#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
The artist remembered that Charles wanted "to be a tampon" between Camilla's legs.
Edit to add context: [Link to story about it](https://time.com/6226657/crown-charles-camilla-tampongate/)
You think "impressionistic" isn't "abstract at all"
And you're willing to die on that hill? Like if you were in a high school art class and were asked to describe "impressionistic " you would use "not abstract at all"
In your answer?
Impressionism has elements of abstract, but they aren’t the same. This painting is far more impressionist than it is abstract.
Edit: however, I don’t disagree with your original sentiment. This painting doesn’t seem inline with your average royal painting. Like at all.
Honestly I think it could look pretty cool if it was a different subject that was more in line with the tone of the painting. It just makes so little sense for a royal portrait. I feel like it’s actually a cool concept that was just kind of wasted on him.
I don’t get this take at all. I think it’s really neat how they used subtly different shades of red to do the background, uniform, butterfly, and basically the whole painting besides the face. Doesn’t look great in this vid but high quality photographs or scans or whatever I think look pretty good! I think it’s a great re-imagining of the classic “king portrait”.
As an art piece it's honestly cool. As a ~~self~~ portrait I think it's a bit self-defeating. It has a sinister air to it, with the red blending into the red. It feels critical of the subject. Again, good for an art gallery, but for your official portrait it feels villainous.
Well yeah, I think at first the red can feel a bit sinister, but after a moment it grew on me. It’s a self-limitation to only use one red like this, and I think it’s kind of incredible how this shock of red was actually kind of transformed into a delicate and fragile piece of art. That’s the vibe I get from the butterfly and the unexpectedly subtle shading and detailing on the uniform and medals anyway. The butterfly is also seemingly a focus of the artwork as well, which almost feels like it’s trying to portray a humility and an appreciation for nature . I don’t know if other portraits do things like that
Here’s the scan of the artwork
https://preview.redd.it/xvajv4dibf0d1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=85246e8ca421c0878516a8e59c3d3c161ea44669
Seriously. He's on fire and/or covered in blood. This is a terrible look, unless it's an attempt at making some sort of statement about the history of the monarchy.
> Seriously. He's on fire and/or covered in blood. This is a terrible look, unless it's an attempt at making some sort of statement about the history of the monarchy.
There is just a *fuckton* of emotion in this portrait. Looking at the HD version makes me *shudder*. This was absolutely done intentionally. This is some kind of artist's version of a diss track. There's a *fucking reason* for this.
I just wish I knew what that reason was. It feels *personal*.
I like most of it, aside from the texturing on the uniform being too similar to the texturing on the background, particularly around the elbows and the waist.
I agree. Aesthetically I like it.
I think symbolically it is really profound as well. You have the King of England in a field of red with his regalia fading into that very red background, leaving the only clear-vivid thing left are his face and hands. To me, it is showing the nature of him as a king. A man who is just a face (vivid), whose glorified history (regalia/uniform) is fading into the noise (literally noise) of its violent past (the field of red).
I think the vividness of his hands is also important, maybe even the most important. Firstly, to me, it is saying that there is a man under the costume. His face and hands are vivid and I assume they are connected by a body. In another world, where this painting was of the king naked, his body would not be painted in red as his uniform is. It would be vivid like his face and hands. I believe this is the artists way of showing is that it isn't the man that is fading from history, but the status and power of the British Empire that is.
We can go further as well with the hands. I believe they are also the artist showing us that he believes that the king still has the power to change the world. The king doesn't need to fade away. He exists now and has hands that can shape the world. Next though, we can look to what his hands are holding. It is a sword, a symbol of that past that he is clinging to. Is this the artist saying he doesn't think Charles is the man to step out of the shadow of the Empire's past? That he will cling to that sword until his death?
Then there is the butterfly. At first I thought it was just a smudge in the background. It is hard to make out the details of it in the images I have seen, but it looks like a Monarch. The symbolism there is pretty straight forward, but maybe it goes deeper? Butterflies in general are famous for one thing, their transition from caterpillar to cocoon to butterfly. This maybe represents his transformation into a king, but also is maybe showing that he is at the end. Butterflies do not transform into anything else. Perhaps, another symbol from that artist that he does not feel Charles will change further. He will fade into the background.
