[Chris Saper]

Dear Mary,

Compared to the queen, even Emily Post would have the manners of a thug, so if the queen were appalled, I doubt anyone would ever know.

My thought about this painting relates to idea of titling. For example, it this painting had no crown, and it was described as a portrait of a courageous Turkish peasant woman, who had risked everything in her poverty-stricken hopeless life, to bring medicine to pitiful dying children, etc., etc, .etc,. I might view this as a strong, painterly conveyance of character. But as a portrait of the queen, it just doesn't work for me.

Once you see a portrait of a subject about whom you already have an impression, I think that it is difficult to accept if it is far afield of that impression, good or bad, because there is no way to "read" into it your own feelings about the sitter. When a portrait goes only somewhat afield, I think, at least for me, it's easier to become intrigued with the artist's unique perception of some additional dimension of the sitter. I don't think this happens in the same way when you view a portrait of a stranger, as the anonymity gives the viewer free rein.

What do you think?

Chris

PS That being said, I think the negative spaces are too symmetrical to be as interesting as they should be, even with, or perhaps especially with, a tiny painting.