PDA

View Full Version : Royal baby portraiture decaying?



Pages : 1 [2]

railwayman3
08-24-2013, 04:25 PM
Just normal folks with family snaps, what's wrong with that.

Ian

And about as interesting as any family snaps from someone you don't know. :sleeping:

ambaker
08-24-2013, 04:30 PM
And my name is Mustafa , am I safe also ?????

Depends on whether or not you killed the Lion King. :grin:


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Mustafa Umut Sarac
08-24-2013, 04:32 PM
The wrong thing is they are not normal persons but they want to be my neighbor or someone from the park. It seems to me they want to be our friends like all the arabic British bbc people. They cant be friend of anyone at the end , if they are normal people they would be need to speak on Syria at least but all we see this red haired idiots diana remained smiling teeths.

cliveh
08-24-2013, 04:37 PM
The wrong thing is they are not normal persons but they want to be my neighbor or someone from the park. It seems to me they want to be our friends like all the arabic British bbc people. They cant be friend of anyone at the end , if they are normal people they would be need to speak on Syria at least but all we see this red haired idiots diana remained smiling teeths.

I don't think royalty or religion should interfere with polotics.

cowanw
08-24-2013, 04:46 PM
Well if we are discussing a loss of quality then a look at the past examples would be in order.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2012/11/photos-royal-babies-kate-middleton-pregnant_slideshow_item2_3

cliveh
08-24-2013, 04:56 PM
Well if we are discussing a loss of quality then a look at the past examples would be in order.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2012/11/photos-royal-babies-kate-middleton-pregnant_slideshow_item2_3

Not sure what your point is?

eddie
08-24-2013, 05:06 PM
A grandfather took a photo of his new grandson, and the grandson's parents. No big deal, and certainly no need for a critique. I'm sure an "official" portrait will be produced at some point. We can lambaste that one, when it's released.

Jim Taylor
08-24-2013, 05:13 PM
A grandfather took a photo of his new grandson, and the grandson's parents. No big deal, and certainly no need for a critique. I'm sure an "official" portrait will be produced at some point. We can lambaste that one, when it's released.

+1. But I guess the official photographer will only be charged with realising someone else's image of what the 'perfect' royal-baby photo should look like, so I don't think there much merit in lambasting it at all.

Que Sera.

cowanw
08-24-2013, 05:21 PM
Not sure what your point is?

Just a few more data points to decide if Royal baby portraiture is decaying. I thought it went a bit farther back in time. I am sure the only point is the on top of my head.

BrianShaw
08-24-2013, 06:19 PM
I don't think royalty or religion should interfere with polotics.
... Or photographers either. :)

cowanw
08-25-2013, 12:00 PM
here's another viewpoint
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/royal-baby-pictures-william-kate-george

benjiboy
08-25-2013, 02:03 PM
here's another viewpoint
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/royal-baby-pictures-william-kate-george
Yes in years to come they will be just ordinary Will and Kate, your friendly neighbourhood constitutional monarchs :).

Gerald C Koch
08-25-2013, 02:42 PM
The comment in the article that the Cecil Beaton photo was a bit dull, well it was commissioned by the royal family. I think that being dull is part of their job description. :)

cowanw
08-25-2013, 07:01 PM
I get what you are saying, but at that time I'm not sure that that is fair. After a abdication, a war, and a marriage, the royal family was anything but dull. And Cecil Beaton was a real favorite of the Queen Mother for his rejuvenation of the monarchy with his totally different pictures of the then Queen Elizabeth. Cecil Beaton certainly could never be called dull.
Prince Phillip didn't really like him, remarking on his floppy hats. The Queen Mother liked him. She had a propensity to gays in her entourage. I expect he got the job of photographing the baby pictures of Charles because of the Queen Mother.
Personally I like Richard Speaight"s images of the Queen then Duchess of York and Elizabeth the second of the Vanity Fair images

cowanw
08-26-2013, 05:52 PM
This is like watching a train wreck. This article tells you all that is wrong interactively
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/interactive/2013/aug/20/prince-george-photograph-right-royal-mess

AgX
08-26-2013, 07:10 PM
But seemingly nothing wrong with the baby concerning that critic. And the baby is the person the photo is about...

Gerald C Koch
08-26-2013, 10:12 PM
While the British are happy to have a member of the royal family dedicate a new shopping center they would not be happy with the dedication of a new bordello. That's what I meant by dull, newsworthy but not too newsworthy.

Edward VIII with his Nazi sympathies and his dalliance with "that Simpson woman" was a publicity nightmare. When he was forced to abdicate it was the best for the country. Had he continued on the throne he might have destroyed the monarchy single handedly. Now George VI was a proper king, a bit dull but proper.