Frankly, I strongly dislike the new and recently revealed portrait of King Charles III, painted by Jonathan Yeo. Sadly it appears to me as being artistically weak and gives the impression of having been done in a hurry, even though it probably wasn't. However, there has been much foolish comment on-line regarding the portrait of the much maligned king and former Prince of Wales. Now, don't misundertand, I am not defending anything that Charles may have said or done prior to this point in time. He is a strong supporter of the insanity of climate alarmism, the WEF and perhaps other nefarious things of evil intent, and there is much we do not know about him, but the cries about his portrait range from the inane to the ridiculous. They range from claims of him bathing in rivers of blood to time in hell duelling it out with the devil. All of this is stupid and I am not going to join in with a chorus of foolishness. I will judge the art, not the King.
First of all, the colour is not actually red, but leans rather towards hues of scarlet, some pink and in areas towards a slightly vermilion tint, with some fiery redish-yellow spots and other dark spots. One could argue that it is meant to look hellish but that is making the claim that one knows the appearance of hell, that it is pink with butterflies in it and, if hell were to be all on fire (scripturally unsupported), that portrait looks little to nothing like a firescape. I can tell you with quite reasonable confidence that all those people saying such things have not a clue about hell, nor about "gehenna" which is always mistranslated as hell in English bibles.
Secondly, the art is of the artist, not of Charles, that is, what is depicted came from the artist's mind, not from the subject. It tells you much more about the artist and his concept of Charles than it does about Charles. The art, and remember it is of the artist's mind, not that of Charles, could be perceived as depicting anything from a closeup of the colours within a flower, strongly supported by the presence of a butterfly, to something of a sensually debauched nature, but not fire or blood. Charles is known for his support of the World Wildlife Fund which, despite being evil in its true intent as far as I can tell, conveys the concept of the preservation of life. Many people do not pereceive the WWF as anything but charitable because they do not dig deeply enough or simply do not want to know. On the other hand, Charles is, unlike many of his predecessors, not openly opposed to the destruction of sexual norms or, at least, that is the public perception. Could that be a factor in Yeo's choice? I cannot speak to the motives regarding the King's own particular tendencies, nor of his tendencies themselves, whether good or evil, nor about those of the artist, least of all because I do not know either man, let alone their secrets and, most of all because that is for God to judge. However, I reiterate that the art describes the artist's own ideas, interpretations, perceptions and ways of being, not those of Charles.
Every designer, every person who engages in a creative pursuit (and I can assure you that electronics engineering is a creative pursuit, made much more difficult than many other creative endeavours due to being stringently disciplined by reality, the "forces" of nature, and besides that I play both a guitar and a didgeridoo and have written poetry and songs since I was in my teens) knows or, at least, eventually comes to realise that everything he or she makes is imbued with his or her own ideas. That is an inescapable reality for every person. I sometimes feel the need to remind people that something cannot come out of you if it is not already in you and, what does come out of you comes from and through you, making you responsible for it, whatever it may be.
My father was a painter, both kinds of painter, painting houses for a living and portraits and landscapes for a hobby. He was very good at it. What I noticed was that, in his earlier years, he strived to reflect reality to the best of his ability, pursuing realism, seeking to reflect what he could, as best as he could, perceive before him. As he aged, his painting matured, with realism always playing an important role but depicted through a filter of philosophical thought, thereby creating art that was not a photograph of a face or a scene but, instead, an abstract reflection of his response to what he perceived, weaving into the visual components emotional responses and philosophical concepts and ideals. The art grew more and more abstract with time, but it never departed from depicting reality in some way. It never wandered into the realm of pure fiction, but always revealed the heart of the painter.
My view of Yeo's painting is that a very similar thing has occurred with Yeo as happened with my father, with respect to his artistic pursuits over time. As one ages, and I notice this of myself, the perception of the world gradually changes from a superficial perception, such as that of a child, to a deep one, such as that of an adult who has lived through enough real world experiences to no longer see the world as merely the things on Earth. Of course, there is never a seismic shift in perception at some particular age, since it happens gradually, and much of my undertstanding of the world has grown over decades and is a result of seeing it through a biblical lens, which I have found to be the most reliable of all lenses tried, so much so that I eventually came to realise that when it does not appear to show me reality correctly, it is not the lens that is the problem but, rather, it is me.
Yeo has had his own battles, his own struggles, and whether one likes or hates his art or even him or Charles has no bearing on the truth, for Yeo is, like Charles and you and me, made in the image of God, though warped by sin, with our perceptions of each other and ourselves distorted or discoloured by our own imperfections and those imperfections being made only worse by our pride, an ever lurking tendency to self-importance and belief in the untrue about oneself, protecting the ego with a wall made of lies. So, I strongly suggest that you avoid joining in with the chorus of hatred and vile speak regarding the individuals involved with that portrait, lest you be the one casting a stone with your own name on it. Let God be the judge of their hearts. You can hate the portrait all you like and remain free of being judged for it but it is a potentially dangerous game to engage in because, often without our realising it, we end up vilifying the people for the thing and not the thing itself. Far too easy to do. If judging anything, judge sin, not people, except perhaps yourself, but do so truthfully and bearing in mind the love that God has for us, so much so that He gave His only begotten son as a sacrifice to save our miserable, undeserving souls, every last one willing to receive Him.
