Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
IMO, the portrait of the National Gallery would be closer to that reconstruction, only showing a man ten years older than Richard actually was. This too, is rather strange BTW. As if the painter had followed Shakespeare's timeline instead of the real one.
And what about the portrait with the broken sword ? On that one, Richard's mouth is very different, and quite similar to Edward IV's on his own portraits.
Do you know if the facial reconstruction is closer to what Richard actually looked like than any painting ?
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
The facial reproduction does not look much like any of the potraits which IMHO comes from its crude and uninspired fabrication. For me its just a dolls head with historically questionable careless drapings.
Eva
---In , <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Romane
---In , <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
A J
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:50 AM, romanenemo <[email protected]> wrote:
You're right, Virginia, when you enlarge the picture, the eyes are not cold but pensive, the general expression austere, and rather sad, but not harsh.
It still doesn't look like the facial reconstruction, though. I thought that such a reconstruction was based upon scientific methods, but I agree that Richard's seems rather coarse and not completely convincing, somehow.All the portraits have a vague likeness, but IMO they are nonetheless quite different from each other. So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.Romane
---In @ yahoogroups.com, <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
On Jul 4, 2017 10:50 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:
You're right, Virginia, when you enlarge the picture, the eyes are not cold but pensive, the general expression austere, and rather sad, but not harsh. It still doesn't look like the facial reconstruction, though. I thought that such a reconstruction was based upon scientific methods, but I agree that Richard's seems rather coarse and not completely convincing, somehow.All the portraits have a vague likeness, but IMO they are nonetheless quite different from each other. So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.
Romane
---In @ yahoogroups.com, <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
On Jul 4, 2017, at 10:59 AM, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:
A friend of mine who is an artist (sculpture most recently) and trained as a dentist, doing facial prostheses for a period, has worked on creating a 3-D digital rendition of Richard's head
based on what information she has been able to find online from the scans of King Richard's skull. Her most pertinent comment is that she thinks there is no way Richard's actual skeletal anatomy would animate in the way seen in Caroline Wilkinson's reconstruction.
This might explain why so many Ricardians are dis-satisfied with the Wilkinson reconstruction (not to mention the fact that much more lifelike reproductions are achievable now, as may be seen in some museums). My friend also questions whether in many of the
photos of King Richard's skull, the mandible is properly articulated.
A J
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:50 AM, romanenemo
<[email protected]> wrote:
You're right, Virginia, when you enlarge the picture, the eyes are not cold but pensive, the general expression austere, and rather sad, but not harsh.
It still doesn't look like the facial reconstruction, though. I thought that such a reconstruction was based upon scientific methods, but I agree that Richard's seems rather coarse and not completely convincing, somehow. All the portraits have a vague likeness, but IMO they are nonetheless quite different from each other. So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.Romane
---In @ yahoogroups.com, <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I just bought a new book about Jamestown, Virginia, and there is a reconstruction of the young woman which is so realistic, for a moment I thought "that has to be a photo", but no. So, you are quite correct better facial recognition and recommend reconstruction has moved very quickly into an entire new realm.
Eva says:
The Jamestown woman is a good example how a facial reconstruction could be much more satisfying.
And if I remember rightly, the scientist who spoke about it on a Youtube video, said, she could have looked that way and did not maintain that is the ultimante truth.
I also remember Wilkinsons`article on the Facial Recreation of Richard. She said that, for instance, about creating the mouth " the exact shape of the vermillion line is difficult to predict by any degree of accuracy
and successfull reconstructions are demonstrated where the practioner has modelled the lips in sympathy with the rest of the face". This leaves a lot of inerpetations open to the practitioner.
When I first saw the receation of Richards face I wondered if my idea of how he looked would change, so I placed the SoA painting next to the recration and soon decidet i'll stick to the painting.
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
AJ wrote
A friend of mine who is an artist (sculpture most recently) and trained as a dentist, doing facial prostheses for a period, has worked on creating a 3-D digital rendition of Richard's head based on what information she has been able to find online from the scans of King Richard's skull. Her most pertinent comment is that she thinks there is no way Richard's actual skeletal anatomy would animate in the way seen in Caroline Wilkinson's reconstruction. This might explain why so many Ricardians are dis-satisfied with the Wilkinson reconstruction (not to mention the fact that much more lifelike reproductions are achievable now, as may be seen in some museums). My friend also questions whether in many of the photos of King Richard's skull, the mandible is properly articulated.
A J
That is every interesting. I would love to see your friends work. I am sure she is right in her comment about Wilkinsons reconstruction. Personally it pains me to look at at it and experience that for the Society it seems to be the ultimate representation of Richard these days.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Several years ago she made a few seconds of video, which showed some promise. Then her house was destroyed by a tornado. She has just recently picked up this project again, but had become very dis-satisfied with what she's already done & has started over. Believe me she sees deficiencies that I certainly don't!
A J
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
AJ wrote
A
friend of mine who is an artist (sculpture most recently) and trained
as a dentist, doing facial prostheses for a period, has worked on
creating a 3-D digital rendition of Richard's head based on what
information she has been able to find online from the scans of King
Richard's skull. Her most pertinent comment is that she thinks there is
no way Richard's actual skeletal anatomy would animate in the way seen
in Caroline Wilkinson's reconstruction. This might explain why so many
Ricardians are dis-satisfied with the Wilkinson reconstruction (not to
mention the fact that much more lifelike reproductions are achievable
now, as may be seen in some museums). My friend also questions whether
in many of the photos of King Richard's skull, the mandible is properly
articulated.
A J
That is every interesting. I would love to see your friends work. I am sure she is right in her comment about Wilkinsons reconstruction. Personally it pains me to look at at it and experience that for the Society it seems to be the ultimate representation of Richard these days.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 4 juil. 2017 à 13:35, eva.pitter@... [] <> a écrit :
Virginia, I totally agree with you. Only when you look at a good reproduction or a close up, as you say, you can appreciate the quality of this portait. Then the lips, though thin, are beautifully formed and the eyes pensive, intelligent and a little sad. I have seen the original picture once and it looked very pleasant to me.
