Kate's Portrait - Not So Great?

Comments

• James2001 Posts: 73,623

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:19 #2

  Nothing about Kate is that great but because she's who she is we should all pretend it's a wonderful picture, the best we've ever seen and fawn over it.

  0
• Miss XYZ Posts: 14,023

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:19 #3

  I think it's awful, she looks really old!

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 701

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:20 #4

  Put about 10 years on her. Cant see this guy getting another commission

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 22,736

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:20 #5

  I have never found her to look anything special anyway to be honest. I have never understood the hype. She is average but has beautiful hair.

  0
• Si_Crewe Posts: 40,202

  Forum Member

  ✭

  11/01/13 - 13:21 #6

  Blimey, not great is it?
  
  Maybe the artist thought it'd be a good idea to try an make her look mature and dowdy or something?

  0
• DiamondDoll Posts: 21,460

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:21 #7

  Horrid.
  
  She looks better than that.

  0
• benjamini Posts: 32,066

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:21 #8

  More caracature really. Poor attempt.

  0
• Parthenon Posts: 7,499

  Forum Member

  ✭

  11/01/13 - 13:22 #9

  Isn't she 31? She looks 20 years older. The artist has artificially aged her around the eyes.

  0
• Pootmatoot Posts: 15,640

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:23 #10

  It does look like her, and she does look a decade older than she is most of the time.
  
  It's not flattering at all, but it's not wrong.

  0
• 2FS Posts: 8,679

  Forum Member

  ✭

  11/01/13 - 13:23 #11

  I'm guessing the artist doesn't like the royals. She looks old enough to be her own mother

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 1,704

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:27 #12

  Will it be near any portraits of Beatrice and Eugenie? Perhaps they were ordered to make Kate not look so good as otherwise it'd show the other two up..

  0
• HarrisonMarks Posts: 4,360

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:28 #13

  It's a public service warning to anyone vain enough to contemplate having their portrait painted.
  She could at least have done a topless shot, wouldn't be the first time.

  0
• pianoforte Posts: 630

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:29 #14

  looks like it was done by the franklin mint.
  strewth, that is awful.

  0
• Hogzilla Posts: 24,116

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:31 #15

  I had the sound down on the telly, and just glanced up as the camera had pulled in to the face, so couldn't see the long hair and didn't know who it was meant to be. I thought it was Kat from eastenders.

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 4,138

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:32 #16

  looks like Helen Lederer's older sister

  0
• treme Posts: 5,445

  Forum Member

  ✭

  11/01/13 - 13:35 #17

  When he was asked to paint "The Duchess", I think the artist had Jimmy Saville's late mother in mind.

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 5,832

  Forum Member

  ✭

  11/01/13 - 13:39 #18

  Someone explain to me the point of having a portrait painted in 2013. I could understand if it was done in a different style, but what's the point of trying to paint a realistic looking likeness when you would get a better result just taking a photo?

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 7,888

  Forum Member

  ✭

  11/01/13 - 13:40 #19

  She looks a bit older there, I love her hair though.

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 22,736

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:41 #20

  Actually the more I look at it, the more I think it is really good.
  
  Maybe the artist was not trying to make her look good. Maybe it was a representation of how she looked at the time of painting. I certainly wish I had their talent.

  0
• Shappy Posts: 14,531

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:43 #21

  Even in real life she could pass for late thirties. In the portrait she looks elderly!

  0
• Sigurd Posts: 26,610

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:43 #22

  James2001 wrote: »

  Nothing about Kate is that great but because she's who she is we should all pretend it's a wonderful picture, the best we've ever seen and fawn over it.

  Hardly. I'm sure royal portraits have been criticised in the past, and there's certainly nothing at all to stop us criticising this one. I don't think this one was universally popular either.
  

  pianoforte wrote: »

  looks like it was done by the franklin mint.
  strewth, that is awful.

  That's about right. It has all the blandness and dullness of a Franklin Mint "art" work.

  0
• cjsmummy Posts: 11,079

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:48 #23

  Haha, that's terrible! She looks way older and she looks stoned or something.:D

  0
• Cryolemon Posts: 8,670

  Forum Member

  ✭

  11/01/13 - 13:52 #24

  It puts a few years on her, but I don't think it's a bad picture.

  0
• curvybabes Posts: 13,223

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:54 #25

  soon as i saw it i thought she looked a lot older

  0
• humdrummer Posts: 4,487

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  11/01/13 - 13:55 #26

  It makes her look old, the artists depiction of her eyes doesn't help - they look like the eyes of someone much older.
  
  Her facial lines also aren't that severe.

  0