Did Sargent make a mouth wrong?
 

Although John Singer Sargent is a great artist and my favorite, I have a question about one of his masterpieces, "Portrait of Daughters of Mrs. and Mr. Asher Wertheimer"-- The mouth of the lady on the left looks awry. Can anyone help me on this issue?

薩金特作嘴錯了嗎？


雖然約翰.薩金特是一個偉大的藝術家，我最喜歡的，我有一個問題，他的一個傑作，

Here is the portrait.

It seems more bemused, or "wry," than "awry" to me. Because I see the same quality in the sister's mouth, I'm happy to assume that it's a family trait. And it seems to me that capturing it has lent "personality" to the portrait. It's difficult to look at these expressions and not wonder what these women are thinking.

I do see is that the mouth in question is asymetrical. But I assume that is the way she looked. It does not appear to me as if Sargent's drawing was outside of the range of "anatomical correctness."

SB Wang, I went to your web site and saw your work. I am very impressed and know that you have a trained eye. It could be that I would need to see a closeup of this in order to confirm what you are seeing in this painting.

The sense that I first had of the feature pointed out here seems to echo in many published comments about the painting as exhibiting a playfulness, sensuality (apparently one of Betty

Families
 

Some families have traits (like smiling on one side more than the other-the right side in this case). I'll bet the client was delighted that Sargent caught such a trait. As noted both girls have that feature. You can assume that what Sargent saw and painted was spot on.

Too many portaits are careful and generic and miss these very delicate things that RING of that person sitting before the artist.

Practice what you preach
 

Sargent said that a portrait is a painting which has something wrong with the mouth.

Also
 

When one client actually said those words to him about her mouth in the painting, he said, "oh, a little thing like that - you can fix it when you get home." I love that!

Because of course we'll never know exactly what Sargent's intentions were -- unless there's a "letters to Theo" type of collection lying about somewhere, discussing the particulars -- in executing this or that feature in one of his portraits, my vote remains in favor of taking the painting to be as intended, that the mouth is not "wrong" but is perceptively, playfully, brilliantly "right".

That's just my uninformed take on it, based on observation of the work. I of course wasn't present and have no idea what Sargent might have said or had in mind at the time he was painting, whatever the legend and lore. I like to think that he had a bit of a wry grin himself as he placed Betty's mouth "just so" and saw that he'd captured her personality with even such slight, but deftly executed, detail. And even if he altered or exaggerated slightly what he saw to create that effect, I personally don't regard the result as therefore "wrong", but (though perhaps inscrutably) "right."

Betty defends Betty
 

Thank you all! Thank you, Karin!
Part of this is caused by optical illusion, I think. As Betty Edwards said: "I believe that skewing of the features happens because the student sees that the head is tipped but then fits the features into the most familiar pattern: upright and parallel to the edges of the paper". ("Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", pp.144-145).

But if professional artists found that mouth looks odd, "wry" or "asymertrical", how can a layman see it in the corrective way, which Betty taught.

Both
 

Both sisters mouths are the same. We can conclude that these two mouths were both drawn wrong (in the same way) or that this great portrait painter who was awarded honorary doctorates to Harvard and Oxford by age 40, painted 600 oil portraits, was offered a knighthood, goofed.

It's all too easy to paint careful, boring, safe portraits. Daring work is more interesting. Artists talk about it 110 years later.

I never noticed anything special about the mouth but often wondered why a hand that looks as thought it is about to receive a train ticket emerges from around the waist of the daughter on our left. The painting would not suffer without it. Daughter on left also pushes the dress of her sister and causes a shape that looks like a deformed leg under the white dress. The over all effectiveness of the painting is so strong that these things don't much matter.

Sister Equality
 

Jim,

Maybe the hand is there as a way to bring the sister who is in the back in white onto the same plane as the sister in red. A visual placeholder to make them equal. Imagine if the greatest portrait artist today painted you and your brother (for example) and put you in the background? If it were me, I'd be ticked. Sibling rivalry goes deep...

In addition I think the hand adds a seductive quality to the portrait that it would otherwise not have if the hand were not there. As if the hand, in conjunction with those smiles, are asking the viewer to join them and share in their pleasant surroundings. Rather inviting to say the least... Were the sisters already married? If not, this may have been a way for them to meet wealthy suitors. Especially if the piece went to a show or exhibition for all to see. Who knows?

Gene
[email protected]

Illustrator Harry Furniss was apparently intrigued by that hand, as well, exaggerating the gesture in caricature, in his

Now that I see the cartoon, the sister in the back is rather "beefy" with very wide shoulders. Someone I'd hate to arm wrestle... Great cartoon!

Thanks for the cartoon and link. I've been reading about the Sargent Murals all morning.

Note: before my post, there was a post talking about if they were not married, the pose could be flirting.