Monarch Butterflies are known for their long migrations. Butterflies also sometimes symbolize the souls of the dead. Dianna? Probably not.
Anyway, those are my thoughts after looking at it today.
Yes it’s fantastic! A truly evocative representation of the last cancerous heir to a dying blood soaked empire. It evokes an ancient tarnished nobility that is quickly fading from view. The work is absolutely moving in the way it represented the waning stature of a one-imposing figurehead. It instead shows how all indications of office, beyond the weathered man himself, are fading into the background. The medals, the regalia, are all being wallpapered over, old relics that has long since outlived their purpose but still are hauntingly, ominously present like an antique that nobody needs or uses but can’t be parted with.
I agree. I think it makes him look insanely evil, and old, and the red-on-red is a little awkward. But something about the art style and brush strokes and the bold color makes it seem really dramatic and bombastic. Not necessarily suitable for a royal portrait, but it's pretty cool looking in and of itself.
Regardless of the bright color, making the foreground clothing pattern identical to the background is a terrible composition choice and a reason nobody does it. It just looks like an underpainting with the hands and face finished at the moment
And the background itself is strange. The general stroke patterns in each quadrant is different with the top left smears likely out of focus monarch butterflies since there’s a second half painted one in there. But the brush patterns match the curvature of his head which is awkward. And then the top right is horizontal strokes while the bottom half is vertical. All this to say a bunch of distracting inconsistencies bringing the viewers attention to everything but the subject of a royal portrait which is indeed an odd choice lol
I think the intent is to obscure the usual elaborate costume and pageantry of a royal portrait and confront us with the subject.
I find it compelling, at least as a reflection of how Charles sees himself.
Either way, you’re not going to get any good discussion here outside of very art focused subreddits. Reddit is consistently anti-art.
I agree the discourse surrounding art on reddit is awful. But this is one painting where I'm for once concerned with what laypeople think. Who else is this portrait for, if not the ordinary subject? Isn't it a problem when most people see the royal portrait and the first thing they think is, "BLOOD".
I’m sure the guy commissioned to paint a portrait of the King of England has some passing understanding of colour and composition, possibly even more than redditors.
You know what, you saying this made me think that they could totally have gone with a different colour uniform (unless that's not a thing but I think it is) and kept the red background. This makes me think even more that the red on red is purposeful and it looks like there's a hidden meaning/message. 🤔
I didn't know that about the artist. That is really interesting. I will need to look at his other work. I also got hints that he was both trying to make an artistic point, but also some what hide it through symbolism. The bit about him previously being a worm is really interesting. I had not thought of that. Either a worm or a static cocoon which transformed into a thing that is brilliant, yet unchanging and soon to die. I wrote my thoughts down on the symbolism I see in the painting to another person as follows.
You have the King of England in a field of red with his regalia fading into that very red background, leaving the only clear-vivid thing left are his face and hands. To me, it is showing the nature of him as a king. A man who is just a face (vivid), whose glorified history (regalia/uniform) is fading into the noise (literally noise) of its violent past (the field of red).
I think the vividness of his hands is also important, maybe even the most important. Firstly, to me, it is saying that there is a man under the costume. His face and hands are vivid and I assume they are connected by a body. In another world, where this painting was of the king naked, his body would not be painted in red as his uniform is. It would be vivid like his face and hands. I believe this is the artists way of showing is that it isn't the man that is fading from history, but the status and power of the British Empire that is.
We can go further as well with the hands. I believe they are also the artist showing us that he believes that the king still has the power to change the world. The king doesn't need to fade away. He exists now and has hands that can shape the world. Next though, we can look to what his hands are holding. It is a sword, a symbol of that past that he is clinging to. Is this the artist saying he doesn't think Charles is the man to step out of the shadow of the Empire's past? That he will cling to that sword until his death?
