Hear, hear! An iconographic reading of the painting by someone better versed in British military and royal history than I would be illuminating, I'm sure. What stands out to me are the face and the butterfly, the only clear images in the work, unwashed by the multi-faceted red stain wash that covers the rest of the work. What does that clarity mean? And what does the red stain wash mean? Art IS meant to challenge us, as you say, and this piece is challenging us in the best way. Quick and facetious responses are unavoidable. Measured ones will lead to understanding and appreciation. Yeo is a great artist. I really like this piece, too. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about it.
Initially I was distracted & disturbed by the sheer amount red - a colour I guess I instinctively associate with evil, bloodthirsty tyrants, but after understanding that the tunic is actually red, it really drew me in and I do find it an honest and moving portrait.
Appreciate what you said about the Flesh Dress and society’s treatment of women.
Sadly, I remember the flesh dress more for the controversy it created, rather than anything about the art work itself, which again speaks volumes about how meaning can get lost in controversy.
On the surface, I love this painting. How the artist was able to create washes of that gorgeous red is mesmerizing. The red functions two ways: Is King Charles III the personification of the lifeblood of Britain or has the blood of all those under years of British colonialism “washed” over KC3?
Looking at Lady Gaga's "meat dress" reminds me of Weird Al's song "Perform This Way":
"I strap prime rib to my feet, cover myself with raw meat
"I'll bet you've never seen a skirt steak worn this way!"
(Al subsequently donated all proceeds from his Lady Gaga lampoon to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. While funny, I think he realized it sounded a bit like he was punching down at LGBTQ people, rather than up at performers with an outré look like Gaga—who actually liked the song!)
A little AI (artificial infatuation) pictures the third more robust and handsome than deserved. But then my great x8 gramps left the Island 612 years ago, so absence ain't makin' this heart grow fonder.
I hadn’t seen this yet - though I’ve read about it. Great portrait - but rather unsettling. Looks like he’s partially immersed in a pond of red paint - or… anybody notice the Monarch butterfly hovering over his shoulder?
Apparently this was King Charles’ idea (“what about a butterfly landing on my shoulder”), when the artist asked for his opinion on how to reference his work on the environment & sustainability in the painting. Once he became King, it also worked as symbol of metamorphosis.
"The Monarch butterfly is believed to have been named after an English King (William of Orange) due to its distinctive colour," Yeo's website reads. "And this migratory species is already one of the most affected by climate change because of alterations in spring temperatures. Primarily a symbol of the beauty and precariousness of nature, it highlights the environmental causes the King has championed most of his life and certainly long before they became a mainstream conversation, but it also serves a compositional purpose, providing a visual contrast to the military steeliness of the uniform and sword. In the context of art history, a butterfly often the symbol of metamorphosis and rebirth, and thus also parallels the King’s transition from Prince to monarch during the period the portrait was created"
Hear, hear! An iconographic reading of the painting by someone better versed in British military and royal history than I would be illuminating, I'm sure. What stands out to me are the face and the butterfly, the only clear images in the work, unwashed by the multi-faceted red stain wash that covers the rest of the work. What does that clarity mean? And what does the red stain wash mean? Art IS meant to challenge us, as you say, and this piece is challenging us in the best way. Quick and facetious responses are unavoidable. Measured ones will lead to understanding and appreciation. Yeo is a great artist. I really like this piece, too. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about it.
Initially I was distracted & disturbed by the sheer amount red - a colour I guess I instinctively associate with evil, bloodthirsty tyrants, but after understanding that the tunic is actually red, it really drew me in and I do find it an honest and moving portrait.
Appreciate what you said about the Flesh Dress and society’s treatment of women.
Sadly, I remember the flesh dress more for the controversy it created, rather than anything about the art work itself, which again speaks volumes about how meaning can get lost in controversy.
I love the portrait too. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
On the surface, I love this painting. How the artist was able to create washes of that gorgeous red is mesmerizing. The red functions two ways: Is King Charles III the personification of the lifeblood of Britain or has the blood of all those under years of British colonialism “washed” over KC3?
It's a beautiful painting, and has a lovely butterfly!
Looking at Lady Gaga's "meat dress" reminds me of Weird Al's song "Perform This Way":
"I strap prime rib to my feet, cover myself with raw meat
"I'll bet you've never seen a skirt steak worn this way!"
(Al subsequently donated all proceeds from his Lady Gaga lampoon to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. While funny, I think he realized it sounded a bit like he was punching down at LGBTQ people, rather than up at performers with an outré look like Gaga—who actually liked the song!)
"...art world gone wrong..."
I remember a report several years ago about an exhibit in which a man and woman were having sex in a museum and pitched it as art was my limit.
????
Agreed.
The portrait looks like "Hail Charles—Lord of Fire!" And here I thought he was a conservative sort, myself....
A little AI (artificial infatuation) pictures the third more robust and handsome than deserved. But then my great x8 gramps left the Island 612 years ago, so absence ain't makin' this heart grow fonder.
I hadn’t seen this yet - though I’ve read about it. Great portrait - but rather unsettling. Looks like he’s partially immersed in a pond of red paint - or… anybody notice the Monarch butterfly hovering over his shoulder?
Apparently this was King Charles’ idea (“what about a butterfly landing on my shoulder”), when the artist asked for his opinion on how to reference his work on the environment & sustainability in the painting. Once he became King, it also worked as symbol of metamorphosis.
"The Monarch butterfly is believed to have been named after an English King (William of Orange) due to its distinctive colour," Yeo's website reads. "And this migratory species is already one of the most affected by climate change because of alterations in spring temperatures. Primarily a symbol of the beauty and precariousness of nature, it highlights the environmental causes the King has championed most of his life and certainly long before they became a mainstream conversation, but it also serves a compositional purpose, providing a visual contrast to the military steeliness of the uniform and sword. In the context of art history, a butterfly often the symbol of metamorphosis and rebirth, and thus also parallels the King’s transition from Prince to monarch during the period the portrait was created"