#jonathan yeo

[facelessoldgargoyle]

Jonathan Yeo, the artist who painted King Charles’ portrait, also does collages using porn. This is his portrait of Freud:

Incredible

[titleknown]

I feel I should note that, I looked at the other works of the artist of the upsetting King Charles portrait, and I feel I must mention that his work's just kinda Like That in general:

And like, while he probably isn't speaking that much truth to power, given he's working for rich dipshits like most people in gallery art, given he also did a picture of George W Bush made of clippings of porn, I wonder how much the subtext people see in the Charles pic was intentional on his part...

[the-cricket-chirps]

Jonathan Yeo

King Charles III

2021-2024

[ends-2-beginnings]

Jonathan Yeo

Cara Study V (Mirror), 2015

Oil on canvas.

source:Artsy

[pepperf]

Whilst I fully get tumblr's bias towards artists, I've been side-eyeing the whole Jonathan Yeo speculation--because yes, on the whole, people in the arts DO tend to be lefty, good people, etc, but it's not always the case. Official portraiture, in particular, tends to be the most Establishment-friendly of all the arts, attracting the kind of artists who are technically very talented, but who also have no inclination to rock the boat and are very happy to schmooze with those in power.

I know next to nothing about Jonathan Yeo, but on a little digging, I found:

He's the son of a Tory MP and is good friends with the Earl of Snowdon.

He's known for a painting of Tony "war criminal" Blair that made him look as tragic and sympathetic as possible.

He's also done chummy portraits of David "pigfucker" Cameron, Camilla (when she was still Duchess of Cornwall), Prince "massive racist" Philip, and Rupert Murdoch.

The notorious porn collage of George Bush was (allegedly) after a an official commission was approved and then withdrawn, so - fit of pique? Who knows. He also did a porn collage of Lucian Freud, which, given that he's often cited as Freud's natural successor in the world of big name British portrait artists, is a little rude.

On the other hand, if you know anything about Damian Hirst, you would know that he must have LOVED to be painted with his crotch in your face, looking like Henry VIII. Dude is a knob.

No one in Yeo's position is going to imply that a D-Day veteran is a war criminal. Just. Full stop. No.

Furthermore, his whole schtick seems to be to paint the background to match the outfit, in a kind of weird, matchy-matchy, interior decor style that I personally find meaningless.

Chas chose to wear his beloved Welsh Guards uniform, which is a lurid, bright red. Whatever else Yeo did, red was always going to be the dominant colour of that painting. The butterfly was apparently his idea, too, because he thinks he's some kind of eco-warrior.

Yes, Yeo has painted Malala Yousafzai, and Idris Elba, and Kristin Scott Thomas, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and lots of other worthy people, too - it's his job, he's a portraitist.

If you want my opinion, the impression that Chas is swimming in buckets of blood or burning in hellfire is something the artist did not intend. Don't ask me how he didn't look at it and think, hmm, that's a little on the nose - maybe he'd thought too much about colour theory, too, idk. Judging by his past history, he's probably enjoying the attention rather than being mortified. Or maybe that was partly the intention. Just don't give him too much credit for being intentionally subversive.

But absolutely do keep reading into that painting as the indictment of British royal power that it ought to be; it's pissing off both the royals and the royalists, and I hope it burns, every time Chas has to see it.

[is-the-king-dead-yet]

The thing is that the Charles portrait can be read as total flattery or scathing critique and the two sides of the mouth quality is what makes it work for 2024.

So it's a monarch butterfly for a king, echoing Elizabeth I's portraits with insect symbols in her jewelry, and symbolizing Charles's environmentalist pretensions. The red is from the uniform and it threatens to overwhelm the individual but the face and hands, the most individual parts of a person, stick out in contrast. So it's about the person wanting to be seen behind the institution. Perfect flattery of Charles's put upon self image.

But the butterfly is endangered (like the institution of the monarchy). The red is the blood shed by Empire, which subsumes the individual and defines his significance to the world because it truly is bigger than this man whose ceremonial role is to distract from it. The hands and face contrast because they're grey and they're depicted with all the ravages of age, creased and lined. The king who is supposed to be a symbol of the "rightness" of Empire is just a withered old man who can't distract from the sea of blood. The man who wants to be seen as more than that role is kidding himself because he's submerged in the blood. A perfect critique of who the king is and what a farce his role - and his awkward relationship with that role - is.

I can't quite tell if the painter means this as a subversion of the commission process or if they meant this as a compliment and missed the other reading, seeing through a lens distorted by the belief that nothing could be wrong with a king. But it really makes the painting work for a moment in time where differing perception of reality is so central to politics and where irony really captures attention. Most of us on some level know the monarchy is rotten but press and art and political ritual haven't yet imagined what will replace it. So the monarchy remains as a placeholder for what will come next, sustained by a discourse that is not totally lying about the monarchy's decadence but which makes no definite move against it either.

[severina-blue]

I don't know who made this but it is the best one yet.

[blueiscoool]

New Official Portrait of King Charles III

The first official painted portrait of King Charles III since his coronation has been unveiled at Buckingham Palace.

The vast oil on canvas shows a larger-than-life King Charles in the uniform of the Welsh Guards.

The vivid red work, measuring about 8ft 6in by 6ft 6in, is by Jonathan Yeo, who has also painted Tony Blair, Sir David Attenborough and Malala Yousafzai.

Queen Camilla is said to have looked at the painting and told Yeo: "Yes, you've got him."

In the new portrait, the King is depicted, sword in hand, with a butterfly landing on his shoulder.

Unveilings are always a little nerve-wracking, both for the sitter and the artist, but particularly when one of them is a King.

Yeo jokes: "If this was seen as treasonous, I could literally pay for it with my head, which would be an appropriate way for a portrait painter to die - to have their head removed!"

In reality, Yeo isn't going to lose his head of course - no executions for a badly received portrait of a monarch, in modern times anyway.

By Katie Razzall.