The facial reproduction does not look much like any of the potraits which IMHO comes from its crude and uninspired fabrication. For me its just a dolls head with historically questionable careless drapings.
Eva
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.
Eva
Funnily enough it was not the expertise of the arthistorian Pamela Tudor Craig that convinced the scientists
that the SoA roundtop portrait is the most accurate likeness of Richard, but the eye and hair coulour that
matched the genetic research of Turi King. P.T.C.wrote already in 1973 about this portrait from the view of an arthistorian and her conclusion from internal evidence was the same.I quote from the catalogue of the 1973 exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery:" I would however stress that the internal evidence points most strongly to its having been a faithful copy of a lost original painted in the sitters lifetime. Apart from the outstanding quality of the workmanship, there is the evidence of the collar...the three dimensional quality of this collar contrasts with the flat arrangement of the one in the standard Royal Collection portrait and its derivates."
So if this conclusions of T.P.C. were known to the recreation team, they would no have chosen the NPG portrait as a model for their work. They would not have been forced to give the plastic doll first very dark hair, then blond hair, then lightbrown hair with kinks in it,that should be seen as wavy hair.
But in the end i am glad this picture remained unmolested from their interpretation-
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
---In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote :
Romanero wrote:
So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.
Eva
Funnily enough it was not the expertise of the arthistorian Pamela Tudor Craig that convinced the scientists
that the SoA roundtop portrait is the most accurate likeness of Richard, but the eye and hair coulour that
matched the genetic research of Turi King. P.T.C.wrote already in 1973 about this portrait from the view of an arthistorian and her conclusion from internal evidence was the same.I quote from the catalogue of the 1973 exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery:" I would however stress that the internal evidence points most strongly to its having been a faithful copy of a lost original painted in the sitters lifetime. Apart from the outstanding quality of the workmanship, there is the evidence of the collar...the three dimensional quality of this collar contrasts with the flat arrangement of the one in the standard Royal Collection portrait and its derivates."
So if this conclusions of T.P.C. were known to the recreation team, they would no have chosen the NPG portrait as a model for their work. They would not have been forced to give the plastic doll first very dark hair, then blond hair, then lightbrown hair with kinks in it,that should be seen as wavy hair.
But in the end i am glad this picture remained unmolested from their interpretation-
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
The SoA Roundtop portrait was also altered later. It had a more grim expression and the background was black. Especially the underlip was moved a little over the upperlip.Apart from that there were no obvious changes.The picture was cleaned in 2007 together with the portait of Edward IV .As far as quality is conserned, I disagree with you, for I think that Richard's portrait is of considerable quality and IMO it is the best picture of an english monarch of the period. I of course agree with what you say about the superior quality of continental portraits.
But I am convinced that there must have been better original portraits in Richard's and Edward's time.
both have ordered high quality books in Burgundy and supported building enterprises. So why schould they be content with personal portraits by inferior artists.
I wonder why the pictures were all changed after they were painted. and that this happened not in Henry VII time, but in the time of Henry VIII, even with the NPG one in Elisabethan times. Was the true image of Richard still such a danger for the regime?
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
On Jul 5, 2017 7:36 AM, "eva.pitter@... []" <> wrote:
Hi Romanero,
The SoA Roundtop portrait was also altered later. It had a more grim expression and the background was black. Especially the underlip was moved a little over the upperlip.Apart from that there were no obvious changes.The picture was cleaned in 2007 together with the portait of Edward IV .As far as quality is conserned, I disagree with you, for I think that Richard's portrait is of considerable quality and IMO it is the best picture of an english monarch of the period. I of course agree with what you say about the superior quality of continental portraits.
But I am convinced that there must have been better original portraits in Richard's and Edward's time.
both have ordered high quality books in Burgundy and supported building enterprises. So why schould they be content with personal portraits by inferior artists.
I wonder why the pictures were all changed after they were painted. and that this happened not in Henry VII time, but in the time of Henry VIII, even with the NPG one in Elisabethan times. Was the true image of Richard still such a danger for the regime?
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 5 juil. 2017 à 13:42, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> a écrit :
I'm sure we all understand the propaganda value of a picture. Modern media and the movie industry is all about that. Making Richard look old, mean, tired and evil (some have a hump in the back added) is the point.
On Jul 5, 2017 7:36 AM, "eva.pitter@... []" <> wrote:
Hi Romanero,
The SoA Roundtop portrait was also altered later. It had a more grim expression and the background was black. Especially the underlip was moved a little over the upperlip.Apart from that there were no obvious changes.The picture was cleaned in 2007 together with the portait of Edward IV .As far as quality is conserned, I disagree with you, for I think that Richard's portrait is of considerable quality and IMO it is the best picture of an english monarch of the period. I of course agree with what you say about the superior quality of continental portraits.
But I am convinced that there must have been better original portraits in Richard's and Edward's time.
both have ordered high quality books in Burgundy and supported building enterprises. So why schould they be content with personal portraits by inferior artists.
I wonder why the pictures were all changed after they were painted. and that this happened not in Henry VII time, but in the time of Henry VIII, even with the NPG one in Elisabethan times. Was the true image of Richard still such a danger for the regime?
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Paul wrote:
It always amazes me how artists in England were so behind in how they portrayed people. The portraits done in fifteenth century Italy are so lifelike. Nothing done in England came close really until Holbein arrived to immortalise Fat Henry fifty years later.Paul
It amazes me too.The English made good line drawings like the Beauchamp Pageant. And there are the beautiful wallpaintings in Eton College, though those are thought to be the work of flemish artists. It is just the portraits that are missing. Where all good pictures destroyed? All what is left now are very inferior copies of copies it seems.I just can't belive, that the Yorkist brothers' contact with the culture of Burgundy did not have an impact on them.
Did not Fat Henry destroy music? He might as well have destroyed pictures that were painted before his glorious time.
