Composition - examples of note - Page 18

Allan Rahbek · 12-02-2006, 06:11 PM

"And just phor the phun of it"

I would like to comment on a phew of themm.

Alexandre Charles Emmanuel de Crussol-Florensac 1787: He has got a sophisticated, arrogant look that could be taken for intelligence or even good manners, at least nobility.

The light on the head is more convincing than the modeling of the body. The color scheme is cool and quite pleasing.

Hubert Robert 1788: A rural type painter though a bit unfocused. I think that his bandanna is in the center of the golden means. It might justify the sumptuousness of the garment, that is, otherwise, uninteresting. Good volume in the body.

The bather (daughter Julie) 1792: This is obviously a detail of a larger canvas so it is difficult to talk about anything golden.

About the shape of the body, I find it hard to acknowledge the structure of it, it feels like the shoulder is further away than the legs, just like she don't have hips, and what about the fold of the fabric by the elbow?

Self 1790: Now that this is a topic about composition I would like to emphasize the merging of lines that happens with the collar and the hand pointing. I also have problems with the hair that tangents the upper edge of the painting.

Otherwice I am positive.

Mike McCarty · 12-02-2006, 09:53 PM

Enzie,

I haven't heard of that movie, I'll have to check it out. It sure seems that Ms. Vigee Lebrun led an interesting life. Although, I guess anyone living in Paris (Europe) at this time in history would have stories to tell. Where ever she traveled her reputation as an artist preceded her and she was taken in by all the heads of state.

Quote:

Self 1790: Now that this is a topic about composition I would like to emphasize the merging of lines that happens with the collar and the hand pointing. I also have problems with the hair that tangents the upper edge of the painting.

Allan,

I'm sitting here eating popcorn and trying to phigure this out. Do you think you could elaborate on your comments above? Maybe having the image here will help me.

Also, another self portrait from 1800, 8.5x7".

Allan Rahbek · 12-03-2006, 05:07 PM

Mike,

I know that I am not always consistent in my critique. But I feel that it is OK to go to the limit and sometimes over when it comes to debating old masters, since they will no longer be personally offended. We must try our minds on their works and discuss it freely and we might learn something.

My opinion of the little bather is that it is charming but a bit too sweet. The body looks as if it was drawn from a very bad memory. I can't believe that the shoulder / neck would show no signs of bone structure. The features in the head are painted from the front but the head is seen slightly from our right. All the edges are weak and endlessly repeating them self, the fabric hangs like a curtain, the leaves in the back is all bend the same way and even the hair shape repeats itself three times, at the head, hand and lap.

Now look at a real master, Sargent would not waste his time painting the same thing twice.

Mike McCarty · 12-03-2006, 08:19 PM

Allan,

I agree that it's OK to be hard on the dead painters, as long as it's not in their obituary.

I was confused, I thought your comments were about the "Self 1790" painting.

As to "The Bather," I will admit that I will always be a sucker for a sweet face, and if they make it sweet enough I will give them the rest. I'm much too sentimental, I think. I also have no particular strength as a critiquer. I tend to look for something good and dwell on it.

Mike McCarty · 12-14-2006, 07:38 PM

Jihan Georges Vibert 1840 - 1902.

I pulled the following from the ARC biography of Mr. Vilbert:

He entered the Salon in 1863; found his first success with a medal at the 1864 salon, and won a financial prize at the universal exposition of 1867.

During the later part of his life, his interest turned to the clergy. Paintings such as The Fortune Teller satirized the clergy's irreligious indulgences or depicted them in homey situations to an audience used to seeing the church ennobled in traditional religious and historic works. These would be the paintings that would make his reputation.

In 1882, he was promoted to Officer of the Legion of Honor, for his painting this time. This growing reputation would make him one the the most sought after atelier masters at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. This would lead him to being one of the seven most influential artists of his time, along with Bouguereau, Cabanel, Meissonnier, G

Enzie Shahmiri · 12-15-2006, 05:55 PM

Dear Mike,

I had come across his work before and just love the vibrancy of the colors. His work also reminds me of that of illustrators, there is a narrative in each and every one of them.

Thanks for digging these delightful images up!

Mike McCarty · 12-15-2006, 07:52 PM

When I first came upon these images I was struck by how small they were. The Preening Peacock is only 18x15. But it was the mocking nature of the subjects that really got me wondering. As is said above - during most of history (even now in some parts of the world - I recall some recent cartoon figures) you could easily loose your head having authored these images.

Could these be the precursors to the painting of the virgin Mary that caused such a commotion a few years back. It's hard to imagine a further decline from there.

It's easy to get involved in the narrative, but putting the politics aside they are some stunning images.

Here are a couple more from Jihan Georges Vibert. Notice how much volume is given above the subjects in each of these paintings:

1- Tea for the Bishop 24x18
2- The Sick Doctor 1892

There are some nice large images of his work on the ARC web site here:

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=134

The Fortune Teller, which doesn't come across very well here, is particularly worth the visit.

Mike McCarty · 12-15-2006, 08:13 PM

A passage from the book - Little Lord Fauntleroy,
by Frances Hodgson Burnett:

"And; indade," said Mary to the groceryman, "nobody cud help laughin' at the quare little ways of him--and his ould-fashioned sayin's! Didn't he come into my kitchen the noight the new Prisident was nominated and shtand afore the fire, lookin' loike a pictur', wid his hands in his shmall pockets, an' his innocent bit of a face as sayrious as a jedge? An' sez he to me: `Mary,' sez he, `I'm very much int'rusted in the 'lection,' sez he. `I'm a 'publican, an' so is Dearest. Are you a 'publican, Mary?' `Sorra a bit,' sez I; `I'm the bist o' dimmycrats!' An' he looks up at me wid a look that ud go to yer heart, an' sez he: `Mary,' sez he, `the country will go to ruin.' An' nivver a day since thin has he let go by widout argyin' wid me to change me polytics."

Pierre-Auguste Cot, 1837 - 1883

Little Lord Fountleroy - oil on canvas

Enzie Shahmiri · 12-16-2006, 12:12 PM

Why do you think there is so much space above the figures in "Tea for the Bishop"and "The Sick Doctor"?

I can see how the extra space helps to employ the darkness (almost like fog entering the room in Sick Doctor) as a tool to make the other colors pop, without loosing the details of the room interior. The extra height over the figures also adds a sense of atmosphere to the room .

Of course, the boring explanation would be, back then rooms had very high ceilings....

I am curious to know what others think about all that space above the figures.

Mike McCarty · 12-16-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

I am curious to know what others think about all that space above the figures.

I would say that first of all these are not portraits per se, but narratives, story telling. Also, it may be in keeping with his want to portray these people in a negative way, to illustrate more fully the grandeur and pomposity of their surroundings.