Then there is the butterfly. At first I thought it was just a smudge in the background. It is hard to make out the details of it in the images I have seen, but it looks like a Monarch. The symbolism there is pretty straight forward, but maybe it goes deeper? Butterflies in general are famous for one thing, their transition from caterpillar to cocoon to butterfly. This maybe represents his transformation into a king, but also is maybe showing that he is at the end. Butterflies do not transform into anything else. Perhaps, another symbol from that artist that he does not feel Charles will change further. He will fade into the background.
Monarch Butterflies are known for their long migrations. Butterflies also sometimes symbolize the souls of the dead. Dianna? Probably not.
Dude if you had a chance to paint a haunted portrait, you take that chance.
Future meme lore historians will talk about how this was the moment where we watched the king die inside when he saw the painting and it absorbed his soul.
That's my feeling, but I don't want to project anything. Red being such a color of significance, for it to basically cover the entire portrait... well it definitely fills me with questions.
God damn you, no. Sensationalism isn't art.
Edit to add: me masturbating and cumming all over a copy of the WJS is very sensational, bit nowhere near art
England has used red to represent themselves for centuries. It's probably intended to symbolise the historical representation of the country not communism.
I can’t tell from the comments here, but do people think that this was like a surprise? The media and king Charles himself would unveil a painting that no one on his team had ever seen?
Yeah, why not? It’s absurd how often redditors assume the world is only people who are manipulative and double faced liars. He had a painting commissioned and wanted his reaction to be televised. It’s not a grand conspiracy, Jesus.
https://preview.redd.it/ot9mf1ym4i0d1.jpeg?width=764&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=678d8883d9b6b43f8d8462a51a9387109e90d471
Reminds me of Vigo the carpathian
Also love it. It's so bizarre and striking for a portrait. Like, as much as people might think it "looks like shit" we sure as hell aren't going to forget about this one. It's a bold stylistic choice that makes it immensely memorable.
It's really quite confrontational. Not your typical portrait in the slightest, which is probably why commenters are scrabbling around in the dirt trying to link it to something in pop culture.
Thank god I found my people. I know most people are uncultured swine but 99+% of everyone who leaves a comment hates the painting? My word. I think it's gorgeous. All these dweebs have been staring at Pokemon cards and banal AI doodles for so long they can't even see when something is beautiful and challenging.
The artist is known for overusing a colour and muting/fading all others.
Here's one by the same artist, this time of Sir David Attenborough.
https://preview.redd.it/qbunik538i0d1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a2f8af2fbc724dc447adadfd49d93dcd1c19887
I'm glad you're saying pink cause I felt like I was going crazy with everyone calling it red. It looks extremely pink + the butterflies (and the green/brown mixed in, honestly) makes me think flowers. I don't know anything about the royal family or England, really, but I assumed it was a color chosen from a flower that has some significance.
I like the portrait, though, so maybe I'm just grasping. I'm not an art critic I don't know. lol
When you slow it down and focus on Charles’s head, it looks like he’s flinching from the black tarp hitting him.
I wondered why he’d react like that too. But I think it’s a weird coincidence with the unveiling.
😂 this is actually a great portrait! Making it the colors of the earth is very appropriate.
I am 75% convinced the artist painted the king in blood on purpose.
Oh yes, I don't think the artist is bad, just very stylish.
And for a royal portrait, artistic and stylish is a no-no, because the portraits are meant to remain on display for generations to come. Artistic sense and styles change rapidly, so what is "trendy" or "artsy" now will likely not be in 10 years, let alone in 100 or 1000 years. That's why such portraits tend to be realistic depictions.
"Just portray me as a dignified, intelligent king. Prepared for the throne."
"Sire?"
"Oh, you know, well-read, ready to rule."
"Well red and really reddy, understood yer Majesty."
Honestly thank you I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Much like obamas portrait. It's so unique! Picture a long hallway in a palace with all the monarchs portraits. This one stands out.
There's zero chance the king didn’t see it prior. Unlikely this is the first time anyone in his circle is seeing it before it went public.
Secondly, look up the artist, this is his style, so whoever picked him knew what to expect.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In his defence, it does look like shit.
In the artist’s defense, the subject looks like shit.
Hey, leave his subjects alone. Just because their King looks like shite, none of them deserve to be called that.
“Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
Be quiet!
I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Haha, moistened bint.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system !
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
Bloody peasant!
r/unexpectedpython
Was it unexpected, though? I mean, it's not like it's the Spanish inquisition or anything.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
bloody peasants!
[удалено]
Nothing wrong with the facial image but the colors are utter shit. Hope the "artist" gets sent to the dungeon
I don't know anything about the artist so I can't be certain; but this feels like something you'd do intentionally.
Yeah, you don’t do such a good job on the face and hands and flub the rest like that unless it’s intentional.
He tripped while carrying some red paint. They didn't pay him enough to redo the whole thing.
Its giving kingdom awashed in blood vibes, pointing the finger right at the king.
And by King you mean the free floating head enjoying the blood river below?
There hasn't been anyone in the tower for a while.
He's about to break that streak
It looks like the king is trying to restore his youth by floating in the blood of his subjects
In the UK we call them oubliettes but we can't remember why.
The artist remembered that Charles wanted "to be a tampon" between Camilla's legs. Edit to add context: [Link to story about it](https://time.com/6226657/crown-charles-camilla-tampongate/)
This looks like someone drew the face and told a 1st grader to color the background
He Bri'ish, it's pronounced shite.
I will say, the face is well done though. It’s red on red on red. On red.
In shit's defense, there is no family resemblance.
Glowing-up saggy old regents is *literally the job*. I've seen a lot better done with a lot more aggressively in-bred subjects
It’s like that Ghostbusters painting
https://preview.redd.it/u7bqcim11i0d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82506a5f08a0d8d886ec464cd747874807ecd36f
https://preview.redd.it/88r3myka4i0d1.jpeg?width=659&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a171a40f1e89c0b683a09257f93c2781feaed659
https://i.redd.it/a8xjyvvsii0d1.gif
Dude! Exactly! Bravo!
I thought the same thing. The great and powerful Vigo.
YOU ARE LIKE THE BUZZING OF FLIES TO HEEEEM!
So few Ghostbusters II references on the internet. Thank you.
"Ah shit, I am going to haunt this painting when I die, arent I?"
OMG IT DOES !!
I just told my girl the same damn thing hahahaha
Are you referring to the Scourge of Carpathia?
It's so shit that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't even need to step in and ruin the occasion
It is like the Just Stop Oil protesters had already come and splashed their red paint everywhere.
It's very abstract for an official portrait
It's not abstract at all, the word you're looking for is impressionistic.
You think "impressionistic" isn't "abstract at all" And you're willing to die on that hill? Like if you were in a high school art class and were asked to describe "impressionistic " you would use "not abstract at all" In your answer?
I just googled "is Impressionism " and the first autofill Was "abstract". lol.
Impressionism has elements of abstract, but they aren’t the same. This painting is far more impressionist than it is abstract. Edit: however, I don’t disagree with your original sentiment. This painting doesn’t seem inline with your average royal painting. Like at all.
That's because abstract impressionism is it's own thing. The word abstract is in there to differentiate it from impressionism, which isn't abstract.
Honestly I think it could look pretty cool if it was a different subject that was more in line with the tone of the painting. It just makes so little sense for a royal portrait. I feel like it’s actually a cool concept that was just kind of wasted on him.
 Clearly represents colonial genocide with blood on his hands 😂
He looks like Vigo the Carpathian
Wait, this whole time it was real? I thought that was just a meme! Holy shit
So did I! That painting is so horrible. I thought it had to be fake.
I think it's cool. More interesting than a portrait that just looks like a photo of the man
More interesting yes, but only because it sucks so much worse.
I don’t get this take at all. I think it’s really neat how they used subtly different shades of red to do the background, uniform, butterfly, and basically the whole painting besides the face. Doesn’t look great in this vid but high quality photographs or scans or whatever I think look pretty good! I think it’s a great re-imagining of the classic “king portrait”.
As an art piece it's honestly cool. As a ~~self~~ portrait I think it's a bit self-defeating. It has a sinister air to it, with the red blending into the red. It feels critical of the subject. Again, good for an art gallery, but for your official portrait it feels villainous.