By the way, the portraits of Richard II , nearly 100 years earlier are quite beautiful.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Also, if I recall, there was some rumor or discussion of the American Branch being interested in doing a full figure in the same scientific manner. But I haven't heard a followup, so perhaps it was just someone musing.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 10:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
You're right, Virginia, when you enlarge the picture, the eyes are not cold but pensive, the general expression austere, and rather sad, but not harsh. It still doesn't look like the facial reconstruction, though. I thought that such a reconstruction was based upon scientific methods, but I agree that Richard's seems rather coarse and not completely convincing, somehow. All the portraits have a vague likeness, but IMO they are nonetheless quite different from each other. So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.
Romane
---In , <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 5 juil. 2017 à 23:00, fairerichard3@... [] <> a écrit :
Thank you. The reconstruction has been refined/adjusted last year for a third time (the hair change from dark to blonde to light brown), such as in the eyebrows and the waviness in the hair. The Paston portrait was used as a reference for the latest changes as it is the earliest copy. It seems the reconstruction would be of a more youthful Richard since the artist was unable to add aging or emotional effects to the figure. It's one of the more realistic versions of a reconstruction I've seen.
Also, if I recall, there was some rumor or discussion of the American Branch being interested in doing a full figure in the same scientific manner. But I haven't heard a followup, so perhaps it was just someone musing.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 10:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
You're right, Virginia, when you enlarge the picture, the eyes are not cold but pensive, the general expression austere, and rather sad, but not harsh. It still doesn't look like the facial reconstruction, though. I thought that such a reconstruction was based upon scientific methods, but I agree that Richard's seems rather coarse and not completely convincing, somehow. All the portraits have a vague likeness, but IMO they are nonetheless quite different from each other. So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.
Romane
---In , <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Hasnýt there been a 3D scan already made of Richardýs skeleton? I thought there was, and, if so, they should already have enough data on file to be able to make a reconstruction of his body. I also thought the reason there was such delay between the time of the discovery and the reburial was that they wanted to be able to get all the scientific information possible from a study of his skeleton, including taking DNA samples, that would eliminate the need for any further disturbance of his remains. I would be against a proposal to exhume his remains on principle at this point.
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<mailto:>
Sent: July 6, 2017 5:50 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
A recent film about King Tut did a full body reconstruction of the teenaged pharaoh that was impressive, showing the feminine shape of his hips that he inherited from his father Akhenaten and his twisted foot and ankle. The face was also very convincing, showing how the poor guy must have been in constant pain.
If they can do this on a more than 2000 year old mummy why not on a five hundred year old skeleton?
Of course in order to do that they would have to disturb him again, not something I'm in favour of, but I regret a lost opportunity, and the rush the unconvincing facial restoration was made in. I do not see Richard when I look at it, which I now avoid doing!
Paul
Envoyý de mon iPad
Le 5 juil. 2017 ý 23:00, fairerichard3@...<mailto:fairerichard3@...> [] <<mailto:>> a ýcrit :
Thank you. The reconstruction has been refined/adjusted last year for a third time (the hair change from dark to blonde to light brown), such as in the eyebrows and the waviness in the hair. The Paston portrait was used as a reference for the latest changes as it is the earliest copy. It seems the reconstruction would be of a more youthful Richard since the artist was unable to add aging or emotional effects to the figure. It's one of the more realistic versions of a reconstruction I've seen.
Also, if I recall, there was some rumor or discussion of the American Branch being interested in doing a full figure in the same scientific manner. But I haven't heard a followup, so perhaps it was just someone musing.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: <<mailto:>>
Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 10:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
You're right, Virginia, when you enlarge the picture, the eyes are not cold but pensive, the general expression austere, and rather sad, but not harsh.
It still doesn't look like the facial reconstruction, though. I thought that such a reconstruction was based upon scientific methods, but I agree that Richard's seems rather coarse and not completely convincing, somehow.
All the portraits have a vague likeness, but IMO they are nonetheless quite different from each other. So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.
Romane
---In <mailto:>, <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: <<mailto:>>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
On Jul 6, 2017 4:49 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:
A recent film about King Tut did a full body reconstruction of the teenaged pharaoh that was impressive, showing the feminine shape of his hips that he inherited from his father Akhenaten and his twisted foot and ankle. The face was also very convincing, showing how the poor guy must have been in constant pain.If they can do this on a more than 2000 year old mummy why not on a five hundred year old skeleton?Of course in order to do that they would have to disturb him again, not something I'm in favour of, but I regret a lost opportunity, and the rush the unconvincing facial restoration was made in. I do not see Richard when I look at it, which I now avoid doing!Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 5 juil. 2017 à 23:00, fairerichard3@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> a écrit :
Thank you. The reconstruction has been refined/adjusted last year for a third time (the hair change from dark to blonde to light brown), such as in the eyebrows and the waviness in the hair. The Paston portrait was used as a reference for the latest changes as it is the earliest copy. It seems the reconstruction would be of a more youthful Richard since the artist was unable to add aging or emotional effects to the figure. It's one of the more realistic versions of a reconstruction I've seen.
Also, if I recall, there was some rumor or discussion of the American Branch being interested in doing a full figure in the same scientific manner. But I haven't heard a followup, so perhaps it was just someone musing.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 10:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
You're right, Virginia, when you enlarge the picture, the eyes are not cold but pensive, the general expression austere, and rather sad, but not harsh. It still doesn't look like the facial reconstruction, though. I thought that such a reconstruction was based upon scientific methods, but I agree that Richard's seems rather coarse and not completely convincing, somehow. All the portraits have a vague likeness, but IMO they are nonetheless quite different from each other. So unless there is a general agreement among the art historians that the Paston collection portrait is indeed rather accurate, it seems difficult to be sure of what Richard really looked like.
Romane
---In @ yahoogroups.com, <fairerichard3@...> wrote :
When you enlarge the picture, to get a good close up of the face, the eyes, the impression is less harsh - rather thoughtful or pensive, in my opinion. The mouth is tense, not necessarily angry.
Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 2:44 pm
Subject: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I've read that the famous portrait of the Society of Antiquaries (also called Paston collection portrait, I think) is the most accurate. But I don't think it looks like the facial reconstruction very much. And the eyes are cold, the expression very harsh.
Romane
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I reckon with regard to art, places like Florence were way ahead. In this country painting was still very much connected with religion, but if you look at something like the East Window of York Minster you can see they used real faces as models. To paint anyone, just for the sake of painting them, even if they were a king had to have a purpose,either religious, like the Canterbury Window, or to send as a 'photo' to find a mate. I wonder whether EW commissioned the ones of her and Edward. After all, Rivers was the great Renaissance man. Pity though.
BTW I can't bear the reconstructed head on the Society site. It makes it look as though Richard is looking down his nose. And the hair is all wrong. H
From: "eva.pitter@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Paul wrote:
It always amazes me how artists in England were so behind in how they portrayed people. The portraits done in fifteenth century Italy are so lifelike. Nothing done in England came close really until Holbein arrived to immortalise Fat Henry fifty years later.Paul
It amazes me too.The English made good line drawings like the Beauchamp Pageant. And there are the beautiful wallpaintings in Eton College, though those are thought to be the work of flemish artists. It is just the portraits that are missing. Where all good pictures destroyed? All what is left now are very inferior copies of copies it seems.I just can't belive, that the Yorkist brothers' contact with the culture of Burgundy did not have an impact on them.
Did not Fat Henry destroy music? He might as well have destroyed pictures that were painted before his glorious time.
By the way, the portraits of Richard II , nearly 100 years earlier are quite beautiful.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2017, 11:00
Subject: RE: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
If 'they' ever exhume Richard again..i swear I will probably end up in jail..!
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
"Of course in order to do that [a full-body restoration of Richard] they would have to disturb him again, not something I'm in favour of, but I regret a lost opportunity, and the rush the unconvincing facial restoration was made in. I do not see Richard when I look at it, which I now avoid doing!"
Carol responds:
It seems to me that the facial reconstruction looks good (i.e., like Richard as he must have looked) in some views and mannequin-like in others. It may depend on the angle and the light (and the wig). I saw it up close at the Leicester museum, but it was placed at such a low angle that I had to bend down to see it (and nearly missed). It was very disappointing up close--not at all what I expected to see based on the photo of Philippa standing next to it.
I like the National Portrait Gallery photo though it makes him look a few years too old, but the idea that someone tried to make a realistic and sympathetic portrait years after the horrible and deliberately distorted Royal Collection portrait is appealing to me. I believe there's an outline beneath it that the artist worked from, traced from some original. Don't care for the SoA portrait. Maybe it's the cloth of gold outfit, but also the square shoulder (he would not have made the shoulder discrepancy so obvious) and the expression.
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
"BTW I can't bear the reconstructed head on the Society site. It makes it look as though Richard is looking down his nose. And the hair is all wrong."
Carol responds:
Neither can I. If they're going to use the reconstruction, they should use a better photo.
I don't like the line of the jaw in any of the photos. I agree with whoever said that they didn't line up the jaw correctly. Granted, the English of his time didn't normally use forks, but that wouldn't have given every person who lived before forks were in common use an underbite!
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Eva:The SoA Roundtop portrait was also altered later. It had a more grim expression and the background was black. Especially the underlip was moved a little over the upperlip.Apart from that there were no obvious changes.The picture was cleaned in 2007 together with the portait of Edward IV .
Romane:So you mean that recent efforts were made to cancel the alterations the portrait had suffered ? Maybe it was not possible to put it back completely in his original states, and that would explain the harsh expression Richard's portrait still have on smaller scale reproductions. And Edward's rather empty gaze.
Carol:I like the National Portrait Gallery photo though it makes him look a few years too old, but the idea that someone tried to make a realistic and sympathetic portrait years after the horrible and deliberately distorted Royal Collection portrait is appealing to me.
Romane: Yes, this portrait shows some kind of sympathy from the artist. Maybe it's a proof that in this time, not far rom Richard's own lifetime, the Tudor propaganda was not as a universally believed as it was later (but even later, there was people willing to use their brain on that matter, such as George Buck).
Carol: Don't care for the SoA portrait. Maybe it's the cloth of gold outfit, but also the square shoulder (he would not have made the shoulder discrepancy so obvious) and the expression.
Romane:As it has been said, it's amazing how the expression is different when you widen the picture. On many small reproductions, it is really repellent, whereas on a wider scale, and thus on the real portrait probably, the expression is pensive and sad, but not unfriendly at all. Maybe it comes from the attempts to alter the portrait.
Hilary:I reckon with regard to art, places like Florence were way ahead. In this country painting was still very much connected with religion, but if you look at something like the East Window of York Minster you can see they used real faces as models. To paint anyone, just for the sake of painting them, even if they were a king had to have a purpose,either religious, like the Canterbury Window, or to send as a 'photo' to find a mate. I wonder whether EW commissioned the ones of her and Edward. After all, Rivers was the great Renaissance man. Pity though.
Romane:One of the things a find very sad about Richard's early death, apart from the very unfairness of it and the fact that he would have been a far better king than Henry VII, is that he missed the flowering of the Renaissance in England. It was only burgeoning when he died, and yet he had already shown interest in the progress of printing, for example, like his two brothers. He missed the Great Discoveries, in particular, and the full arrival of the Renaissance in his country. What would an intelligent monarch like him have done with all that ? And of course, had he lived, we'd certainly have better portraits of him.
---In , <eva.pitter@...> wrote :
Hi Romanero,
The SoA Roundtop portrait was also altered later. It had a more grim expression and the background was black. Especially the underlip was moved a little over the upperlip.Apart from that there were no obvious changes.The picture was cleaned in 2007 together with the portait of Edward IV .As far as quality is conserned, I disagree with you, for I think that Richard's portrait is of considerable quality and IMO it is the best picture of an english monarch of the period. I of course agree with what you say about the superior quality of continental portraits.
But I am convinced that there must have been better original portraits in Richard's and Edward's time.
both have ordered high quality books in Burgundy and supported building enterprises. So why schould they be content with personal portraits by inferior artists.
I wonder why the pictures were all changed after they were painted. and that this happened not in Henry VII time, but in the time of Henry VIII, even with the NPG one in Elisabethan times. Was the true image of Richard still such a danger for the regime?
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
On Jul 6, 2017 7:47 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Yes he did destroy music Eva. English music in the fifteenth century was the most advanced in Europe. In fact many of so-called Tudor compositions come from a much earlier period.
I reckon with regard to art, places like Florence were way ahead. In this country painting was still very much connected with religion, but if you look at something like the East Window of York Minster you can see they used real faces as models. To paint anyone, just for the sake of painting them, even if they were a king had to have a purpose,either religious, like the Canterbury Window, or to send as a 'photo' to find a mate. I wonder whether EW commissioned the ones of her and Edward. After all, Rivers was the great Renaissance man. Pity though.
BTW I can't bear the reconstructed head on the Society site. It makes it look as though Richard is looking down his nose. And the hair is all wrong. H
From: "eva.pitter@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Paul wrote:
It always amazes me how
artists in England were so behind in how they portrayed people. The
portraits done in fifteenth century Italy are so lifelike. Nothing done
in England came close really until Holbein arrived to immortalise Fat
Henry fifty years later.Paul
It amazes me too.The English made good line drawings like the Beauchamp Pageant. And there are the beautiful wallpaintings in Eton College, though those are thought to be the work of flemish artists. It is just the portraits that are missing. Where all good pictures destroyed? All what is left now are very inferior copies of copies it seems.I just can't belive, that the Yorkist brothers' contact with the culture of Burgundy did not have an impact on them.
Did not Fat Henry destroy music? He might as well have destroyed pictures that were painted before his glorious time.
By the way, the portraits of Richard II , nearly 100 years earlier are quite beautiful.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 12:40
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Have you seen the one by the University of Dundee? I personally love it. He has a beard shadow and lifelike eyes.
On Jul 6, 2017 7:47 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Yes he did destroy music Eva. English music in the fifteenth century was the most advanced in Europe. In fact many of so-called Tudor compositions come from a much earlier period.
I reckon with regard to art, places like Florence were way ahead. In this country painting was still very much connected with religion, but if you look at something like the East Window of York Minster you can see they used real faces as models. To paint anyone, just for the sake of painting them, even if they were a king had to have a purpose,either religious, like the Canterbury Window, or to send as a 'photo' to find a mate. I wonder whether EW commissioned the ones of her and Edward. After all, Rivers was the great Renaissance man. Pity though.
BTW I can't bear the reconstructed head on the Society site. It makes it look as though Richard is looking down his nose. And the hair is all wrong. H
From: "eva.pitter@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Paul wrote:
It always amazes me how artists in England were so behind in how they portrayed people. The portraits done in fifteenth century Italy are so lifelike. Nothing done in England came close really until Holbein arrived to immortalise Fat Henry fifty years later.Paul
It amazes me too.The English made good line drawings like the Beauchamp Pageant. And there are the beautiful wallpaintings in Eton College, though those are thought to be the work of flemish artists. It is just the portraits that are missing. Where all good pictures destroyed? All what is left now are very inferior copies of copies it seems.I just can't belive, that the Yorkist brothers' contact with the culture of Burgundy did not have an impact on them.
Did not Fat Henry destroy music? He might as well have destroyed pictures that were painted before his glorious time.
By the way, the portraits of Richard II , nearly 100 years earlier are quite beautiful.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
On Jul 7, 2017 10:12 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Do you mean the original one, wasn't Wilkinson from Dundee? Or is there another? H
From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 12:40
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Have you seen the one by the University of Dundee? I personally love it. He has a beard shadow and lifelike eyes.
On Jul 6, 2017 7:47 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Yes he did destroy music Eva. English music in the fifteenth century was the most advanced in Europe. In fact many of so-called Tudor compositions come from a much earlier period.
I reckon with regard to art, places like Florence were way ahead. In this country painting was still very much connected with religion, but if you look at something like the East Window of York Minster you can see they used real faces as models. To paint anyone, just for the sake of painting them, even if they were a king had to have a purpose,either religious, like the Canterbury Window, or to send as a 'photo' to find a mate. I wonder whether EW commissioned the ones of her and Edward. After all, Rivers was the great Renaissance man. Pity though.
BTW I can't bear the reconstructed head on the Society site. It makes it look as though Richard is looking down his nose. And the hair is all wrong. H
From: "eva.pitter@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Paul wrote:
It always amazes me how
artists in England were so behind in how they portrayed people. The
portraits done in fifteenth century Italy are so lifelike. Nothing done
in England came close really until Holbein arrived to immortalise Fat
Henry fifty years later.Paul
It amazes me too.The English made good line drawings like the Beauchamp Pageant. And there are the beautiful wallpaintings in Eton College, though those are thought to be the work of flemish artists. It is just the portraits that are missing. Where all good pictures destroyed? All what is left now are very inferior copies of copies it seems.I just can't belive, that the Yorkist brothers' contact with the culture of Burgundy did not have an impact on them.
Did not Fat Henry destroy music? He might as well have destroyed pictures that were painted before his glorious time.
By the way, the portraits of Richard II , nearly 100 years earlier are quite beautiful.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll/photos/a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267/701454723216232/?type=3&theater
A J
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/ KingRichardlll/I mean this one, which is not a reconstruction, I think but an artist's rendering. It looks based on the reconstruction.
On Jul 7, 2017 10:12 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Do you mean the original one, wasn't Wilkinson from Dundee? Or is there another? H
From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 12:40
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Have you seen the one by the University of Dundee? I personally love it. He has a beard shadow and lifelike eyes.
