Michael Glover: Paul Emsley's Duchess of Cambridge portrait is catastrophic
The first official portrait makes Kate Middleton's cheeks look hamsterish, and her face saggy and a touch dropsical, writes Michael Glover
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Photographic realism is much more difficult than it always seems. It is rather as if the painter is envious of the so called truth-telling powers of photography, and that if he can do at least as well as the photographer, he deserves to be mightily pleased with himself. For, after all, is he not a hand rather than a machine?
Unfortunately, there is also the downside to such an approach. If he or she gets it slightly wrong, as has happened here, the results can be catastrophic.
This is a painting which is striving to be a perfect likeness of a photograph of a woman of conventional good looks who has been co-opted into the royal family from some barbarian northern outpost by dint of marriage.
Unlike, say, the portraits of a great royal likeness-maker such as Antony Van Dyke, it is not even trying to flatter. Flattery requires dexterity, subtlety, an ability to play with an image and its context.
There is no context here – no map, no skull, no heraldic mace - little other than a face. It is a face which is beginning to look just a touch dropsical.
It sags a little, ageing it needlessly. The cheeks incline towards the hamsterish. And what of this - ah! - hair? It is hair whose featheriness has been borrowed from an advert for shampoo. It is an image which also seems to be emerging (striding towards us perhaps, hair gently bouncing) from some slightly misty otherwhere, an unsmiling gift to a nation under the Coalition's almighty cosh.
Perhaps just a hint of teeth - that promise of pearly breath beyond the lip gloss - would have improved it. Slightly.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments