007 ) and employing the gloss surface of the paper to incorporate a unique light sharding effect.
Left part of the print adhered to the frame’s backing panel, the right side raised in relief for further 3D manipulation.
Infinitely flexible portraiture artwork.
Open box framed; 21cms x 30cms
Signed original; £1580.
Derivation. Paul Emsley with his somewhat tired and overworked portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge’s photo, unveiled at the NPG yesterday.
Perhaps he should stick to drawing, “wot he is good at”.
And finally; ” Mystery Woman” by Michael St.Mark from way back when.
Pingback: Work No. 766: Bend it like Blatter | LONDON DADA
trouble with people who have no real art skills is that they are quite blind!
Emsley is a formidable draughtsman, no doubt. One need only view his life drawings to confirm, but the art of painting is another pot of brushes altogether in terms of skill, sensibility – or knack even – required in rendering an impressive capture of the subject in a subjective as well as objective way.
Although it’s true about the non art-trained critic’s blind spots; in this instance it’s apparent to most people, lay or nay, that Emsley seems to have relied far too heavily on a photograph rather than the live essence of the Dutchess from the sitting she did for him.
The ensuing portrait isn’t altogether bad, it just fails to be good.
It’s 2D – in every way, IMHO.
Thanks for visiting, an-a’ – cute blog!
LOL I don’t see what all the fuss is about .
She looks fine , and to all accounts she is pleased with the end result.
My only criticism would be that seeing the painting next to people viewing it she appears to be larger on canvas than in real life .
The scrunched up version of the artist is novel too 🙂
Well yes, each to their own on this one!
Personally I feel Mr Emsley has captured The Duchess’s photograph( from which he was largely working) quite well.. and not much more.
The idea of the painted portrait is to introduce a fresh essence, to capture a kind of je-ne-sais-quoi about the subject. Not something I’m convinced he’s done here.
Good point about the (over)size of the painting – maybe that’s a fundamental gaffe that you’re the first to highlight. It’s strange having a 3ft square head looking down at one, whether that’s a painting of a commoner or of royalty.
Re the royal artist scrunch; it perhaps loosely resembles a kind of Cubist de-construct after that renowned dissector-in-oils, Georges Braque (of sorts)