British painter Jonathan Yeo has been receiving quite a lot of flak for his official portrait of King Charles. The reasons are not hard to find and understand. Although as someone who paints daily, I have no particular problem with the portrait as a piece of art but it is certainly problematic as a piece of art as a portrait. I do not have any particular problem with it. In fact, I think it is quite bold as a piece of art.
Coming as it does while Charles is dealing with cancer, there is something compelling about the portrait's sanguine, somewhat sangria-like tones. Yeo took four sittings between June 2021 and November 2023 to finish the portrait that measures approximately 8 1/2 by 6 1/2 feet framed.
Yeo said of the painting: “When I started this project, His Majesty The King was still His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, and much like the butterfly I've painted hovering over his shoulder, this portrait has evolved as the subject's role in our public life has transformed.”
It is quite obvious that the painting has been widely reviled too. For instance, Jonathan Jones writes in The Guardian, "Yeo’s portrait of the king is replete with all his vices. It is technically superficial and unfelt. There’s no insight into the king’s personality here, just a weird allegory about a monarch butterfly that Yeo says is a symbol of his metamorphosis from prince to king." That's ouch!
However, as a painter myself, I can tell you that it takes a great deal of talent to produce what Yeo has done. As a work of art it may be an acquired taste but his skills as a painter are quite evident. The treatment where everything else except Charles' face and hands stand out unlike the rest of his body draped in his Welsh Guards uniform almost vanishing into the canvas is an interesting one. It is almost like an apparition.
I am approaching it as art rather than a painting of a real person. One may argue that the whole purpose of a portrait, and that too an officially commissioned one, is to faithfully capture that person's essence and personality. I would argue that the purpose of art is art. I am sure Charles did not sit down expecting a photorealistic image. For that he could have chosen to be, well, photographed.
Yeo's explanation of using the Monarch butterfly as a symbol to underscore Charles's metamorphosis is a bit too obvious. However as an artist, it is his right to do whatever he wants.
Speaking of artists doing what they want, here is my rapid interpretation of the painting.