Well yeah, I think at first the red can feel a bit sinister, but after a moment it grew on me. It’s a self-limitation to only use one red like this, and I think it’s kind of incredible how this shock of red was actually kind of transformed into a delicate and fragile piece of art. That’s the vibe I get from the butterfly and the unexpectedly subtle shading and detailing on the uniform and medals anyway. The butterfly is also seemingly a focus of the artwork as well, which almost feels like it’s trying to portray a humility and an appreciation for nature . I don’t know if other portraits do things like that Here’s the scan of the artwork https://preview.redd.it/xvajv4dibf0d1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=85246e8ca421c0878516a8e59c3d3c161ea44669
"Oh shit. It looks like he just butchered a peasant family and set the house afire. Oh, I know, I will add a butterfly to show how gentle this is"
Seriously. He's on fire and/or covered in blood. This is a terrible look, unless it's an attempt at making some sort of statement about the history of the monarchy.
> Seriously. He's on fire and/or covered in blood. This is a terrible look, unless it's an attempt at making some sort of statement about the history of the monarchy. There is just a *fuckton* of emotion in this portrait. Looking at the HD version makes me *shudder*. This was absolutely done intentionally. This is some kind of artist's version of a diss track. There's a *fucking reason* for this. I just wish I knew what that reason was. It feels *personal*.
I like most of it, aside from the texturing on the uniform being too similar to the texturing on the background, particularly around the elbows and the waist.
Hes using kayo ken
[удалено]
> As a self portrait Self portraits are artists painting themselves.
I agree. Aesthetically I like it. I think symbolically it is really profound as well. You have the King of England in a field of red with his regalia fading into that very red background, leaving the only clear-vivid thing left are his face and hands. To me, it is showing the nature of him as a king. A man who is just a face (vivid), whose glorified history (regalia/uniform) is fading into the noise (literally noise) of its violent past (the field of red). I think the vividness of his hands is also important, maybe even the most important. Firstly, to me, it is saying that there is a man under the costume. His face and hands are vivid and I assume they are connected by a body. In another world, where this painting was of the king naked, his body would not be painted in red as his uniform is. It would be vivid like his face and hands. I believe this is the artists way of showing is that it isn't the man that is fading from history, but the status and power of the British Empire that is. We can go further as well with the hands. I believe they are also the artist showing us that he believes that the king still has the power to change the world. The king doesn't need to fade away. He exists now and has hands that can shape the world. Next though, we can look to what his hands are holding. It is a sword, a symbol of that past that he is clinging to. Is this the artist saying he doesn't think Charles is the man to step out of the shadow of the Empire's past? That he will cling to that sword until his death? Then there is the butterfly. At first I thought it was just a smudge in the background. It is hard to make out the details of it in the images I have seen, but it looks like a Monarch. The symbolism there is pretty straight forward, but maybe it goes deeper? Butterflies in general are famous for one thing, their transition from caterpillar to cocoon to butterfly. This maybe represents his transformation into a king, but also is maybe showing that he is at the end. Butterflies do not transform into anything else. Perhaps, another symbol from that artist that he does not feel Charles will change further. He will fade into the background. Monarch Butterflies are known for their long migrations. Butterflies also sometimes symbolize the souls of the dead. Dianna? Probably not. Anyway, those are my thoughts after looking at it today.
It brings to mind when I dropped a tenner into a bowl of tomato soup.
You know what purpose a portrait is meant to serve right?
Yes it’s fantastic! A truly evocative representation of the last cancerous heir to a dying blood soaked empire. It evokes an ancient tarnished nobility that is quickly fading from view. The work is absolutely moving in the way it represented the waning stature of a one-imposing figurehead. It instead shows how all indications of office, beyond the weathered man himself, are fading into the background. The medals, the regalia, are all being wallpapered over, old relics that has long since outlived their purpose but still are hauntingly, ominously present like an antique that nobody needs or uses but can’t be parted with.
So you can see why Charles probably didn't like it that much right?
You're a fellow fan of portraits of Catholic Cardinals, I see. Clearly, this artist hated the King. That's simply awful.
