Critics divided over Duchess of Cambridge portrait

LONDON (AP) - The Duchess of Cambridge seems to like her first official portrait, which is lucky for the artist. Many critics don't.
Paul Emsley's portrait of the former Kate Middleton shows the 31-year-old royal against a dark background, her lips pursed into a wry smile, with an ethereal light against her face and hair. Her pale complexion brings out the fine lines under the eyes, and the light adds a hint of silver to her rich brown hair.
Shortly after the portrait was unveiled Friday at the National Portrait Gallery in London, critics began grousing.
"It's a great, great opportunity missed," British Art Journal editor Robin Simon said. "The best thing you can say about it is that she doesn't actually look like that."
In a telephone interview, Simon said that Kate's nose was too large and that the painting drained the duchess of her sparkle.
Kate "transmits a sense of joie-de-vivre," he said. "This is dead, dead, dead."
Guardian arts writer Charlotte Higgins picked up on that theme, saying the portrait had a "sepulchral gloom" about it.
"Kate Middleton is - whatever you think of the monarchy and all its inane surrounding pomp - a pretty young woman with an infectious smile, a cascade of chestnut hair and a healthy bloom," she wrote in a post to her newspaper's website. "So how is it that she has been transformed into something unpleasant from the 'Twilight' franchise?"
Emsley told reporters at the opening that it was always going to be tough painting Kate, who sat for the portrait last year, before she became pregnant.
"A person whose image is so pervasive, for an artist it is really difficult to go beyond that and find something which is original," he said. "You have to rely on your technique and your artistic instincts to do that and I hope I've succeeded."
Royal portraits tend to veer between the staid and the controversial. Lucian Freud's 2001 portrait of Queen Elizabeth II remains a particularly notorious example, with some describing the heavy, severe painting of the monarch as deeply unflattering and others calling it groundbreaking.
In fairness to Emsley, some artists had praise for his work.
"I liked it, very much so," said Richard Stone, who has frequently painted members of the royal family. "So often with official portraits they can be rather stiff and starchy, but this has a lovely informality about it, and a warmth to it."
In any case, Emsley appeared to have won over his most important audience. Kate, who was with her husband, Prince William, at the gallery earlier Friday, called the portrait "just amazing." William liked it too, saying it was "absolutely beautiful."
Paul Emsley's portrait of the former Kate Middleton shows the 31-year-old royal against a dark background, her lips pursed into a wry smile, with an ethereal light against her face and hair. Her pale complexion brings out the fine lines under the eyes, and the light adds a hint of silver to her rich brown hair.
Shortly after the portrait was unveiled Friday at the National Portrait Gallery in London, critics began grousing.
"It's a great, great opportunity missed," British Art Journal editor Robin Simon said. "The best thing you can say about it is that she doesn't actually look like that."
In a telephone interview, Simon said that Kate's nose was too large and that the painting drained the duchess of her sparkle.
Kate "transmits a sense of joie-de-vivre," he said. "This is dead, dead, dead."
Guardian arts writer Charlotte Higgins picked up on that theme, saying the portrait had a "sepulchral gloom" about it.
"Kate Middleton is - whatever you think of the monarchy and all its inane surrounding pomp - a pretty young woman with an infectious smile, a cascade of chestnut hair and a healthy bloom," she wrote in a post to her newspaper's website. "So how is it that she has been transformed into something unpleasant from the 'Twilight' franchise?"
Emsley told reporters at the opening that it was always going to be tough painting Kate, who sat for the portrait last year, before she became pregnant.
"A person whose image is so pervasive, for an artist it is really difficult to go beyond that and find something which is original," he said. "You have to rely on your technique and your artistic instincts to do that and I hope I've succeeded."
Royal portraits tend to veer between the staid and the controversial. Lucian Freud's 2001 portrait of Queen Elizabeth II remains a particularly notorious example, with some describing the heavy, severe painting of the monarch as deeply unflattering and others calling it groundbreaking.
In fairness to Emsley, some artists had praise for his work.
"I liked it, very much so," said Richard Stone, who has frequently painted members of the royal family. "So often with official portraits they can be rather stiff and starchy, but this has a lovely informality about it, and a warmth to it."
In any case, Emsley appeared to have won over his most important audience. Kate, who was with her husband, Prince William, at the gallery earlier Friday, called the portrait "just amazing." William liked it too, saying it was "absolutely beautiful."
The top portion of her nose up to the brows look flat as does the bottom lip down to the bottom of the chin. A bit more definition could have fixed that. As far as the bags under her eyes and the dark circles, she was said to have wanted it to be realistic. The hair doesn't have much detail. It looks blurred. A more open smile might have been more flattering. Its not a bad job, but for the most part I think he did a fair job.
Le portrait de Kate incroyable MILF
a great job! she'll look exactly like that in...let me see...I'd say five years from now...
Maybe it's not the painting, but the lighting, her makeup, and the way she was positioned. Â The painting looks spot-on to what was perceived.
