Languor (full figure)

Linda Brandon · 02-15-2005, 01:32 PM

This is the full version of the painting discussed here.

I know this section says "no critiques" but go ahead and let me know what you think about this painting. I'm discovering that the "nude genre" has its own pitfalls, whether an artist is painting them with a view to selling them or simply as anatomy exercises to keep hanging around the studio.

"Languor"
oil on panel (ABS), 48" x 30"

Sharon Knettell · 02-15-2005, 02:46 PM

Hot diggety dog! Linda!

The first thing that I love about this is that it is a contemporary painting of a contemporary woman. No flower baskets and tripping through the heather.

The mood and the skin tones are beautiful and the content thoughtful.

Sharon Knettell · 02-15-2005, 03:09 PM

I also like the cool simplicity and elegance of it.

I went back to my latest nascent oeuvre and after seeing yours; mine looks like a Degas pastiche as envisioned by Mary Poppins of Shirley Temple.

Cynthia Daniel · 02-15-2005, 03:28 PM

At the moment, we do have a Nudes Critiques section Linda. As you choose.

Jimmie Arroyo · 02-15-2005, 03:32 PM

Everything works here. Beautifully done, composition, pose, model, colors etc.!

Allan Rahbek · 02-15-2005, 04:39 PM

Beautiful blond colors. Everything is fine.

Reminds me about Turners late pictures, that I

Janel Maples · 02-15-2005, 05:24 PM

I love this Linda. I went to your website to see the whole thing back when you posted the head in Unveilings. I've gone back to view it often. I really like how relaxed and comfortable the subject looks. I also really like the other seated nude you have on your site.

I am very interested in hearing about those "pitfalls" you mentioned above. Could you explain further what pits you fell into?

Thanks,

Chris Saper · 02-15-2005, 05:52 PM

Gorgeous!

I am lucky enough to have seen this original, and the color is both lush and subtle, not so easy to co-exist. Can youpost more detaiils?

Thanks for this great contribution to the new section.

Linda Brandon · 02-15-2005, 07:28 PM

Cynthia, I don't need as much help with this one - it's been done for a while and I can't stand the thought of going back to it - as I do with my next one.

Sharon, your current project sounds intriging but I'll bet you're wrong about the Shirley Temple allusion.

Janel, it seems to me that you have to have a certain amount of either passivity or detachment in the nude's manner in order for he/she to be "presentable". So it seems to me, on one hand, that you have to turn the gaze or the face, or both, away from the viewer. (Look how much trouble Manet got into with "Olympia".) Additionally you have to subdue the painterly line and emphasize the volume (Ingres) or emphasize the painterly line and subdue the volume (give me a minute to think about this one). If you have an energetic line and lush volume you get something that borders on vulgar, or at least something that makes people uncomfortable.

It's okay to make people uncomfortable, or at least it's okay with me for art to make people uncomfortable, but that's not within the scope of "classic nude", and anyway I'm not trying to make people uncomfortable.

That's my first problem. The second problem is that this painting is just too large and demands too much attention.

My third problem is that I started painting nudes to learn anatomy and the most interesting part for me so far has been painting skin, which is different from painting "anatomy".

Jimmie, Allan and Chris, thank you for your kind comments!

Terri Ficenec · 02-15-2005, 08:02 PM

Just beautiful Linda! The colors, the subtlety of the flesh tones, everything. I especially like how you captured the warm pink, almost translucentness of her fingers. . . and the natural relaxed-ness of her pose.

Was this painted from life?