You Call This Your Greatest Masterpiece, We Call it HORRENDOUS

In one of our previous articles, “Battle of the Portraits: Kate vs. Durer” we commented on how Kate’s “royal” portrait was lacking in just about everything. But seriously. Durer looked 100x better than the Duchess.

Read this article and witness how the artist, Paul Emsley, not only admits that there is another version (which we OBVIOUSLY want to see but he REFUSES to share it with the public), but he too boldly declares the portrait on display at the National Gallery in London is his greatest masterpiece. LOOK ABOVE. THIS PHOTOGRAPH OF HIM WITH HIS “MASTERPIECE” SHOWS HIM NOT ONLY LOOKING DOWN, BUT HIS ARMS ARE FOLDED. Is this a sign of success? Sir, your body language is saying NO.

Sorry Emsley. Hate to break it to you, it is almost mocking royalty portraiture over the past centuries. You have broken tradition. Seriously dude. Maybe you should look at past examples of how royalty is depicted. I think it would help.

Hope you take my advice Paul E.,

xx, DP

Kate vs. Dürer – Battle of the Portraits

Which portrait is better? Kate just had her first “royal” portrait, and let me tell you, it looks far from royal. While she may be a “commoner” she has married into the Royal family. At least give her some jewels. But that was not the case here. I truly believe the artist made her portrait less significant than Dürer’s self portrait from 1500.

While Dürer made himself look like Jesus – notice the hair, the facial features, the religious hand signal, the glamorous coat… Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, has been painted to almost blend into the background and has been blurred – almost appearing like a vampire. Nevertheless, what I still cannot get over are the great similarities between both portraits.

Notice their forehead space. The shape of their eyebrows. The hair as a framing device. Skin exposed to make their necks look elongated. Perched lips. And both are set against a dark background to bring the figure to the foreground. However, Kate’s is created in a less realistic manner than Dürer. How can this be?!

It is so ridiculous that it is not even worthy of being a royal portrait.

She needs a re-do. Yes, I said it.

There ya go. If you wish to see it in person, please feel free to go to the National Portrait Gallery in London. See for yourself.

xx, DP