In honor of the unveiling of the Duchess of Cambridge’s
official royal portrait (see it here), I want to discuss portraits. I won’t offer an opinion
on her portrait except to say, I’ve seen better, and if I’d paid for it, I’d get
my money back. But I digress.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/589a4/589a4e5f4165db0060bd325ebd2fabcbda6c62e2" alt=""
I’ve heard it said by historians that Henry VIII and the Tudors
enjoy the lasting fame they do because they were the first monarchs to be painted
in a realistic way. Personally, I think Henry having had six wives and killing
two of them might have something to do with his notoriety. However, I’m a
romance writer not a historian, so I could be wrong. We are fascinated by Henry
VIII and his descendants because we feel we know them, or that we can see
something of their true personalities in the beautiful paintings of Holbein and
others. The Tudors come to life in a way prior monarchs had not, and the
tradition continued until the advent of photography.
With photography, the painted portrait has waned. Everyone who
is no one can now have a great shot of themselves, or perhaps a not so great
shot of them drunk and posted on the internet for all to see forever. Future
generations will have a vast photo-record of our great people and may perhaps
lose the wonder of standing in front of a painting and feeling the mystery of
the person staring back. I love photographs as much as the next person, but in documenting
every nanosecond of our lives, we might have lost something and deprived future
generations of the sense of mystery or wonder of standing in front of a
portrait.
No comments:
Post a Comment