Alexander Talbot-Rice is known for his dedication to classical naturalistic painting and has produced portraits of international icons, including HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.
Trained in the academic traditions of both the Florence Academy and the Repin Academy in Saint Petersburg, Talbot-Rice is among a rare group of Western artists to have studied in Russia. His time at the Repin Academy under Soviet-trained masters gave him access to methods rooted in the Imperial Academy of Catherine the Great. There, he deepened his understanding of anatomy, colour theory, and the Russian principle of capturing not just likeness, but soul.
His artistic formation began early, following a childhood split between London and the countryside of Herefordshire. After earning the top art scholarship to Stowe School, he diverted briefly from art, enrolling at Durham University to study politics, philosophy and history. A short time in the British Army followed, before he committed fully to painting. Now expanding into Dubai and the wider Gulf region, he continues to work on high-profile commissions while contributing to charitable causes.
In your view, what defines a truly timeless portrait?
When we look at the portrait, three things are happening. Firstly, we can identify with the humanity of the subject. Secondly, we view the subject through the artist’s eyes, and thirdly, we bring our own perception to the experience. In a sense, then, portraiture is timeless because I believe that our common humanity unites us. A great portrait captures something uniquely human with which we can identify. It should tell a story, but more than that, it should be designed and executed in such a way that it catches our attention from across a room. This can be achieved through an abstract sensibility of its design. This means the composition, rhythms of light and shadow of warm and cold colour, and atmospheric brush work.
“A great portrait captures something uniquely human with which we can identify.”
How has your classical training at the Florence Academy and the Repin State Academy of Fine Art in St Petersburg, Russia informed your visual language?
This is a complex question. Typically in the Italian school, the background of the painting is dark, and the pallet is quite limited. The Russian school is almost the reverse of this in that the background is often cold and the Russian palette is broader than the Italian palette, allowing the artist to convey psychology through colour. In the Italian school, artists often use quite a lot of painting medium to create softness or ‘sfumato’. By contrast, in Russia, this is achieved through a dry brush technique. The skilful artist can use the eye of his audience to ‘see’ what he has not painted. As long as the total harmony is correct you will perceive skin tones even though the colour may not be what exists in nature. Without going into too much detail the essence of Italian painting is observation, whereas the essence of Russian painting is ‘understanding’. In Italy today they use a 19th century academic technique which relies on perspective to paint what they see in nature from the outside in. This is called, “the sight size technique”. In the Russian School, they preserve a technique that goes back to the Italian Renaissance, based on an understanding of anatomy, construction and colour theory. Russian colour theory assumes that perception of a colour depends very much on context. Colour can be perceived differently depending upon its context relative to its background.
Using these techniques, the Russian School draws and paints from ‘the inside out’ rather than from “the outside in”. I believe that the Russian portrait is more interested in the psychology of the subject rather than external beauty. This interest in the ‘soul’ of the portrait, may also be influenced by Russian Orthodox faith and the Russian icon. While both passion and precision are important, of the two, passion is more important than precision. If we understand ‘abstract’ to mean, “an abstraction from nature” then it is possible for a portrait to be both classical and ‘abstract’
What was it like to paint Queen Elizabeth II and how do you navigate the formality and symbolism required in royal portraiture while maintaining artistic authenticity?
I think a lot of this happens on the subconscious level. As we paint and repaint component parts, we have to ‘feel’. Feel the softness of the mouth, the architecture of the nose, the eye sockets, the cheek bones, the forehead, the jawline, and the neck. We ‘see’ what exists in nature, in our mind’s eye, and before we make a pencil mark or a brush stroke, we miss the endeavour to see that on the paper or canvas. It is also very important for a portrait artist to have the ability to be able to get the ‘best’ out of his or her subject.
Not all artists have good communication skills, and the subject may look bored. We are all capable of being bored or animated. I think it’s very important, regardless of whom I am painting, to get a balance between dignity and humanity. When you look at my painting of HM The Queen, sitting in the Gold Coronation Coach, you will see that she has an animated smile. You are literally seeing her as I was privileged to see her, and I think this makes the painting more interesting.
HM The Queen was incredibly protective of me, as I was the youngest artist ever to paint her. I painted her portrait shortly after I painted a portrait of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, for St George’s House, at Windsor Castle. Following the unveiling of this portrait, HRH had invited me to Windsor Castle for the weekend when I met HM The Queen informally and we had dinner together. HRH knew that my father had just died of cancer, he liked me and being a kind man wanted to help me. Of course, this made it much easier for me when I was later commissioned to paint HM The Queen.
