Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post

Steven Sweeney · 10-24-2002, 04:47 AM

There would be no profit (for me or anyone else) in my wading too far into the whirlpool of the Eakins debate, but I can't help but note that this reproduction seems to be -- to say the least -- quite bad, strangely overbrightened and "yellowed", as if worked over in Photoshop. The posted version isn't true, even without having seen the original, because there are other publications with better production values. It's hard to know what could be forcefully argued on the basis of this "clip" from somewhere. I hope ARC's repro is better.

I have with me a copy of Robert Hughes' "American Visions", which happens to include quite a good (much sharper, at least) reproduction of "Swimming (The Swimming Hole)". Having spent more time than I really cared to, doing life drawings and paintings from nude models, I find very little "faked blurring and blending" in what I'm seeing here. Indeed, most of the anatomical forms are extremely well rendered, not surprising, given Eakins' three-year stint at Gerome's atelier. Sure, the diver's a bit dodgy -- probably an antsy model who couldn't hold that pose -- but five out of six (and a pond pooch to boot [hard to see in this approximation] isn't a bad score.

Hughes, noting the photographic basis for the figures, writes of the painting: "[I]t actually tries to outdo photography's grasp of the instant: the arms and head of the youth diving into the water have thrown up a spray no camera available in 1883 could record."

Hughes also quotes Walt Whitman, whose portrait Eakins had painted: "How few like it. It is likely to be only the unusual person who can enjoy such a picture -- one who can weigh and measure it according to his own philosophy. Eakins would not be appreciated by the artists, so-called . . ."

10-24-2002, 04:47 AM	#43
Steven Sweeney Juried Member PT 5+ years Joined: Nov 2001 Location: Stillwater, MN Posts: 1,801	the artists, so called . . . There would be no profit (for me or anyone else) in my wading too far into the whirlpool of the Eakins debate, but I can't help but note that this reproduction seems to be -- to say the least -- quite bad, strangely overbrightened and "yellowed", as if worked over in Photoshop. The posted version isn't true, even without having seen the original, because there are other publications with better production values. It's hard to know what could be forcefully argued on the basis of this "clip" from somewhere. I hope ARC's repro is better. I have with me a copy of Robert Hughes' "American Visions", which happens to include quite a good (much sharper, at least) reproduction of "Swimming (The Swimming Hole)". Having spent more time than I really cared to, doing life drawings and paintings from nude models, I find very little "faked blurring and blending" in what I'm seeing here. Indeed, most of the anatomical forms are extremely well rendered, not surprising, given Eakins' three-year stint at Gerome's atelier. Sure, the diver's a bit dodgy -- probably an antsy model who couldn't hold that pose -- but five out of six (and a pond pooch to boot [hard to see in this approximation] isn't a bad score. Hughes, noting the photographic basis for the figures, writes of the painting: "[I]t actually tries to outdo photography's grasp of the instant: the arms and head of the youth diving into the water have thrown up a spray no camera available in 1883 could record." Hughes also quotes Walt Whitman, whose portrait Eakins had painted: "How few like it. It is likely to be only the unusual person who can enjoy such a picture -- one who can weigh and measure it according to his own philosophy. Eakins would not be appreciated by the artists, so-called . . ." __________________ Steven Sweeney [email protected] "You must be present to win."