The Ditchley Portrait
This is a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I, titled "The Ditchley Portrait". It was painted in 1592, by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger. I find this image absolutely intriguing, for many reasons. Firstly, from a makeup and hair styling point of view, it is one of the portraits for me personally, that shows the alabaster skin, and red cheeks and lips perfectly. Her hair is up in a typical Elizabeth I way, and adorned with jewels. She is wearing quite an elaborate ruff, so her hair is up quite high, but although it is up, it still remains quite soft and feminine. She is definitely trying to convey a softer character to the viewer of the portrait. The curls and adornments really give it a more gentle feel, especially compared to some of the other portraits, where the hair is harsher and conveys more of a masculine, authoritative feel, such as the Armada Portrait.
Her dress is elaborately decorated and she is layered in pearls right through from her hair, to her ruff and layered around her neck. Pearls were a symbol of purity and virginity, and this was the image Elizabeth wanted to reinforce time and time again in many of her portraits. She looks absolutely regal, and I love her white dress that again casts her in a pure, virginal light. Behind her, we see a clashing of dark and light, with Elizabeth positioned perfectly in the middle. I think that this shows her bringing the balance between good and evil, and although there is speculation that this portrait is a message of forgiveness to her champion Sir Henry Lee for becoming a "stranger lady's thrall", I believe that to her subjects, who didn't know the story behind the painting, it would appear that Elizabeth was promoting an image of her being the mediator between dark times and light. She is standing on a map of the world, symbolising her strength and power in leading England towards a strong future. I also notice she has her back towards the dark and is facing the light, possibly trying to show that the dark can be overcome, or that the darker times are behind them?
No comments:
Post a Comment