Do you have any strories from when you painted Queen Elizabeth II?
My portrait of HM The Queen was life-size, and HM had agreed to sit for the painting in the Royal Mews. I was formally introduced to her by a senior Palace official who had a rather condescending attitude. Whilst I was painting the portrait, this gentleman was standing behind me, and as you can imagine, I found this quite distracting. After a few minutes, I asked him if he wouldn’t mind waiting outside and that I would let him know if I needed anything, as I was sure he appreciated I had to focus on HM. He didn’t say anything but looked rather annoyed and left. After about half an hour, he returned. HM looked at him sternly and demanded; “What are you doing here? Is it cold outside?” He paled. He walked out backwards and he carefully closed the door behind him!
Are there moments from your sittings with the late Duke of Edinburgh or Margaret Thatcher that particularly stand out?
Margaret Thatcher was one of the most remarkable human beings I have ever met. I was commissioned to paint her portrait in 2012, by the Director of The National Portrait Gallery in Washington, after my paintings of HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh were exhibited there.
I remember going to her home in Chester Square and being struck by how much effort she had gone to in advance of our sitting. I also noticed that she had a way of controlling time by controlling the internation of her speech. Although she was elderly and possibly suffering from Alzheimer’s, I’m quite certain that it was her habit to speak in a deliberate manner.
Likewise, the way that she sat, the way that she held her head, the way that she smiled, and yet her eyes were mesmerising. I could see her iron will beneath the surface, as well as a disarming gentleness which might surprise the reader. It was the combination of both that made her so attractive. I was humbled that she had gone to a great deal of effort for our sitting. She had had her hair especially styled for the portrait and was wearing all of her favourite jewellery. Unfortunately, she had chosen to wear a dress which was extremely difficult to paint because it had a distracting pattern.
As well as being perhaps the most significant Prime Minister since Winston Churchill, she was also a grandmother from a market town in Lincolnshire called Grantham. I had just returned from Afghanistan, where I was embedded as a war artist with Welsh Guards, and so I was able to amuse her with stories of some of my adventures; including a 500 mile journey across Northern Afghanistan on horseback. I remember the weather was terrible that day and I suggested that she might like to visit my mother’s favourite island of Cephalonia in Greece, where I had been living to decompress from the warzone. She considered this, and said, almost to herself, that she would have to ask Dennis. Of course, her husband Dennis had already died, and I wondered whether or not she was making her reservations to join him. I mentioned this to share with your readers an intimate moment which expresses something of the very intimate nature of a portrait painting and the relationship between a patron and their artist.
“I paint because I am moved by the beauty I see in nature.”
Your work is steeped in classical tradition. Looking to the future, how do you view the place of classical art in the modern world?
Conceptualism is a broad term, describing both abstract art and a form of artistic philosophical statement. This is often provocative and goes to the question, “what is art and what is the function of art?” When I was studying at school, a lot of people assumed that ‘conceptualism’ was the future and ‘classical art’ was the past. Actually, in the last ten years, there has been an incredible revival in classical art. Young artists are now able to source very high quality paints, canvas, and paper, which were very hard to find 20 years ago. These are produced by artisans who have carefully studied the painting methods of old masters like Rembrandt, Velázquez and Caravaggio. A lot of people also assume that conceptualism and academic art are in conflict. I think it’s probably more true to say that those who sell conceptual or classical art are in conflict.
Someone who is selling classical art might argue that artists are drawn towards conceptualism because they lack the skill to accurately draw and paint from nature. This is untrue, perhaps one of the most famous conceptual artists, Picasso, was classically trained. Likewise one of the most famous contemporary artists is Banksy, who is also a very accomplished draughtsman. I paint because I am moved by the beauty I see in nature. I always had artistic talent, but like a musician, or an athlete, our natural ability is enhanced by training. I had the unique opportunity of training in both Florence and Saint Petersburg. This meant that I was not only exposed to work by many of the greatest artists that have ever lived, but also different cultures. Those who taught me, taught me more than technique, they helped me to understand how to draw or paint with ‘understanding’ to convey the ‘soul’ of what I am observing. An artist must have his or her own artistic handwriting’. Perhaps it is this human quality that makes classical art relevant in the modern world.