First of all, the colour is not actually red, but leans rather towards hues of scarlet, some pink and in areas towards a slightly vermilion tint, with some fiery redish-yellow spots and other dark spots. One could argue that it is meant to look hellish but that is making the claim that one knows the appearance of hell, that it is pink with butterflies in it and, if hell were to be all on fire (scripturally unsupported), that portrait looks little to nothing like a firescape. I can tell you with quite reasonable confidence that all those people saying such things have not a clue about hell, nor about "gehenna" which is always mistranslated as hell in English bibles.
Secondly, the art is of the artist, not of Charles, that is, what is depicted came from the artist's mind, not from the subject. It tells you much more about the artist and his concept of Charles than it does about Charles. The art, and remember it is of the artist's mind, not that of Charles, could be perceived as depicting anything from a closeup of the colours within a flower, strongly supported by the presence of a butterfly, to something of a sensually debauched nature, but not fire or blood. Charles is known for his support of the World Wildlife Fund which, despite being evil in its true intent as far as I can tell, conveys the concept of the preservation of life. Many people do not pereceive the WWF as anything but charitable because they do not dig deeply enough or simply do not want to know. On the other hand, Charles is, unlike many of his predecessors, not openly opposed to the destruction of sexual norms or, at least, that is the public perception. Could that be a factor in Yeo's choice? I cannot speak to the motives regarding the King's own particular tendencies, nor of his tendencies themselves, whether good or evil, nor about those of the artist, least of all because I do not know either man, let alone their secrets and, most of all because that is for God to judge. However, I reiterate that the art describes the artist's own ideas, interpretations, perceptions and ways of being, not those of Charles.
Every designer, every person who engages in a creative pursuit (and I can assure you that electronics engineering is a creative pursuit, made much more difficult than many other creative endeavours due to being stringently disciplined by reality, the "forces" of nature, and besides that I play both a guitar and a didgeridoo and have written poetry and songs since I was in my teens) knows or, at least, eventually comes to realise that everything he or she makes is imbued with his or her own ideas. That is an inescapable reality for every person. I sometimes feel the need to remind people that something cannot come out of you if it is not already in you and, what does come out of you comes from and through you, making you responsible for it, whatever it may be.
My father was a painter, both kinds of painter, painting houses for a living and portraits and landscapes for a hobby. He was very good at it. What I noticed was that, in his earlier years, he strived to reflect reality to the best of his ability, pursuing realism, seeking to reflect what he could, as best as he could, perceive before him. As he aged, his painting matured, with realism always playing an important role but depicted through a filter of philosophical thought, thereby creating art that was not a photograph of a face or a scene but, instead, an abstract reflection of his response to what he perceived, weaving into the visual components emotional responses and philosophical concepts and ideals. The art grew more and more abstract with time, but it never departed from depicting reality in some way. It never wandered into the realm of pure fiction, but always revealed the heart of the painter.
My view of Yeo's painting is that a very similar thing has occurred with Yeo as happened with my father, with respect to his artistic pursuits over time. As one ages, and I notice this of myself, the perception of the world gradually changes from a superficial perception, such as that of a child, to a deep one, such as that of an adult who has lived through enough real world experiences to no longer see the world as merely the things on Earth. Of course, there is never a seismic shift in perception at some particular age, since it happens gradually, and much of my undertstanding of the world has grown over decades and is a result of seeing it through a biblical lens, which I have found to be the most reliable of all lenses tried, so much so that I eventually came to realise that when it does not appear to show me reality correctly, it is not the lens that is the problem but, rather, it is me.
Yeo has had his own battles, his own struggles, and whether one likes or hates his art or even him or Charles has no bearing on the truth, for Yeo is, like Charles and you and me, made in the image of God, though warped by sin, with our perceptions of each other and ourselves distorted or discoloured by our own imperfections and those imperfections being made only worse by our pride, an ever lurking tendency to self-importance and belief in the untrue about oneself, protecting the ego with a wall made of lies. So, I strongly suggest that you avoid joining in with the chorus of hatred and vile speak regarding the individuals involved with that portrait, lest you be the one casting a stone with your own name on it. Let God be the judge of their hearts. You can hate the portrait all you like and remain free of being judged for it but it is a potentially dangerous game to engage in because, often without our realising it, we end up vilifying the people for the thing and not the thing itself. Far too easy to do. If judging anything, judge sin, not people, except perhaps yourself, but do so truthfully and bearing in mind the love that God has for us, so much so that He gave His only begotten son as a sacrifice to save our miserable, undeserving souls, every last one willing to receive Him.
Time will eventually reveal the true intent of Yeo's heart regarding his depiction of Charles. For now, although I find it garish overall, though Charles' face is quite accurate (even if not very emotionally truthful in my own eyes), I will simply accept it as a piece of art by an acclaimed artist depicting a modern day sovereign, in that regard differing little from such portraiture of the past. Screaming about the colours being symbols of evil and hell is simply childish and ridiculous. They are colours, not demons.
Finally, as always, trust God, not man, trust in God and only Him.
Finally, as always, trust God, not man, trust in God and only Him.
