Last week there was a lot of media attention surrounding the newly released portrait of the Danish royal family and its “haunting” attributes. The Daily Mail Online said the royal family looked more like the Addams Family, while the National Post said the Danish royal family “wins the competition for most horrifying family portrait.” My personal initial reaction to this new portrait was the same as what many news outlets were reporting; it’s creepy and haunting.
Featuring three generations of the Danish royal family, artist Thomas Kluge has painted them in a rather unusual way. But perhaps, upon further reflection, this isn’t such a bad thing? Via a phone interview with Toronto painter, Phil Richards (who was commissioned by the Canadian government to paint a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II which was unveiled to her Majesty to commemorate her diamond jubilee last year), Mr. Richards highlighted the fact that this portrait has us talking about portraits – a difficult task in today’s digital age of photography.
This new royal portrait of the Danish family is, indeed, dramatic and not boring. But do artists still need to make royal portraits so realistic, highlighting features such as bags and wrinkles under the eyes? In this portrait, some have criticized the supposed bags under the young Prince Christian’s eyes, who is standing centre of Queen Margrethe II and Crown Prince Frederik. Similar backlash was received when Paul Emsley for The National Portrait Gallery revealed the official portrait of The Duchess of Cambridge.
However, as Mr. Richards and I discussed, with today’s technology to treat photos and alter their original state, we may be surprised when we see a painting give way to natural features we don’t perhaps see in magazine photos.
“That’s the dilemma photography has brought up for the portrait painter,” Mr. Richards said.
Having visited The National Portrait gallery in person and viewed many beautiful portraits of royals, including the recent one of Kate Middleton, I would argue that seeing a portrait in person cannot be compared to seeing it online or in print. Seeing a portrait in person in its original size, with all its textures and colours, adds to its appeal making it all the more intriguing.
Prior to my phone call with Mr. Richards, I was asking myself, ‘should this be the end to portraits of modern day royals?’ Now, I take that question back. I think many of us can forget, myself included, that the painted portrait is more than a photograph converted to paint; it’s art. And, as Mr. Richards noted, “you’ve got people talking about a painting, which is a difficult thing to do.”
If art is meant to stir emotions and raise questions, that is exactly what Thomas Kluge succeeded in doing.
Comments