was unveiled. At the time I was quite busy organizing an event
in my local community and didn't really have time to address
it.
Like many official portraits its merely okay. Its a portrait of
the King wearing the medals of Canada's honours system. It
fulfills the basic criteria of an official portrait. And if you want
your very own copy the Department of Canadian Heritage
has you covered.
But His Majesty has better depictions, many from before he
assumed the throne:
was still the Prince of Wales, is great in so many ways. It
captures his dual love of nature and architecture. It conveys
motion by avoiding a full frontal view. And it uses a colour
palette that is neither so dark as to be dingy nor so light as to
wash out its subject which is what I argue the official portrait
does. This painting also happens to beat out the King's official
portrait in the UK which is best left unremarked on further.
His Majesty has also had better photos taken of him:
possible, better is what you aim for. Secondly, the King is a
representative of Canada and if his picture is completely
indistinguishable from that of every other man in a suit its an
image problem. Thirdly, and related to the second point, the
King is not just another politician; his portrait should reflect
that.
Indeed, if a person was unfamiliar with King Charles III and
you told them it was a portrait of President Charles they
would have no reason to doubt you.
As to who is at fault for this I can't say. The Australian portrait
has a similar issue so perhaps it was the King who felt a
restrained approach was best. Perhaps, the Canadian and
Australian government wanted a toned down image. And it
could just be that everything was rushed and there was little
time on anyone's part as to what an official portrait should be.
The Heiman's portrait above comes closest to what royal
portraits used to be; conveyers of meaning as well as likeness.
It would not hurt to get back to that tradition.
Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour