^^THE CAT THAT GOT THE CREAM.
this is such a good example as to why one hsould not work solely from photos
she looks weird. CGI generated. its x10 bigger than lifesize… a bold move, but also Emsleys signature style. she’s a little chubby.. the mouth is awkward… looks like she’s concealing food. she looks like she’s wearing a synthetic toupee. colours very washed out. eyes are the best part, but a little lack-lustre since the whole surface of the painting is matt and soft focus.
not really the right approch for a portrait of a young woman (worked beautifully for michael simpson). for all that people like to slam sargent and boldini (particularly the latter, understandably) for their fawning portraits of the aristocracy, you must admtit they have flair. They created sumptuous, lively and spirited portraits.
I don’t know a grat deal about middleton, she’s hansome - nice eyes/ everything in proportion, bright, well-mannered… this portrait does nothing to express her character. does she have any character? this recreation of a studio photograph does not say anythign about her. Why not have her sitting in her private library or on a horse or whatever it is she does - some context. You could always then modernise it - bold shapes, brighter colours whatever suits the current aesthetic. if that’s even necessary, I mean really. if people would only stop trying to make it new and start trying to make it better
Not only is this photorealism, which i don’t generally approve of anyway; it’s BAD photorealism.