seeing red

I like the new portrait of England's king Charles. 

I do understand those who are turned off.    But at an immediate gut level, I really like it.    It's visually striking, and new while still being quite traditional and in important ways not really a break with the past. (Naturally, they've played up the "new"ness of it, but . . . <ahem>  tell J.M.W. Turner this is new.)

They're obviously using his famous red military uniform as a kickoff, but an undoing of William Makepeace Thackeray's "What makes the King?" —– which depicted Louis as schlubby schlub and "the king" as the outfit that makes him seem grand.

Instead, the bright-red uniform that should make a person stand out (as, it must be said, his mother did in those vivid solid-color suits) is married to the background, and the things that make a person a person stand right out:  the face of character and the hands of action.    It's a superb dramatization of the idea that this monarch is flesh-and-blood, which he's dramatized so well starting from his very first speech as king on his mother's death.

His mother:  the person he's most compared to and compared against.

Think of the way she presented herself, not in official portraits but in thousands —– thousands —– of daily-life appearances.    Those vivid single-color outfits, with matching hats, from the very outset.    Even if you were across a crowd and only saw a miniature blob, *that*'s the Queen.

Indeed, that's the Queen, per Thackeray.

Think of the recent hit series about her.    What's it called, "Elizabeth?"    . . .    no:  it's called The Crown.   It's the crown that makes the queen the queen.

This portrait seems to be saying, "well, it's Charles that makes Charles Charles."    The vivid uniform, the trappings of royalty?    The artist literally fades them into the background so you see the man.

You still may not like it at a gut level (as I do at a gut level).    But you gotta say that message is definitely there and on purpose and fairly brilliant.