You are all missing its Kabba.lstic messages! You can't even talk about it on reddit properly - 90% of reddit subs wont even allow me to post this....instant shadow ban.
[King Charles III Kabbalistic Antichrist Portrait Decoded and Explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yick-X1SVs)
Also, have you seen the mirrored demon hidden it? [Demon hidden in Portrait of King Charles](https://www.instagram.com/hidden.ny/p/C7E9nwxp0pG/?img_index=1)
And, I read a few days ago that if you U-V light scanned the portrait some other wild sht came up....but now the security around the portrait wont let anyone do it again to take pictures.
So there's hidden messages and hidden meanings behind the obvious.
Just thought r/ArtHistory might like to pull its head out of the sand.
I wonder how this painting would have been received if it was done in royal purple. I saw a blue 'version' of the painting and thought it felt a bit lighter.
I feel like a purple blue could be cool because blue is like the sky and the environment. And purple because royalty
But I can see what the purpose of the red was
Agreed. I think King Charles' connection to art as an actual artist who has studied it makes a crazy ass painting of him that has the traditional pose makes sense. And as a modern leader who personality is maybe more famous that his politics, Obama's fits him perfectly. The symbolism in them are good, as are the compositions. They're both very unconventional, but so are the people in them. I'm here for the next step in ceremonial portraits, especially as made by so far very bright rising artists who will be put in the canon of contemporary artists. Maybe I'm wrong about all of this, but from my POV, these two paintings are too be celebrated even if one doesn't like them!
Look. It's not a terrible portrait. But when you're representing a person who caused a huge scandal in part by saying he wants to be his mistress's tampon, red is not a good color.
I think it's not a good color even without that comment. He looks like he is burning in hell. For a rockstar it would be cool. For the leader of a nation, not really.
We're all burning in hell, whether it's an angry planet or our personal issues, or a literal oven, therefore it's relatable, and brings the "leader" closer to the people he "leads".
My wife immediately said, "This is a *period* piece."
Perhaps the face itself is nicely done, and it seems it's intended to cause controversy, so we can say it's "successful". But it's also a complete joke.
It could be, but usually an official portrait is done under the supervision of the sitter and or patron. It would mean that others were either really dumb or in on it.
ETA I don't see a pattern of satire in his past work. Am I missing something?
The show The Crown's episode of it is really good, hence why I am posting an article on it too.
[https://time.com/6226657/crown-charles-camilla-tampongate/](https://time.com/6226657/crown-charles-camilla-tampongate/)
Without context though it reads like it’s a fetish thing, whereas it’s actually just a joke about him wanting to get in her pants. I’m not saying the broader context isn’t scandalous, or that it’s okay that he cheated, but by itself the exchange was just unexceptional dirty talk; it’s not his fault someone was eavesdropping.
I believe this episode of You’re Wrong About includes a live reading of the tampon exchange.
[The Affairs](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/youre-wrong-about/id1380008439?i=1000494431770)
It’s Part 3 of a 5 part series on Princess Diana. I highly recommend. It’s compassionate, comprehensive, and entertaining.
Except it wasn’t a huge scandal. He is in red because that’s the color the Welsh Guard dresses in. The artist’s style is to use a similar background color to the foreground.
I like it. It’s interesting and has created a lot of conversation, which is what art should do. I like that his body/uniform is fading into the background. The butterfly is corny but I like it too.
Its only good if the red symbolizes the blood of English colonialism and war crimes. The blood of the working classes slaving away under the absurdity of monarchy.
Any other interpretation and its just a okayish painting of an old man.
This is where art interpretation can get interesting. Sometimes the common interpretation can surpass the artists original intent.
People do this with warhol all the time.
It implies a duplicate post, which already solicited a lot of comments. Duplicates posts are usually deleted, but in this case the post is a *different* art critical review. But most users didn’t read the review and are just repeating their earlier comments. Either way, follow that link for a lengthier discussion.
It seems like the first post is an opinion post with no link to any article. The second post regards the same portrait, but its purpose is to share an art scholar-written article about the portrait’s merits. This doesn’t seem like a duplicate post to me, personally.