On Jul 6, 2017 7:47 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
Yes he did destroy music Eva. English music in the fifteenth century was the most advanced in Europe. In fact many of so-called Tudor compositions come from a much earlier period.
I reckon with regard to art, places like Florence were way ahead. In this country painting was still very much connected with religion, but if you look at something like the East Window of York Minster you can see they used real faces as models. To paint anyone, just for the sake of painting them, even if they were a king had to have a purpose,either religious, like the Canterbury Window, or to send as a 'photo' to find a mate. I wonder whether EW commissioned the ones of her and Edward. After all, Rivers was the great Renaissance man. Pity though.
BTW I can't bear the reconstructed head on the Society site. It makes it look as though Richard is looking down his nose. And the hair is all wrong. H
From: "eva.pitter@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Paul wrote:
It always amazes me how
artists in England were so behind in how they portrayed people. The
portraits done in fifteenth century Italy are so lifelike. Nothing done
in England came close really until Holbein arrived to immortalise Fat
Henry fifty years later.Paul
It amazes me too.The English made good line drawings like the Beauchamp Pageant. And there are the beautiful wallpaintings in Eton College, though those are thought to be the work of flemish artists. It is just the portraits that are missing. Where all good pictures destroyed? All what is left now are very inferior copies of copies it seems.I just can't belive, that the Yorkist brothers' contact with the culture of Burgundy did not have an impact on them.
Did not Fat Henry destroy music? He might as well have destroyed pictures that were painted before his glorious time.
By the way, the portraits of Richard II , nearly 100 years earlier are quite beautiful.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
On Jul 7, 2017, at 10:40 AM, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:
A photo of the reconstruction digitally manipulated by Cindy Tschok.
https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll/photos/a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267/701454723216232/?type=3&theater
A J
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Karen O
karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/ KingRichardlll/
I mean this one, which is not a reconstruction, I think but an artist's rendering. It looks based on the reconstruction.
On Jul 7, 2017 10:12 AM, "Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Do you mean the original one, wasn't Wilkinson from Dundee? Or is there another? H
From: "Karen O
karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To:
@yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 12:40
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Have you seen the one by the University of Dundee? I personally love it. He has a beard shadow and lifelike eyes.
On Jul 6, 2017 7:47 AM, "Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
wrote:
Yes he did destroy music Eva. English music in the fifteenth century was the most advanced in Europe. In fact many of so-called Tudor compositions come from a much earlier period.
I reckon with regard to art, places like Florence were way ahead. In this country painting was still very much connected with religion, but if you look at something like the East Window of York Minster you can see they used real faces as models. To paint anyone,
just for the sake of painting them, even if they were a king had to have a purpose,either religious, like the Canterbury Window, or to send as a 'photo' to find a mate. I wonder whether EW commissioned the ones of her and Edward. After all, Rivers was the
great Renaissance man. Pity though.
BTW I can't bear the reconstructed head on the Society site. It makes it look as though Richard is looking down his nose. And the hair is all wrong. H
From: "eva.pitter@...
[]" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To:
@ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Paul wrote:
It always amazes me how artists in England were so behind in how they portrayed people. The portraits done in fifteenth century Italy are so lifelike. Nothing done in England came close really until Holbein arrived to immortalise Fat Henry fifty years later.
Paul
It amazes me too.The English made good line drawings like the Beauchamp Pageant. And there are the beautiful wallpaintings in Eton College, though those are thought to be the work of flemish artists. It is just the portraits that are missing. Where all good
pictures destroyed? All what is left now are very inferior copies of copies it seems.I just can't belive, that the Yorkist brothers' contact with the culture of Burgundy did not have an impact on them.
Did not Fat Henry destroy music? He might as well have destroyed pictures that were painted before his glorious time.
By the way, the portraits of Richard II , nearly 100 years earlier are quite beautiful.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 22:06
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Yes, it's nice. But it doesn't look like the portraits either.
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
On Jul 8, 2017 4:04 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
It looks too nice and is it just me or does it look like the young Richard Armitage? H
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 22:06
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Yes, it's nice. But it doesn't look like the portraits either.
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 July 2017, 4:56
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
He looks too boyish for Armitage. A little Brad Pitt. I'm serious. You could have put him in the movies. I mean the Dundee version.
On Jul 8, 2017 4:04 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
It looks too nice and is it just me or does it look like the young Richard Armitage? H
From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 22:06
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Yes, it's nice. But it doesn't look like the portraits either.
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Yes that's why it doesn't look right. The oldest Richard portrait shows quite a sensitive face (unlike that of Edward) and he was gracile in build so is unlikely to have had such a 'macho' (is that the right word?) face. H
I agree with you Hilary, the SoA portrait shows a sensitive face, and this photogaphic reconstruction is too stylish for me and has scarcely a resemblance with the historical pictures..
About the EIV picture, it was IMO painted by a different person than that of Richard, the brush work is more careless, nearly impressionistic.Though the wood, they are painted on is from the same tree and they were probably painted in the same paintshop there would have been different artists working there.
Why the NPG portrait is so loved by some I can not understand. It does not seem to be sympathetic to Richard for me.It is not meant to show him as king, it was made to make him look weak, unhappy and tense.
There are so many modern pictures of Richard around since the finding of Richards' remains and I can't say
there is any that for me is preferable to the SoA roundttop.
Take a long look at it and it almost comes to life! At least that is how it works for me.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Eva wrote:
"Why the NPG portrait is so loved by some I can not understand. It does not seem to be sympathetic to Richard for me.It is not meant to show him as king, it was made to make him look weak, unhappy and tense.
There are so many modern pictures of Richard around since the finding of Richards' remains and I can't say there is any that for me is preferable to the SoA roundttop. Take a long look at it and it almost comes to life! At least that is how it works for me."
Carol responds:
Funny, I have the opposite reaction. The SoA portrait looks grumpy and amateurish; the NPG looks sensitive and intelligent. (I've seen the real portrait up close twice.) I guess it's all subjective--like arguing whether licorice is delicious or revolting. You'll never convince anyone who disagrees with you that you're right because their taste isn't yours.
