Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Duchess of Cambridge portrait divides critics

 

Friday 11 January 2013 11:33 EST
Comments
Duchess of Cambridge portrait by Paul Emsley unveiled at National Portrait Gallery today
Duchess of Cambridge portrait by Paul Emsley unveiled at National Portrait Gallery today

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.

The Duchess of Cambridge seems to like her first official portrait, which is lucky for the artist, since not all the critics agree.

Paul Emsley's portrait of the former Kate Middleton shows the 31-year-old royal against a dark background, her lips pursed into a wry smile, with an ethereal light against her face and hair. Her pale complexion brings out the fine lines under the eyes, and the light adds a hint of silver to her rich brown hair.

Shortly after the portrait was unveiled Friday at the National Portrait Gallery in London, critics began grousing.

"I'm really sad to say this is a rotten portrait," Daily Mail art critic Robin Simon said.

Guardian arts writer Charlotte Higgins said that Kate's mouth looked clenched, her eyes looked dead, and that the whole thing had "sepulchral gloom" about it.

"Kate Middleton is — whatever you think of the monarchy and all its inane surrounding pomp — a pretty young woman with an infectious smile, a cascade of chestnut hair and a healthy bloom," she wrote in a post to her newspaper's website. "So how is it that she has been transformed into something unpleasant from the 'Twilight' franchise?"

Emsley told reporters at the opening that it was always going to be tough painting Kate, who sat for the portrait last year, before she became pregnant.

"A person whose image is so pervasive, for an artist it is really difficult to go beyond that and find something which is original," he said. "You have to rely on your technique and your artistic instincts to do that and I hope I've succeeded."

Royal portraits tend to veer between the staid and the controversial. Lucian Freud's 2001 portrait of Queen Elizabeth II remains a particularly notorious example, with some describing the heavy, severe painting of the monarch as deeply unflattering and others calling it groundbreaking.

In fairness to Emsley, some artists had praise for his work.

"I liked it, very much so," said Richard Stone, who has frequently painted members of the royal family. "So often with official portraits they can be rather stiff and starchy, but this has a lovely informality about it, and a warmth to it."

In any case, Emsley appeared to have won over his most important audience. Kate, who was with her husband, Prince William, at the gallery earlier Friday, called the portrait "just amazing." William liked it too, saying it was "absolutely beautiful."

AP

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in