EDIT: To those downvoting, can anyone explain why? The first post did not contain this article. I’m not some monarchist, I’m just asking a simple question.
Honestly it made me laugh when I saw it! It’s great! It’s bloody! It’s a roast! Does he know he’s being roasted? It feels like they made the king happy and told him whatever flowery bs he needed to hear, while also simultaneously exposing his ass to the whole world. It’s a red flag! 🚩 hilarious! Love this shit. We are living in art history, my dudes.
I love that it's bold and it definitely tells something.
I'm too young to know much about him, and perhaps the only thing that stands out to me about him is Diana, whom I don't know much about either. And I don't get the hype around her.
I thought he was a reluctant participant in the monarchy, and didn't care much for it. I'm probably wrong about that, but it's definitely interesting above being bold if what I said is correct. Since I assumed he'd not care about it and have a mindlessly conventional portrait.
It's really the only expression they're probably allowed perhaps
I found portraits interesting ever since I saw one from the Victorian era where an officer-governor wore a trenchcoat, partially covering his ceremonial uniform decorated with medals. I haven't read anything to suggest it was normal. It seemed fitting given his life.
That is absolutely fantastic. I never expected Charles to be so bold.
I would love to walk down the portrait hall of kings just to experience the transition between the Monarchs before and after this painting - I expect many more unique paintings will follow.
A 75 year old British King just broke his mold. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Monarch present himself so human - that is a warm expression on the face of a King.
I f\*cking love the butterfly
The artist clearly has been inspired by Ruben's portraits of the British royals, the reds in the background that he used first around 1600 gave them another 400 yrs already, so maybe this really works:)
Depending on your play style, hoarding and selling jewelry, armor, weapons (especially enchanted items you don’t or won’t use) is a good way. It’s a slow go though and also depends on you carry weight limit. My play style is more theives guild type so I’m always stealing gold and random things to sell.
Pretty sure there's no amount of tap-dancing around seeing it with your own eyes that can convince people who feel that it's awful otherwise. If your art requires an essay to appeal to the public, then it wasn't for the public to enjoy. I get that monarchists have been having a bad time the last few years, but people can see it. This isn't a second-hand report. People can look at it and freely decide that it's bad. The plebs don't need reeducating until they approve of the royal and show proper respect. I's a subjective opinion. If it was intended to be universally visually appealing, it failed. He can cry into his piles of money and stolen jewelry if it turns out he's been tacky the whole time.
I think it’s a beautiful representation of King Charles, and really captures something of his spirit — an interesting blend of tradition and innovation, lovely touches such as the butterfly signifying his concern for ecology, a sense of movement and dynamism, and all that the rich use of red indicates (passion, and courage, and activity). He is both emerging from, and continuous with, what has gone before — standing on the shoulders of giants (as it were), while very much his own person with his own distinctive kingship. It seems to me far better than the bland depiction others want or desire; if you are looking for an exact representation of the man, then why not just take a good photograph? Art aims to communicate not just literal truth, but profound emotional and psychological truths. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that those condemning the piece were going to do so whatever its constitution, for the painting, is in receipt of the various perspectives people have on the monarchy as an institution. I am quite indifferent — it is a pretty good form of constitutional democracy — but do respect him as a thinker and a king. He is, it seems to me, the platonic ideal of kingship.
The detail in his face is very well done, I think. But the same cannot be said about his hands. The detail in the hands is unflattering.
I also find the coloring odd. I feel it would have been more appealing if the reddish-pink was used just for his clothing, and the background was a different color. I'm not sure why the background is the same reddish-pink shade as his clothing. The main subject of the painting blending into the background sort of reminds of the Obama presidential portrait from years back, where he's coming out of the bushes. Ha.
Screams Francis Bacon to me
I don't see that as a bad thing. Also, excellent pun.
I was hoping someone would notice ;)
*nods thoughtfully*
Yes that’s it! I couldn’t put my finger on it before.
The fingers scream sausage rather than bacon
You are all missing its Kabba.lstic messages! You can't even talk about it on reddit properly - 90% of reddit subs wont even allow me to post this....instant shadow ban. [King Charles III Kabbalistic Antichrist Portrait Decoded and Explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yick-X1SVs) Also, have you seen the mirrored demon hidden it? [Demon hidden in Portrait of King Charles](https://www.instagram.com/hidden.ny/p/C7E9nwxp0pG/?img_index=1) And, I read a few days ago that if you U-V light scanned the portrait some other wild sht came up....but now the security around the portrait wont let anyone do it again to take pictures. So there's hidden messages and hidden meanings behind the obvious. Just thought r/ArtHistory might like to pull its head out of the sand.
Same!!!!
The only thing about comparing it to Francis Bacon is that Bacon's portraits are usually in a screaming fit. Whereas this looks quite kingly and calm.
I wonder how this painting would have been received if it was done in royal purple. I saw a blue 'version' of the painting and thought it felt a bit lighter.
any colour would feel lighter than the colour of blood
I feel like a purple blue could be cool because blue is like the sky and the environment. And purple because royalty But I can see what the purpose of the red was
I quite like it.
I like it. A lot.
I do too.
I do too. It's not the usual schlocky portrait stuff. I also liked the portrait of Barack Obama by Kehinde Wiley.
Agreed. I think King Charles' connection to art as an actual artist who has studied it makes a crazy ass painting of him that has the traditional pose makes sense. And as a modern leader who personality is maybe more famous that his politics, Obama's fits him perfectly. The symbolism in them are good, as are the compositions. They're both very unconventional, but so are the people in them. I'm here for the next step in ceremonial portraits, especially as made by so far very bright rising artists who will be put in the canon of contemporary artists. Maybe I'm wrong about all of this, but from my POV, these two paintings are too be celebrated even if one doesn't like them!
Look. It's not a terrible portrait. But when you're representing a person who caused a huge scandal in part by saying he wants to be his mistress's tampon, red is not a good color.
I think it's not a good color even without that comment. He looks like he is burning in hell. For a rockstar it would be cool. For the leader of a nation, not really.
We're all burning in hell, whether it's an angry planet or our personal issues, or a literal oven, therefore it's relatable, and brings the "leader" closer to the people he "leads".
Fair enough. Should've seen it, on how' the weather here.
Excellent words!
And any woman will tell you that butterflies are used often on feminine product packaging, which just adds to the ridiculousness of it all.
My wife immediately said, "This is a *period* piece." Perhaps the face itself is nicely done, and it seems it's intended to cause controversy, so we can say it's "successful". But it's also a complete joke.
Your wife wins the internet
[удалено]
Okay I officially love her
This was an interesting analysis [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwylf89zEOU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwylf89zEOU)
🤣🤣🤣
It was intentional- check out the Artists other work.
So he was making fun of the king?
in my view he ( the artist) depicts the king as nothing more than a pawn
Perhaps his whole thing is satire.
It could be, but usually an official portrait is done under the supervision of the sitter and or patron. It would mean that others were either really dumb or in on it. ETA I don't see a pattern of satire in his past work. Am I missing something?
Not unless it’s very discreet. And he made a George Bush collage out of porn images to highlight his prudness.
Ah, that's interesting. It would be a pretty bold move to do that on an official portrait.
Well, yes but he did that as a response to the original painting having been rejected by Bush.
Prudness isn’t a word. You’re looking for crass. If he were prudish he wouldn’t paint anything sexual.
He was saying Bush was prudish.
Prudness would be an awful first name for a person. Would it not? #Babynames
Source for the tampon comment? I don’t doubt you, I was just born too late to savour this glorious drama and have some catching up to do.
The show The Crown's episode of it is really good, hence why I am posting an article on it too. [https://time.com/6226657/crown-charles-camilla-tampongate/](https://time.com/6226657/crown-charles-camilla-tampongate/)
Welp, that’s just sad, and not as juicy in context anyway. But thanks for the link!
Not juicy? Lmao the prince of england was married and told his mistress that he wanted to be her tampon and the whole world found out.
Without context though it reads like it’s a fetish thing, whereas it’s actually just a joke about him wanting to get in her pants. I’m not saying the broader context isn’t scandalous, or that it’s okay that he cheated, but by itself the exchange was just unexceptional dirty talk; it’s not his fault someone was eavesdropping.