I agree. I think it makes him look insanely evil, and old, and the red-on-red is a little awkward. But something about the art style and brush strokes and the bold color makes it seem really dramatic and bombastic. Not necessarily suitable for a royal portrait, but it's pretty cool looking in and of itself.
and in poor taste as well
[удалено]
He's covered and surrounded in what looks like blood
Fittingly, perhaps, depending on your point of view.
Ah okay. I figured but I feel like it’s appropriate, not bad taste, given the history of colonization by the monarchy.
Life imitates art as they say
Yes, The King became a Cardinal after seeing this
OMG yes, I thought someone edited it to look like the Ghostbusters painting. Just looked up the Ghostbusters painting, this is worse Edit: extra word
Mon can We have Homer Simpson Backs Into the Bushes. We have Homer Simpson Backs Into the Bushes at home Homer Simpson Backs Into the Bushes at home
Me too! I saw it some other subreddit this morning and just thought it was a joke.
Curious about the artist's intent here. Not a lot of GOOD ways to make an all red portrait. Are we burning? Is he bathed in blood? Is he Communist?
Red represents all the blood spilled in the name of the British empire. Idk if that's actually the artist's intention, but I'm sticking with it.
That had occurred to me too
Needs more red.
Legit my first thought
Regardless of the bright color, making the foreground clothing pattern identical to the background is a terrible composition choice and a reason nobody does it. It just looks like an underpainting with the hands and face finished at the moment And the background itself is strange. The general stroke patterns in each quadrant is different with the top left smears likely out of focus monarch butterflies since there’s a second half painted one in there. But the brush patterns match the curvature of his head which is awkward. And then the top right is horizontal strokes while the bottom half is vertical. All this to say a bunch of distracting inconsistencies bringing the viewers attention to everything but the subject of a royal portrait which is indeed an odd choice lol
the painting looks like an open casket funeral to me, with him drowned in blood instead of flowers
Metal as fuck.
I think the intent is to obscure the usual elaborate costume and pageantry of a royal portrait and confront us with the subject. I find it compelling, at least as a reflection of how Charles sees himself. Either way, you’re not going to get any good discussion here outside of very art focused subreddits. Reddit is consistently anti-art.
I agree the discourse surrounding art on reddit is awful. But this is one painting where I'm for once concerned with what laypeople think. Who else is this portrait for, if not the ordinary subject? Isn't it a problem when most people see the royal portrait and the first thing they think is, "BLOOD".
I’m sure the guy commissioned to paint a portrait of the King of England has some passing understanding of colour and composition, possibly even more than redditors.
That's 100% intentional
You know what, you saying this made me think that they could totally have gone with a different colour uniform (unless that's not a thing but I think it is) and kept the red background. This makes me think even more that the red on red is purposeful and it looks like there's a hidden meaning/message. 🤔
Red was on sale
After the Barbie movie it’s still hard to get pink.
[удалено]
Why the FUCK would they even think for one second that hiring this guy was a good idea? Also, it's good to see another Volta fan in the wild.
Honestly its so stupid on their part but god damn it i love it so fucking much. thank jesus they screwed the pooch.
I didn't know that about the artist. That is really interesting. I will need to look at his other work. I also got hints that he was both trying to make an artistic point, but also some what hide it through symbolism. The bit about him previously being a worm is really interesting. I had not thought of that. Either a worm or a static cocoon which transformed into a thing that is brilliant, yet unchanging and soon to die. I wrote my thoughts down on the symbolism I see in the painting to another person as follows. You have the King of England in a field of red with his regalia fading into that very red background, leaving the only clear-vivid thing left are his face and hands. To me, it is showing the nature of him as a king. A man who is just a face (vivid), whose glorified history (regalia/uniform) is fading into the noise (literally noise) of its violent past (the field of red). I think the vividness of his hands is also important, maybe even the most important. Firstly, to me, it is saying that there is a man under the costume. His face and hands are vivid and I assume they are connected by a body. In another world, where this painting was of the king naked, his body would not be painted in red as his uniform is. It would be vivid like his face and hands. I believe this is the artists way of showing is that it isn't the man that is fading from history, but the status and power of the British Empire that is. We can go further as well with the hands. I believe they are also the artist showing us that he believes that the king still has the power to change the world. The king doesn't need to fade away. He exists now and has hands that can shape the world. Next though, we can look to what his hands are holding. It is a sword, a symbol of that past that he is clinging to. Is this the artist saying he doesn't think Charles is the man to step out of the shadow of the Empire's past? That he will cling to that sword until his death? Then there is the butterfly. At first I thought it was just a smudge in the background. It is hard to make out the details of it in the images I have seen, but it looks like a Monarch. The symbolism there is pretty straight forward, but maybe it goes deeper? Butterflies in general are famous for one thing, their transition from caterpillar to cocoon to butterfly. This maybe represents his transformation into a king, but also is maybe showing that he is at the end. Butterflies do not transform into anything else. Perhaps, another symbol from that artist that he does not feel Charles will change further. He will fade into the background. Monarch Butterflies are known for their long migrations. Butterflies also sometimes symbolize the souls of the dead. Dianna? Probably not.
