View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Hatty wrote: | There's a lot of chit-chat in the arts pages about an exhibition of Van Dyck (Anthony not Dick) revolutionising portraiture in these benighted isles. |
What inspired you to post about van Dyck here today?
I have got some BIG NEWS to give you privately about Van Dyke. Stunning stuff. Been sitting on it for a while.
Van Dyck was a member of the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke, the most famous and possibly the first artists' guild, which, as in Delft, was obligatory if a painter was to be permitted to ply his brush and to sell his work. |
I've got a feeling that this Guild is at the center of a great mystery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Anglo-Dutch connections are always of interest. What's odd is that Leiden, a leading light in publishing ventures, remained aloof from, in fact banned, guilds, until 1648 -- which happens to be the end of the Thirty Years War. [Leiden was England's gateway to Venice until the Spanish armies gained control of the southern Dutch provinces]. Van Dyck certainly understood the central place of printing as a means of distributing work, his etchings or engravings are still studied by art students.
Also of interest is that court painters were 'above' guild membership -- Van Dyck was Charles I's court painter, the equivalent of Velazquez to Philip IV -- and were instrumental in assisting their patrons, such as Charles, in amassing their art collections; in some cases artists were employed as ambassadors and diplomats, reflecting a surprising confidence in their judgement and connections. Were other guilds similarly honoured?
Can't wait!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Rocky wrote: | Is there a British look?. |
Definitely. Certaily there are dominant British types. One of them is that "bird-like" appearance to a woman's face due to a thin nose, a la Cherie Blair. The girl you link to, I agree, also embodies another type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
On a more serious note though -- check out any hotel swimming pool in any European resort and it's surprisingly easy to differentiate between various northern Europeans; Germans, English, Irish, Dutch, Danes, French and particularly Scots -- they all have unique characteristics, some of which are difficult to put your finger on.
(You never seem to come across the Welsh on holiday -- funny that.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
I was gonna say...
Shouldn't be. English and Celtic, maybe. Or English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish. And Ginger.
Years ago, they made a big deal out of merging a lot of photographs into the average English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh faces, all a bit different. Personally, I'm finding my once keen eye for racial differences getting very lazy: finding it harder and harder to tell people apart. (It's a question of familiarity.)
Cherie Blair's family is from in and around Liverpool, which is almost in Wales and has a large Irish contingent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
DPCrisp wrote: | Cherie Blair's family is from in and around Liverpool, which is almost in Wales and has a large Irish contingent. |
Maybe so but the Irish look is different. This woman has the same thin, bird-like nose I mentioned (and the same gaunt, tightly-drawn facial structure).
http://z.about.com/d/gouk/1/0/B/U/-/-/yellowlady.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishtar
|
|
|
|
Some observations from just viewing the few pictures. What I find interesting about the Pompeii pictures isn't the perspective so much as the body types, details, and positioning.
In the Charles the Bald picture, which seems typical of 7th-8th century style the figures are all facing the viewer in a 'wide shot.' Their bodies are flat against the view. They are all standing on the same plain and are all the same height.
However, in the Pompeii pictures, the figures twist their bodies, the bodies are positioned at angles, with perspective in the limbs, they appear fatter and have more muscle and detail in the body. This is more typical of a later style.
The way it is explained of course, is that this Roman style influenced the later styles. But it's pretty strange that the Roman style was just 'forgotten' when it was common enough to have been painted on walls as decoration.
The picture of the Cherub on the crab shows some lack of perspective. The crab is flat yet the child is standing on it. I would say it looks like an earlier style than Raphael's painting although in both paintings the figure is rather plump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Ishtar wrote: | The picture of the Cherub on the crab shows some lack of perspective. The crab is flat yet the child is standing on it. I would say it looks like an earlier style than Raphael's painting although in both paintings the figure is rather plump. |
It was painted by Raphael's teacher.
Figuratively.
And his teacher wasn't 1500 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
So when archaeologists dig up some Pre-Raphaelite (Brotherhood) paintings they're going to get into a fearful pickle datewise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishtar
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote: | It was painted by Raphael's teacher.
Figuratively.
And his teacher wasn't 1500 years old. |
It is almost as though it is an in-between of the two styles. If these were say, a single artist at different levels of skill development that is exactly where it would fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
The crab is flat yet the child is standing on it. |
Almost looks as if the crab was added later... by an inferior artist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Almost looks as if the crab was added later... by an inferior artist. |
I had the exact opposite reaction, thinking 'it looks like the cherub was added later'. If canvas or wood or whatever was hard to come by, would artists paint over earlier works like scribes did with vellum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|