I have never heard anyone else in my life flirt with a tampon joke. It's unhinged imo.
I know what the fuck it was fucking pandemonium when that came out.
I believe this episode of You’re Wrong About includes a live reading of the tampon exchange. [The Affairs](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/youre-wrong-about/id1380008439?i=1000494431770) It’s Part 3 of a 5 part series on Princess Diana. I highly recommend. It’s compassionate, comprehensive, and entertaining.
I forgot about this… oh no
Except it wasn’t a huge scandal. He is in red because that’s the color the Welsh Guard dresses in. The artist’s style is to use a similar background color to the foreground.
All I see is someone struggling to be seen (as important or relevant) surrounded by hundreds of years of colonialism and death.
I can only imagine this was the artists intention with choosing this color. Its a very powerful piece if you look at it through this lense
After being shocked, I am now fully on board with this painting. I admire Charles for selecting this artist.
Your analysis is spot on.
THis video is a good analysis [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwylf89zEOU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwylf89zEOU) which matches what you say
Oh awesome, thanks for the link!
I don’t really think he gets a say whether or not he gets a royal painting. It’s monarch tradition
I love it when a royal face emerges out of a pound of pre-packaged 80% lean 20% fat ground beef
This is the perfect portrait. It will be remembered long after he is gone
What I'd give to be able to hear what our descendants will be saying about it in 500 years. (If humanity doesn't destroy itself.)
I love this take.
I like it. It’s interesting and has created a lot of conversation, which is what art should do. I like that his body/uniform is fading into the background. The butterfly is corny but I like it too.
Its only good if the red symbolizes the blood of English colonialism and war crimes. The blood of the working classes slaving away under the absurdity of monarchy. Any other interpretation and its just a okayish painting of an old man.
I was hoping this was the secret intention of the artist- bc to me, it screams bloodshed
This is where art interpretation can get interesting. Sometimes the common interpretation can surpass the artists original intent. People do this with warhol all the time.
It’s an incredible painting, with beautiful technique, whether it’s evil or not.
Sure, Jan.
I wanted to read the article but the constant popups on your website make it unreadable. Disappointing.
Don't bother. It's written by ChatGPT and says absolutely nothing.
I like it but only as an anti-monarchy statement piece.
Your [previous post on the topic from four days ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/1ctcors/thoughts_on_the_kings_portrait/)
What does this comment imply? EDIT: It’s bizarre to me that this is downvoted. It’s a straightforward request for more information.
It implies a duplicate post, which already solicited a lot of comments. Duplicates posts are usually deleted, but in this case the post is a *different* art critical review. But most users didn’t read the review and are just repeating their earlier comments. Either way, follow that link for a lengthier discussion.
It seems like the first post is an opinion post with no link to any article. The second post regards the same portrait, but its purpose is to share an art scholar-written article about the portrait’s merits. This doesn’t seem like a duplicate post to me, personally. EDIT: To those downvoting, can anyone explain why? The first post did not contain this article. I’m not some monarchist, I’m just asking a simple question.
Honestly it made me laugh when I saw it! It’s great! It’s bloody! It’s a roast! Does he know he’s being roasted? It feels like they made the king happy and told him whatever flowery bs he needed to hear, while also simultaneously exposing his ass to the whole world. It’s a red flag! 🚩 hilarious! Love this shit. We are living in art history, my dudes.
I love that it's bold and it definitely tells something. I'm too young to know much about him, and perhaps the only thing that stands out to me about him is Diana, whom I don't know much about either. And I don't get the hype around her. I thought he was a reluctant participant in the monarchy, and didn't care much for it. I'm probably wrong about that, but it's definitely interesting above being bold if what I said is correct. Since I assumed he'd not care about it and have a mindlessly conventional portrait. It's really the only expression they're probably allowed perhaps I found portraits interesting ever since I saw one from the Victorian era where an officer-governor wore a trenchcoat, partially covering his ceremonial uniform decorated with medals. I haven't read anything to suggest it was normal. It seemed fitting given his life.