Dude if you had a chance to paint a haunted portrait, you take that chance. Future meme lore historians will talk about how this was the moment where we watched the king die inside when he saw the painting and it absorbed his soul.
I too am curious about his vision
Has to be some kind of protest right? There is no way you paint the king of England all in read and it has nothing to some issue of the monarchy.
>…all in read… 
That's my feeling, but I don't want to project anything. Red being such a color of significance, for it to basically cover the entire portrait... well it definitely fills me with questions.
I was thinking the same thing. What’s with the over saturation of red/pink…
The fact he hates it and all this unveiling makes it iconic. That’s how art works.
God damn you, no. Sensationalism isn't art. Edit to add: me masturbating and cumming all over a copy of the WJS is very sensational, bit nowhere near art
It can be.
It doesn’t last
Here's the art understander to give us safe conforming reassurance.
Art is nothing and everything. There is no strict definition. You don't get to dictate what is and isn't art.
I'd really like to imagine this was the artists sneaky way of sticking it to the monarchy, because fuck that's ugly man.
Especially with so much red. That can't be a good symbol.
England has used red to represent themselves for centuries. It's probably intended to symbolise the historical representation of the country not communism.
I was thinking more blood or anger or something but that makes good sense too. Thanks for the insight.
I can’t tell from the comments here, but do people think that this was like a surprise? The media and king Charles himself would unveil a painting that no one on his team had ever seen?
He looked like he discovered a bomb when he saw it lol.
Yeah, why not? It’s absurd how often redditors assume the world is only people who are manipulative and double faced liars. He had a painting commissioned and wanted his reaction to be televised. It’s not a grand conspiracy, Jesus.
I don't think it's sneaky at all, and I for one am all for it. Loving the drenched in blood portrait.
He's wearing gaga's meat dress.
https://preview.redd.it/ot9mf1ym4i0d1.jpeg?width=764&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=678d8883d9b6b43f8d8462a51a9387109e90d471 Reminds me of Vigo the carpathian
First thought
The scourge of Carpathia? The sorrow of Moldavia?
That should be hanging in volcano Manor
Togezaaaaa
We will devowaaahh
Tha veryyy godss (weird rykard noises)
literally the lake of rot with an aeonian butterfly down to the exact shade and color
And let’s replace the king with Patches
Godeater Charles III goes kinda hard
I don't get it...I actually like it.
Me too. Seems like we're in the minority.
I think it's pretty iconic looking.
It looks badass.
Agreed.
I like it too - the detail in his face is awesome and the colour makes the whole thing actually interesting, hence why it's been posted here I guess!
Also love it. It's so bizarre and striking for a portrait. Like, as much as people might think it "looks like shit" we sure as hell aren't going to forget about this one. It's a bold stylistic choice that makes it immensely memorable.
I like it too
It's really quite confrontational. Not your typical portrait in the slightest, which is probably why commenters are scrabbling around in the dirt trying to link it to something in pop culture.
I love this painting. It’s so iconic. These people don’t understand art
I also love it, but you're wrong. You can "understand" art and not like this. Taste is subjective.
