What do you guys think of this new portrait of Shakespeare (pic related)?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/william-shakespeare/12166254/New-portrait-of-William-Shakespeare-as-flesh-and-blood-man-you-might-see-down-the-pub.html
I liked a lot. It’s touching to see a very human likeness of the (possibly) greatest writer of all time (and in his work table, a very nice decision). He looks alive in this painting.
The passage that he is writing is this one:
Hamlet. O that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah, fie! 'Tis an unweeded garden
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this!
But two months dead! Nay, not so much, not two.
So excellent a king, that was to this
Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!
Must I remember? Why, she would hang on him
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on; and yet, within a month-
Let me not think on't! Frailty, thy name is woman!
A little month, or ere those shoes were old
With which she followed my poor father's body
Like Niobe, all tears- why she, even she
(O God! a beast that wants discourse of reason
Would have mourn'd longer) married with my uncle;
My father's brother, but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules. Within a month,
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!
It is not, nor it cannot come to good.
But break my heart, for I must hold my tongue!
>when the clothes are better done than the face
what a shitty portrait
I really like it.
>>7734500
It's good
the bald man Shakespeare was never accurate to begin with. They could have at least tried something else.
Look at how his expensive sleeve is erasing the ink from that Hamlet scene in front of him.
It's a terrible portrait, I think.
>Those Adidas tracksuit pants
>>7734500
>caring about the appearance of the artist
I honestly couldn't care less about what this guy looked like.
How does this change anything? It certainly doesn't change his art.
>>7734564
this
>>7734500
not black enough
>>7734835
so much this. and also too male
>>7734846
Wow, never heard of this one
thx guys, I have a new way of annoying the establishment
Shit.
This is the way I'll always see the man, not that matters much.
>>7734856
They found that painting in storage and just assumed it was him.
Nobody really knows who it is for sure.
>>7734870
And? The point is, I can believe that guy was Shakes, there's nothing about that portrait in the OP is anything more than a street sweeper.
>>7734846
yo hol up senpai... you be sayin... we wuz playritez n shiet?
>>7734500
So much negativity in this thread.
Why do you guys do not watch out for the portrait virtues rather than its faults? The face remains very similar to the picture in the First Folio, but corrects the measuring and structure defects of that printing.
Also, instead of a princely portrait and a noble image we have here a person on his desk, a seemingly normal person, like any one of us. I always wanted to see Shakespeare in the writing act; I'd love to know what his daily routine was (at what time he wrote, what he used to eat, how many pages per day could he produce, how he sketched the scenes and speeches, did he revise the material, etc.), and it hurts me to realize that we will never know this things.
This picture is very different from all that has already been made and the author has worked hard to make it (he studied all the visual material he could find on Shakespeare).
I was happy with the result, although there are defects.
>>7734846
who's this erection projection?
>>7734500
Seems like your average Italian middle-age guy.
