Art (or rather alleged art)
Jan. 14th, 2013 10:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99So, on Saturday, I forgot to write about the new royal portrait http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20978904 Which I hate, on artistic grounds.
Now I've got to admit a bias against photo-realism*, because, well, in the modern era (I'm generous and will start modern in 1970), we have these things called cameras that do it better job of it than any artist so, for me, an artist has to add something to the picture. Particularly when the sitter is one of the most photographed women of the last year so we all know what she looks like. And she doesn't look anything like this.
Seriously, if you asked me to mention three physical things about her, it would be her eyes, her smile and her hair, none of which are replicated in anyway in this photo.
And I could maybe like with that if there was anything going on with the background like, I don't know, Kate vs the Dinosaurs or something. But no, it's plain black. I mean, I could have gone with it had it been something like heavy draped curtains and some sort of symbolism about royalty and performance. Or chiaroscuro, and again symbolism.
Or anything that isn't going to make me think that the artist was working on a deadline and ran out of time. The whole painting does have that air about it.
*history of art pal insists it's not photo-realism, so please insert faux-photo-realism where required if you agree with him
Now I've got to admit a bias against photo-realism*, because, well, in the modern era (I'm generous and will start modern in 1970), we have these things called cameras that do it better job of it than any artist so, for me, an artist has to add something to the picture. Particularly when the sitter is one of the most photographed women of the last year so we all know what she looks like. And she doesn't look anything like this.
Seriously, if you asked me to mention three physical things about her, it would be her eyes, her smile and her hair, none of which are replicated in anyway in this photo.
And I could maybe like with that if there was anything going on with the background like, I don't know, Kate vs the Dinosaurs or something. But no, it's plain black. I mean, I could have gone with it had it been something like heavy draped curtains and some sort of symbolism about royalty and performance. Or chiaroscuro, and again symbolism.
Or anything that isn't going to make me think that the artist was working on a deadline and ran out of time. The whole painting does have that air about it.
*history of art pal insists it's not photo-realism, so please insert faux-photo-realism where required if you agree with him