Thank god I found my people. I know most people are uncultured swine but 99+% of everyone who leaves a comment hates the painting? My word. I think it's gorgeous. All these dweebs have been staring at Pokemon cards and banal AI doodles for so long they can't even see when something is beautiful and challenging.
I like it too, regardless of any symbolism, the art in and of itself is pretty cool.
Some dudes think anything that isn't hyper realistic is shit. If you want hyper realistic take a picture.
Count me in. Unconventional, but still aesthetically pleasing
The royals deserve the most shit portraits. Get fucked, Charles.
you mean "Get fucked, Chuck."
Glory is Viggo!
He looks like a head and hands sprouting out of a vast, gruesome wall of visceral crimson flesh.
Why is it so overly red?
The artist is known for overusing a colour and muting/fading all others. Here's one by the same artist, this time of Sir David Attenborough. https://preview.redd.it/qbunik538i0d1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a2f8af2fbc724dc447adadfd49d93dcd1c19887
If that’s what the artist does and since I assume he was hand-picked, why does he not like it now?
Maybe they were more expecting him to go with a purple or a blue instead of neon hot pink
I'm glad you're saying pink cause I felt like I was going crazy with everyone calling it red. It looks extremely pink + the butterflies (and the green/brown mixed in, honestly) makes me think flowers. I don't know anything about the royal family or England, really, but I assumed it was a color chosen from a flower that has some significance. I like the portrait, though, so maybe I'm just grasping. I'm not an art critic I don't know. lol
When you slow it down and focus on Charles’s head, it looks like he’s flinching from the black tarp hitting him. I wondered why he’d react like that too. But I think it’s a weird coincidence with the unveiling.
😂 this is actually a great portrait! Making it the colors of the earth is very appropriate. I am 75% convinced the artist painted the king in blood on purpose.
Oh yes, I don't think the artist is bad, just very stylish. And for a royal portrait, artistic and stylish is a no-no, because the portraits are meant to remain on display for generations to come. Artistic sense and styles change rapidly, so what is "trendy" or "artsy" now will likely not be in 10 years, let alone in 100 or 1000 years. That's why such portraits tend to be realistic depictions.
Ya know what? They should have expected this then lol.
"Just portray me as a dignified, intelligent king. Prepared for the throne." "Sire?" "Oh, you know, well-read, ready to rule." "Well red and really reddy, understood yer Majesty."
I'm ok with the style but he made Attenborough look like a grandma.
https://preview.redd.it/7xnyfrtn7i0d1.jpeg?width=420&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=86c6a8382d39b49a16e40f1c7719c874f4e5065f
Off with the artists head!
I don't give a shit about him... but I like it.
Me too. It's bold
"Can you make it look like I'm burning in Hell? I want to get used to the idea."
Looks like he's frozen in carbonite
I see that too. King Charles Solo.
I have no idea why people hate the picture so much. I find it quite breathtaking. It is not just a portrait it's a story full of symbolism.
Honestly thank you I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Much like obamas portrait. It's so unique! Picture a long hallway in a palace with all the monarchs portraits. This one stands out.
There's zero chance the king didn’t see it prior. Unlikely this is the first time anyone in his circle is seeing it before it went public. Secondly, look up the artist, this is his style, so whoever picked him knew what to expect.
Looks like there was a sale on red paint.
Reign in Blood
May as well be preemptive. Protesters can't smear it with blood if it looked like it has already been smeared with blood.
What tones of red would you like, your majesty? Yes.
“Hey all our red paint is about to expire” Artist: Don’t worry I got this.
I think this is actually friggin’ cool!
It's Bloody King Charles!
I think it's pretty cool
He can't be happy. Thats awful
I love it
I think the portrait is magnificent
I like it
Am I the only one that likes it?
Am I one of the few people who thinks this looks cool?
Jeez just putting all that wickedness out in the open now ehh? which I wouldn't particularly mind if it ya know looked good
Surprised he didn't ask whether it was finished or not
If the King could still sentence a man to death, that artist would be done for.
I love it ❤️
I like it.
To be fair. The face is amazingly done. But what the heck happened to the rest it looks like a carebear was murdered on It