I've spent hours and hours of my life in front of that painting.
Even better than his paintings, though, are his drawings. The most sublime sense of line you ever will see.
The criticism most heard about Ingres is that there's no bones under his skin. Of coarse he meant to stylize his figures, caring more about the graceful lines than the underlining structure. No arguing the guy could paint.
I'm no art afficonado but, this one has incredible definition on the way that dress falls - almost like a photograph. But, her left eye is out of proportion to her right and her arms look like they protrude from her 7th rib.
3) That's the crazy thing about drawing, about seeing. It looks off, the arm, but if you were to see a model in that pose, it WOULD probably look that distorted. It's amazing the tricks our eyes play on us, which is also what makes the spacial relationships that painters deal with so fascinating for me. Man, this guy could draw and paint. Very gorgeous, very detailed but also a fugging strong composition, solid, rooted. Ill.
[3] Those weird liberties he took with anatomy were his stylistic signature. He'd subordinate anatomical realism for the cohesion of the composition, or something like that, creating a great tension between photographic realism and stylization. His contemporaries thought it bizarre, as I recall from my reading lo these many years ago.
{3} "But, her left eye is out of proportion to her right and....this reminded me that John Singer Sargent said "A portrait is a painting where something is wrong with the mouth" Of coarse Sargent was a superb draftsman and master painter but was pointing out the frustrating dichotomy between the portrait painting and fine art.
My *favorite* artist!
Well, certainly one of them. In fact, I think the Princesse de Broglie is the finest painting in NY: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/10/euwf/ho_1975.1.186.htm
I've spent hours and hours of my life in front of that painting.
Even better than his paintings, though, are his drawings. The most sublime sense of line you ever will see.
The criticism most heard about Ingres is that there's no bones under his skin. Of coarse he meant to stylize his figures, caring more about the graceful lines than the underlining structure. No arguing the guy could paint.
I'm no art afficonado but, this one has incredible definition on the way that dress falls - almost like a photograph. But, her left eye is out of proportion to her right and her arms look like they protrude from her 7th rib.
3) That's the crazy thing about drawing, about seeing. It looks off, the arm, but if you were to see a model in that pose, it WOULD probably look that distorted. It's amazing the tricks our eyes play on us, which is also what makes the spacial relationships that painters deal with so fascinating for me. Man, this guy could draw and paint. Very gorgeous, very detailed but also a fugging strong composition, solid, rooted. Ill.
[3] Those weird liberties he took with anatomy were his stylistic signature. He'd subordinate anatomical realism for the cohesion of the composition, or something like that, creating a great tension between photographic realism and stylization. His contemporaries thought it bizarre, as I recall from my reading lo these many years ago.
But perhaps what I respond to most of all in his paintings is the uncanny serenity he captures.
Can you imagine what he'd do with Mo's delivery? Man, that'd be something to see!!!
{3} "But, her left eye is out of proportion to her right and....this reminded me that John Singer Sargent said "A portrait is a painting where something is wrong with the mouth" Of coarse Sargent was a superb draftsman and master painter but was pointing out the frustrating dichotomy between the portrait painting and fine art.
Suzyn Waldman strikes a similar pose, in a similar dress in the 2010 Yankees media guide.
Sterling is featured in a daring but tasteful nude portrait called "7th Inning Stretch."