This painting is horrible. I've never seen a bad picture of her but this portrait does NOT do her justice. The circles and bags under the eyes age her and he should have painted her with her pretty smile.
Â
If I was her I'd be upset.
 @Tattooed_Angel Horrible? You know that the artist did an excellent job. Royalty are supposed to look stodgy and show very little emotion.  Why do people care so much for the ultra rich who have done nothing to deserve such praise. She is lucky to have found an artist who has done such a great job.
This is a beautiful painting of a very beautiful woman. Â
Wonder what she honestly thinks about it... it really could've been a brilliant painting, done differently
She looks 50 in this picture, so she's probably not happy about that.
The artist must be blind
Gross. This makes her look at least a decade older than she is. And I've never seen her "smile" like this. It's like she's constipated or hiding an evil secret. Don't like it. I'd request a do-over.
Looks happily stoned.
She also looks like she's tipping forward a little too.
She has the neck of a professional football player in that portrait. Strange picture...
It looks like it was painted from a picture and not an in-person live sitting. It would be hard to sit for any length of time with a smirk on your face. It would be easier sit with a neutral expression or even a smile. The eyes seem distant and the overall expression doesn't capture her live expression from live moments on tv. It also makes her look older than she appears on TV and in print pics. This should be a first draft and not the final.Â
Wait twenty years or two hundred years, and see how she looks then. Â This portrait will be seen by many in those long centuries to come, and this is who they will know - a youthful Duchess who will be the Queen of England.
Also why is this news? More cannon fodder for the bread and circus society no doubt.
It is larger than life. Is she a deity or a dictator? Why so big? Also it is a straight forward frontal pose. It looks like an oversized fluffy mugshot.
 @SeattleInternetTrollsNBATeam I agree that the full on frontal looks awkward.  I think a very slight angle would have helped quite a bit.
Looks like her to me <shrug>.
Â
They should have hired the Spanish painter who restored Jesus into a monkey....
Obviously intended to make you forget about her topless portraits.
Holy Ghostbusters II! ;)
I don't think she looks like she's smirking. My first thought before reading the article or the comments was that she looked like she had seen something amusing and was trying not to smile... specifically what came to mind was when a young child does something funny or cute but they are oh, so serious about it and you are trying not to grin and hurt their feelings. I do think there are moments in real life when she looks younger and more carefree but since this was an "official" portrait she was probably just glad that they didn't make her look like a real "fuddy-duddy".
 @justathought That's exactly what I thought about the smile as well.  That and she looks as if she has bags under her eyes.  Way too much shadowing there.
She is more beautiful and youthful than that portrait portrays. Â IMO it is unfortunate she is not smiling and showing off those spectacular teeth.
 @NWNative She probably doesn't want to offend everyone else in Britain with bad teeth.
I guess that oil and canvas really does age somebody ten years.
She is still beautiful, but looks about 15 years older than she is in real life. She also looks like she is smirking! That might be cute for a People magazine photo, but not appropriate for an official royal portrait which will forever be a part of history.
I must be a dope then, I think the painting is beautiful.
She looks 45, with 2 kids and a minivan.
Â
Off with the painter's head!
 @ChopinBroccoli That painter should just stick with hair. Her hair at least looks good, but I wonder about the inch of growout at the part. He couldn't paint her with a fresh dye job?
Her right side(our left when looking at her) looks nervous, thin, 5 years older than what she really is and trepidation in her eye, while her left side looks 5 lbs heavier, 15 years older but softer and relaxed, comfortable and with a wise and more matured sense of self. It's as if 2 different artists painted this portrait 15-20 years apart. I wish her and her husband all the best life can offer. As a child I dreamed of becoming a princess and thought life couldn't get any better than that. All that money, possibilities and extravagance was the best life anyone could have. However now that I am older and I sure would love even half of what they have, I wouldn't trade my privacy for one cent. There is a price to pay for such a lifestyle and to have your every move, outfit, facial expression, statement, opinion, purchase etc....critiqued by the world would never be an even trade.
Who cares, she is just some woman who married some rich guy claiming to be a prince. Has she done anything special other than getting in the pants of the prince? I say let that old Spanish woman who did her magic to the painting of Jesus and turned him into a monkey and let her play around with this one.
@jd94b You cared enough to comment.
@TheMadTurk If only to point out that there are more important thiings to worry about in life, but this is what we as a society seem to concern ourselves with instead of real issues.
 @Surveyor1 Or some of us might have an interest, donchya think?
Firstly, I actually generally like it but I still have some complaints. The bridge of her nose, especially between her eyes, is too wide which leads to the overall nose looking ever so slightly larger. Her eyes don't convey the same emotion as her mouth, especially not her left (our right) which shows nearly no emotion at all. The whole thing has a sort of, 80's or early 90's vibe. Other than that, I'm a landscape artist and can't paint a face for the life of me so, good work.Â
Looks like Michael J. Fox did it.Â
 @Carl Fardman stick with insulting the artist - not people with PD
i think she looks younger in natura