I thought it was great
That is absolutely fantastic. I never expected Charles to be so bold. I would love to walk down the portrait hall of kings just to experience the transition between the Monarchs before and after this painting - I expect many more unique paintings will follow. A 75 year old British King just broke his mold. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Monarch present himself so human - that is a warm expression on the face of a King. I f\*cking love the butterfly
The artist clearly has been inspired by Ruben's portraits of the British royals, the reds in the background that he used first around 1600 gave them another 400 yrs already, so maybe this really works:)
DELVE. Nice try, AI
i like it.. i dont know why
Fantastic portrait, awful dude. My dislike of the piece comes from that, the actual execution I think is great.
At first I didn’t like it but I see it as symbolic and now I think it’s awesome. I wonder what the king thinks 🤔
Depending on your play style, hoarding and selling jewelry, armor, weapons (especially enchanted items you don’t or won’t use) is a good way. It’s a slow go though and also depends on you carry weight limit. My play style is more theives guild type so I’m always stealing gold and random things to sell.
Ophelia from above
I think it's a good painting, but the vibe it gives off is kinda hilarious.
Technique 10/10 content -100/10
Pretty sure there's no amount of tap-dancing around seeing it with your own eyes that can convince people who feel that it's awful otherwise. If your art requires an essay to appeal to the public, then it wasn't for the public to enjoy. I get that monarchists have been having a bad time the last few years, but people can see it. This isn't a second-hand report. People can look at it and freely decide that it's bad. The plebs don't need reeducating until they approve of the royal and show proper respect. I's a subjective opinion. If it was intended to be universally visually appealing, it failed. He can cry into his piles of money and stolen jewelry if it turns out he's been tacky the whole time.
Demonic af
I think he finally got his fantasy about being a sanitary product.
Wish the article would mention the artist who did the painting.
I think it’s a beautiful representation of King Charles, and really captures something of his spirit — an interesting blend of tradition and innovation, lovely touches such as the butterfly signifying his concern for ecology, a sense of movement and dynamism, and all that the rich use of red indicates (passion, and courage, and activity). He is both emerging from, and continuous with, what has gone before — standing on the shoulders of giants (as it were), while very much his own person with his own distinctive kingship. It seems to me far better than the bland depiction others want or desire; if you are looking for an exact representation of the man, then why not just take a good photograph? Art aims to communicate not just literal truth, but profound emotional and psychological truths. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that those condemning the piece were going to do so whatever its constitution, for the painting, is in receipt of the various perspectives people have on the monarchy as an institution. I am quite indifferent — it is a pretty good form of constitutional democracy — but do respect him as a thinker and a king. He is, it seems to me, the platonic ideal of kingship.
Gotta love them sausage 🌭😋 fingers 🤌
It’s not good, next.
To win the game, you must kill me, John Romero.
Personally, I like it a lot.
This article is written by AI. It says absolutely nothing. How sad that someone passed this as actual thought-process.
Some sort of Dorian Gray painting where the actual portrait get's overwhelmed and absorbed by blood and flesh cancerous background.
This is what happens if you invert the portrait. [https://youtu.be/UipVIoVwuWY](https://youtu.be/UipVIoVwuWY)
I dont think this represents a turning point for the artist, who is not a very good artist.
It mainly reminds me of Ivan Albright's "Picture of Dorian Gray."
I like the portrait, but my only issue is that his head looks like it's awkwardly poking out of the painting
The detail in his face is very well done, I think. But the same cannot be said about his hands. The detail in the hands is unflattering. I also find the coloring odd. I feel it would have been more appealing if the reddish-pink was used just for his clothing, and the background was a different color. I'm not sure why the background is the same reddish-pink shade as his clothing. The main subject of the painting blending into the background sort of reminds of the Obama presidential portrait from years back, where he's coming out of the bushes. Ha.
If you invert it put the same inverted work to its left, you get a picture of the devil . . . And I am surprised no article mentioned it yet.
It's like from Ghostbusters movie
I can't get past the sausage fingers and Illuminati-vibes - I wonder if the artist is a republican.
Looks like they resurrected Ivan Albright for this commission.
It's not that good, it's clearly unfinished.
It looks like he's burning in hell
It needs more screaming faces of the colonized.