Were they married? A good point. Another point is "Jewish girls are more active than our English girls" (not exact words)
None of E.D.Boit's daughters were married. The girl posed in profile lived twenty some years less than the others, as if doomed by her obscure appearance in the picture.

Hummm...if you mean the Boit daughters they were married. They bequeathed the portrait to the BFAM in their old, married age.

Mouth, schmouth.

The KILLER for me in this painting has always been the way Mr. S. painted the fan edge-on. It makes the line of the arm so much longer and more sinuous (and sexy!).

There is a secret in the design of "Daughters of Boit", if you already know the answer, please postpone your answer, so let other people to explore.

Huh?
 

SBW, I didn't get that last remark at all.

I don

I'm sure it would be interesting for members to actually see the painting in question. It's tough to capture and reduce a good-quality image, but here's a try:

[quote]

Thank you, Steven!
I just read a book described this painting.
Sargent arranged one girl in profile, but why?
Hint: she is the eldest.

Poor Little Girl
 

Maybe JSS couldn't paint her pretty!

I'm not aware of a reasoned, nonconjectural design for that, S.B. Perhaps you will have to enlighten us about what you've discovered about that pose.

What is the title of the book you referred to?

Steve is right. You can never get even an inkling of how great this masterpiece is unless you actually see it--right up close. I took one of the worst train trips in European rail history to see it at the Tate in 98

Please wait till many Sargent fans have a real adventure on this issue--the secret of the composition of this painting, Daughters of Boit, and find an answer by analyzing.

Anyone who has the best answer will be awarded.

How bout this...

The girls are lit and composed according to their age rank. The oldest is most obscure and least lit. The next oldest, although her face is not obscure, is lit only slightly better than her older sister, and so on.

Could it be that the parents are etched somewhere into the darkness, eldest last?

One

Scott
 

Scott,

Is that the portrait where they were wearing the Oxford robes? Have you heard that story?

And I thought I had a problem with schlepping stuff around the world

From

Tim,

My father teaches medical illustration at Johns Hopkins. The department invited me up a few years ago to look at the portraits that hang in various Hopkins buildings. When we walked into the medical library, there was a huge canvas of four learned gentlemen, probably wearing robes. I found it quite odd that one of them was placed in shadow, distinctly subordinated to the others, as if Sargent had some reason to cut him out. Nobody in our party knew why. It was also interesting to see the students giving us curious glances for taking an interest in such an old painting.

I'd be interested to know the Oxford robes story.

Scott, thanks for the above information. I am very interested.

Talking about dress, in the portrait of Elizabeth Chanler, the masterpiece at the Smithsonian, has anyone read a story about that black dress?

What a Buddha dresses
 

Sargent painted these two famous portraits a year apart; another one is Lady Agnew. These two portraits are very different in design.

With this in mind, I read in Beijing,(can American publishers supply us enough good books?) and found out an unusual trick: the dress she wears is he supplied, he is
Sargent the :santa:

;)

The Forum is asking the question of charging a fee to participate in this forum and wonder how many will want to return to threads like this one that ask questions, suggest intrique, mystery,and propose quizzes without eventual answers.

Thanks, Jim:

Many times I thought to make this entertaining, even with prize offered, like Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy.

Like in one section, I asked an answer of six letter words started with letter "m". The answer is "mother". I intented to post on Mother's Day.

A tradition in China, especially on Lantern Festival, a week ago, is Chinese Carnival, when the major fun is riddles on lantern.

Please, more quizes! So that some people like me can have some different taste.

SB, you earlier wrote: Time to let us in on the secret. It doesn't appear that anyone is going to guess.

What I'm in a hurry is to write a book on comparison of words in English and Chinese, a breakthrough in learning method in both directions.

I'm looking for someone bilingual to edit my book in the English version.

Steven: I'm starting writing, thank, Cynthia for spending time to help me.

I just recall that I mentioned a book, which I'll look for soon. The eldest daughter is a head taller than her sister next to her. So, one of the purposes in this design, is to make a "four corner game".

The portrait Scott noticed at Johns Hopkins is in a book now: Sargent's later works, Vol.3.

Compare the paths of Repin, Sargent and Sorolla:
Repin declined a mural project, but Kramskoy and Sargent did not; Both Repin and Sargent are in the book of Art Through Ages, but Sargent's name is not in another art history book, Sorolla is not.
The art of Repin and his contemporary Russian artists is in line with character of Russian literature and art in that period: typical environment and characters, firm portraying by profound depiction in realism.
Some works by Sargent were criticized as superficial.
Sorolla started a first non-family portrait in 1907, a portrait of a King, while Sargent was quitting portraiture, telling Sorolla there are clients in London like his works;
Repin's name is praised by Stalin at the critical moment of the Soviet in 1941, to arouse the passion of patriotism; Due to managemental shortcoming, while we can visit Sorolla and Repin, Fechin, Norman Rockwell museums, but not a museum to Sargent.