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
I agree with you about the merits/demerits of the two pictures, Carol, and disagree (respectfully, of course = ) with Eva's opinion. But I must admit that my opinion was strongly influenced at the outset of my literary encounters with Richard by Josephine Tey in The Daughter of Time, whose description of the NPG portrait was so eloquent and moving and of course, provided the impetus for her protagonist's research into the mystery of Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. I don't think any of the other portraits of Richard that I've seen can hold a candle to that one and I recall when the studies were done of Richard's physiognomy after September 2012 that many people commented on how close the NPG portrait was to the man's actual appearance.
BTW, parenthetically, it may be of some interest here that I visited the National Portrait Gallery when I was in London last December, and, much to my surprise, there was not a mention of anything in the Gallery prior to the Tudors. You might almost have thought that the British monarchy began with HT!! There wasn't even a blank space on the wall where the portrait might have been hung!! Till I got to the Gallery Shop, that is, at which time it seemed to me that there was more space devoted to various tchotchkes bearing reproductions of the NPG portrait than that of any other monarch! Weird, huh??!! Do you, or anyone else, have any explanation for Richard's absence??
Johanne
Johanne L. Tournier
Email jltournier60@...
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: justcarol67@... []<mailto:>
Sent: July 10, 2017 2:44 PM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Eva wrote:
"Why the NPG portrait is so loved by some I can not understand. It does not seem to be sympathetic to Richard for me.It is not meant to show him as king, it was made to make him look weak, unhappy and tense.
There are so many modern pictures of Richard around since the finding of Richards' remains and I can't say there is any that for me is preferable to the SoA roundttop. Take a long look at it and it almost comes to life! At least that is how it works for me."
Carol responds:
Funny, I have the opposite reaction. The SoA portrait looks grumpy and amateurish; the NPG looks sensitive and intelligent. (I've seen the real portrait up close twice.) I guess it's all subjective--like arguing whether licorice is delicious or revolting. You'll never convince anyone who disagrees with you that you're right because their taste isn't yours.
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
A J
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:
Hi, Carol & Eva
I agree with you about the merits/demerits of the two pictures, Carol, and disagree (respectfully, of course =
) with Eva's opinion. But I must admit that my opinion was strongly influenced at the outset of my literary encounters with Richard by Josephine Tey in The Daughter of Time, whose description of the NPG portrait was so eloquent and moving and of course, provided the impetus for her protagonist's research into the mystery of Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. I don't think any of the other portraits of Richard that I've seen can hold a candle to that one and I recall when the studies were done of Richard's physiognomy after September 2012 that many people commented on how close the NPG portrait was to the man's actual appearance.
BTW, parenthetically, it may be of some interest here that I visited the National Portrait Gallery when I was in London last December, and, much to my surprise, there was not a mention of anything in the Gallery prior to the Tudors. You might almost have thought that the British monarchy began with HT!! There wasn't even a blank space on the wall where the portrait might have been hung!! Till I got to the Gallery Shop, that is, at which time it seemed to me that there was more space devoted to various tchotchkes bearing reproductions of the NPG portrait than that of any other monarch! Weird, huh??!! Do you, or anyone else, have any explanation for Richard's absence??
Johanne
Johanne L. Tournier
Email jltournier60@...
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/ fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: justcarol67@... []< mailto:@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: July 10, 2017 2:44 PM
To: @ yahoogroups.com<mailto:richard iiisocietyforum@yahoogroups. com>
Subject: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Eva wrote:
"Why the NPG portrait is so loved by some I can not understand. It does not seem to be sympathetic to Richard for me.It is not meant to show him as king, it was made to make him look weak, unhappy and tense.
There are so many modern pictures of Richard around since the finding of Richards' remains and I can't say there is any that for me is preferable to the SoA roundttop. Take a long look at it and it almost comes to life! At least that is how it works for me."
Carol responds:
Funny, I have the opposite reaction. The SoA portrait looks grumpy and amateurish; the NPG looks sensitive and intelligent. (I've seen the real portrait up close twice.) I guess it's all subjective--like arguing whether licorice is delicious or revolting. You'll never convince anyone who disagrees with you that you're right because their taste isn't yours.
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Romane:That's interesting. But what do you mean by the man's actual apparence ? Is it the facial reconstruction ? In that case, I rather agree, even if the portrait shows an older man than Richard was when he died. As if the painter hadn't had the right idea about Richard's real age. I like that painting, but as you said as well, it's associated in my mind with 'The daughter of time', the book that triggered my first sympathetic interest in Richard.
Eva:Why the NPG portrait is so loved by some I can not understand. It does not seem to be sympathetic to Richard for me.It is not meant to show him as king, it was made to make him look weak, unhappy and tense.
Romane:He does appear unhappy and tense. But didn't he have every reason to be ? I agree, though, that no portrait painted during his lifetime would have showed him with such an expression, it's not regal enough. Yet I think it's actually sympathetic in the sense that it doesn't show Richard as a bad person, so that tension, that pain are shown with some kind of compassion. I'd like to know what the painter thought of Richard and why he painted him that way.
Carol:The SoA portrait looks grumpy and amateurish; the NPG looks sensitive and intelligent. (I've seen the real portrait up close twice.) I guess it's all subjective
Romane:Of course, it's all subjective. Yet in the case of that portrait, I agree with Eva on the fact that strangely, that particular portrait is extremely different if seen on a wider scale, or on a smaller one. The first time I saw that portrait, I thought that it had a very grim expression, with the cold, dead eyes of a killer, and I was rather dismayed, not only because it was so different from the NPG one, but because I had read it was supposed to be the closest of Richard's actual appearance. But if the image is widened, not even to the proportion of the real portrait, the expression changes, becomes pensive and somehow faraway, and a bit sad. The mouth, though, remains too pinched. But all in all, I rather like that portrait too. It shows a firm, serious, introspective man, not far from what Richard must have been, at least on a moral point of view.
