Renwick Gallery, Washington D.C.
 

If anyone is going to Washington D.C. before Oct. 23, 2005, make sure you go to the Renwick Gallery!

Although this gallery is supposed to only display craft items, it is currently hosting an exhibition from the American Art Museum.

You can see some beauties - some very famous. I was thrilled to see Sargents' "Elizabeth Winthrop Chanler" and Cecelia Beaux's painting of "Henry Sturgis Drinker (Man with a Cat)" among the works on display.

The Renwick Gallery is just north of the White House, in the D.C. mall area.

I would love to see this in person. This is one of my favorite paintings.

Very cool - I am getting to DC sometime in late August! Thanks for the tip.

The man with the cat has been one of my favorite paintings for a long time too. Thanks for posting it here, Mike!

What a wonderful painting! Thanks Mike.

Jean

Would you believe that it is displayed in a hallway, as is the Sargent I mentioned? The lighting wasn't that great - that was my only frustration. Other paintings were shown in better light.

Kim - you will love this exhibit! Glad you're getting to Washington. I enjoyed the National Gallery too. I had no idea that Vermeer's famous paintings were so small (Woman with the red hat in particular). And the many Rembrandts there were awe-inspiring.

The Freer Museum has a lot of Whistler's and some of his contemporaries' paintings, like Thomas Dewey. Very nice.

This is the great one.

If this was a Work In Progress I would have a handful of suggestions.

Not to be contrary but I really think that this is no painting to set up as a standard to follow.

If anyone would play I think that this is a quality subject to learn from. There are good and bad things in this painting and I believe that a friendly discussion about those things would be educative.

Allan

Allan,

These are the best images I have this painting.

I don't know why you couldn't have at this painting. If someone would like to step in and defend Ms. Beaux they could. I don't think Ms. Beaux will be one of them.

Maybe we should have a critique section for old "masters" paintings.

Dear Mike,
Why not try our minds on this painting since the artist dos

I like,

The fine balance of cold and warm colors.

The way the red shirt is painted with the strong shadow color and the highlight.

The balance between the light figure and the darker background without any of them being too dominant.

The flow of the brushwork.

Allan

Allan, Im going to disagree with you.

There is obviously other light sources beyond the window we see - it is reflecting and bouncing off many surfaces. Just looking at the bit of room we see has me invisioning other windows, but not so close.

I always read that ear as correct, but you do have me looking at it now. I dont mind the shutters at all..they recede far enough back for me.

I do maybe agree with the sleeve, now that you mention it.

He sure does have a thin head, but I read that myself as being correct.

Just thougt I'd join in. :cool:

Allan,

I think this may be a good example of a painting that breaks technical rules for the sake of a pleasing overall visual impact.

Your first three criticisms are somewhat presumptuous I think. First, this gentleman may have been one of those narrow headed fellows. A condition commonly attributed to men who invite cats to visit their laps. Also, we don't know for sure that the existing light could not create the circumstances necessary to create the effects you object to. Your analysis may well be correct, but, it's possible that it may not.

I maintain that there should be a presumption of innocence. In my own work I often operate on the principle of plausibility. A passage may not coincide with the precise facts on the ground, but if it is plausible, if it gives a pleasing visual effect, I say do it. Of course this principle can easily be abused and the line crossed very quickly.

I think the majority of folk, including those like you and I who may tend to be more critical, will first make their impression on the entirety of painting. I think a painting should first be evaluated in it's entirety. Based on that first analysis certain minor technical faults may be excused.

I believe that Ms. Beaux woud have possessed the technical ability to create a precise rendition of the facts. I further believe that if she chose to stray from them, as she may have done here, that she should be given the license to do that.

I'm not offended by the position of the cat.

I think that if I had been given the opportunity to critique the anatomy of Ingrid Bergman (back then not now) I would have soon become seduced by the enormity of her many intangible charms, and any minor physical defects would have soon been forgiven.

Kim,
this is fun, please don

Mike,
this g-man must have had a lot of cats on his lap then.

I would also have accepted all of IB

This is also one if my favorite paintings. The incredible luminosity, the exquisite brushwork and those luscious whites. The lighting and compositon are incredibly complex and intelligent.

I find that modern portrait painters are too used to the photographic image and cling much to tightly it. We are starting to read that any divergence from a photographic point of view is somehow incorrect. When you are painting from a live and non static model you can interpret more, elongate here, move a hand there; you are never faced with a finished statement as you are using a photograph as reference. There is always a surprise element and I think this very expressive portrait is a brilliant and perfect example of this.