But on a physical point of view, that portrait doesn't look like the facial reconstruction at all. And even if the NPG looks like it a little more, it's not a strong similarity. The facial reconstruction itself apparently has not been made with enough care. And the remaining portraits are very different from each others too.
Once again, what a difference with for example Charles of Burgundy. Even if all the portraits we have of him are not completely identical, they are alike enough to give us a rather precise idea of what the man looked like.
Unfortunately, it's not the case for Richard.
---In , <ajhibbard@...> wrote :
At some point in the recent past, there was an exhibition on about the Tudors. At that time someone mentioned that his portrait had been moved, if I remember right to a horizontal case with a cloth over it, as you see in some museums when they're trying to keep light from doing further damage. Later on someone else reported that Richard's portrait had been restored to its now usual position. When I first visited many years ago it hung on a landing in a stairwell.
A J
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:
Hi, Carol & Eva
I agree with you about the merits/demerits of the two pictures, Carol, and disagree (respectfully, of course =
) with Eva's opinion. But I must admit that my opinion was strongly influenced at the outset of my literary encounters with Richard by Josephine Tey in The Daughter of Time, whose description of the NPG portrait was so eloquent and moving and of course, provided the impetus for her protagonist's research into the mystery of Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. I don't think any of the other portraits of Richard that I've seen can hold a candle to that one and I recall when the studies were done of Richard's physiognomy after September 2012 that many people commented on how close the NPG portrait was to the man's actual appearance.
BTW, parenthetically, it may be of some interest here that I visited the National Portrait Gallery when I was in London last December, and, much to my surprise, there was not a mention of anything in the Gallery prior to the Tudors. You might almost have thought that the British monarchy began with HT!! There wasn't even a blank space on the wall where the portrait might have been hung!! Till I got to the Gallery Shop, that is, at which time it seemed to me that there was more space devoted to various tchotchkes bearing reproductions of the NPG portrait than that of any other monarch! Weird, huh??!! Do you, or anyone else, have any explanation for Richard's absence??
Johanne
Johanne L. Tournier
Email jltournier60@...
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/ fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: justcarol67@... []< mailto:@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: July 10, 2017 2:44 PM
To: @ yahoogroups.com<mailto:richard iiisocietyforum@yahoogroups. com>
Subject: Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Eva wrote:
"Why the NPG portrait is so loved by some I can not understand. It does not seem to be sympathetic to Richard for me.It is not meant to show him as king, it was made to make him look weak, unhappy and tense.
There are so many modern pictures of Richard around since the finding of Richards' remains and I can't say there is any that for me is preferable to the SoA roundttop. Take a long look at it and it almost comes to life! At least that is how it works for me."
Carol responds:
Funny, I have the opposite reaction. The SoA portrait looks grumpy and amateurish; the NPG looks sensitive and intelligent. (I've seen the real portrait up close twice.) I guess it's all subjective--like arguing whether licorice is delicious or revolting. You'll never convince anyone who disagrees with you that you're right because their taste isn't yours.
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Tastes differ and I have no problem with respecting your opinion.
Have they really removed Richard's portrait from the National Potrait Gallery? Very strange.
I saw my favorite picture in the rooms of the Society of Antiquaries at Burlington House. I don't know if
it is usually open to the public. They have some pictures of pre-Tudor Kings of England.
Concernig the Facial Recreation, Prof Wilkinso said that in the craniofacial superimposition the NPG portrait
matched perfectly and the SoA portait quite well.She called both matches stunning. But Prof. W. probably
did not take into consideration that the SoA picture is a mirror image of all the other portraits and should have been superimposed on the mirror image of the skull. May be it would then fit as perfectly. As has been said before in this discussion, the recreation has little resemblence with any historical picture. They just took the NPG portrait as model, but rather superficially, as for instance the hat is pure fantasy. The finish of the recreation head, that is really amateurish.
Eva
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
"I rather agree, even if the portrait shows an older man than Richard was when he died. As if the painter hadn't had the right idea about Richard's real age."
Carol responds:
Not surprising, since the portrait is late sixteenth century--about the time of Shakespeare's Henry VI plays (1591), which depict Richard fighting in battles that occurred in his childhood. The idea that Richard was older than he was may have started with More, who has Edward IV aged "fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes" at death when in fact he was forty years, eleven months, and twelve days old.
So if Richard was also thirteen years older than his real age (plus some months and days), he would have been about 46. But I imagine that readers of More (who took him at his word) were unaware of the ten-year age gap between Edward and Richard and so imagined him as closer to fifty. That would fit with the depiction of Richard (and George) in Shakespeare.( But it was Hall, I think, who made Edmund a child while his little brothers [a la More] were adults at Wakefield.)
The engraving of him by Wenceslaus Hollar (d. 1677) makes him look at least fifty--gray hair and crow's feet. I seem to recall a "portrait" of Richard from the eighteenth century in which he's even older--looking about sixty--but can't find it on a quick search. In any case, part of the idea that evil goes not only with deformity but with old age while the good (especially in fairy tales and folk tales) are beautiful and young. "Only the good die young" seems to be a very old idea.
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
Eva wrote:
"They just took the NPG portrait as model, but rather superficially, as for instance the hat is pure fantasy. The finish of the recreation head, that is really amateurish."
Carol responds:
I think they were trying to match the hat in the NPG portrait, which is evidently based on the same lost original as the altered Royal Collection portrait but is probably closer to the original since it isn't distorted. Oddly, Henry is wearing much the same hat in some of his portraits. This one may not be the best example (it's a copy), but I didn't want to search through the images looking for an original that may not exist.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/King_Henry_VII_from_NPG.jpg/220px-King_Henry_VII_from_NPG.jpg
Anyway, it seems odd that the painter chose Henry's hat. The Royal Collection "portrait" of Richard was painted ten years after Henry's death. Maybe he was looking for a fifteenth-century fashion?
Carol
Re: Richard's portraits and facial reconstruction
