Administrator's Note: This thread was split off from the "It's Better Than You Think Thread"

Marvin, I can't believe I didn't write this down, but what was the first portrait you shared with us in the Met?

There was the first one, one you said you would carry out if given the choice of two, then what was your second. If I would have realized how important your lesson that evening was, I would have doubled my already doubled notes. Just my visit to this exhibit in Atlanta showed me this. Can you post them?

This might be getting away from the context of this thread (thankfully), and maybe should be the start of another.

But Marvin, no one can even pronounce Ingres' name over here!

Ange

ongre

Ingress


ungre


ong


in-grey

A rose by any other name.....
 

Tim,

Fortunately his work can be appreciated in any language.

Beth,

The hypothetical question posed by John Sanden at the ASOPA convention in NY a couple of years back was: What painting would you save if the Met was on fire and you could only carry out one?

My #1 choice is William McGregor Paxton's "Tea leaves," no close seconds.

Tied for a distant second place: "Princess Broglie" by Ingres and it's Lehman Collection neighbor, a portrait of a young man by Sir Henry Raeburn, "Herman Doomer" by Rembrandt and "James Stewart" by Van Dyke.

I'd save the Velazquez portrait of Juan de Pareja, followed closely by Lawrence's "Calmady Children".

And by the way, for anyone who's not sure, the correct pronunciation of the name Ingres (using the closest English spelling approximation) would be "ang", rhyming with "sang".

Michele,

Juan de Pareja was the overwhelming #1 choice of the attendees, so of course I wholeheartedly disagreed. It is a fabulous painting none the less.

Have you ever seen the Paxton in the flesh?

Didn't notice the Paxton on my most recent trip to the Met but I was looking for it online just now. I couldn't find it anywhere, not even in a Google image search. The Met doesn't seem to have it or the Van Dyke you mentioned in their online collection either.

Do you know the name of the Raeburn portrait you were referring to? I stood in awe for a long time in front of a lovely little Raeburn portrait here in Seattle a couple of months ago.

I do remember being stopped in my tracks in front of the Princess Broglie portrait at the Met, mostly lamenting the fact that women don't wear such fun-to-paint clothing any more. I find Ingres' work cold and unapproachable though, however technically excellent it may be.

Hard to beat, "Herman Doomer" by Rembrandt.

Here's Juan de Pareja. A remarkable painting of a remarkable man (born a slave, later became an accomplished artist).

Michele, no soft whispered "r"?

That Dutch guy was pretty good.

And the Calmady Sisters, by Lawrence. The epitome of sweetness and light.

Tim, yes there's kind of a soft whispered "r", in the pronunciation of "Ingres" but I don't know how to spell that in English.

Marvin, if you know off the top of your head where exactly the Paxton is located at the Met, and I'll bet you do, can you post it? Paintings aren't always where they're supposed to be, I've learned.

Michele, I am outraged to learn that I was in Seattle and missed seeing a Raeburn! Don't tell me it was at SAM, which was (depressingly) full of things like old clothes on the floor with buttons artfully scattered about.

Linda

A couple of observations (seriously), The Paxton is indeed very good. Now, those last two posted portraits rather look alike huh? This era produced paintings with great surfaces and depth and light and form, but sometimes the compositions were less than exciting or even new.

Lawrence was sweet, Renoir with more finish? I have problems with the area between the girls faces. The dark is a confusing shape at the profile where it slides into other girl's clothes. I sense he meant the near girl to be looking at her sister but the eyes don't focus. I mean no offense to any fans out there.

Linda,

Go to the Sargent area in the American wing. This is at one end of a long corridor like gallery. At the other end is the Eakins area. About halfway down on the left hand side is the opportunity to experience a level of perfection rarely if ever approached by mere mortals. The Paxton is quiet and small and surrounded by larger more boldly painted works. It is easy to just pass it buy. Be careful to call and make sure that gallery is open because it is closed one or two days during the week. They rotate the guards. It's always open on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.

Michele,

The lack of emotional attachment in Ingres paintings is a function of his disinterest not a lack of ability so I don

Linda, the Seattle Art Museum (SAM) often does have some good stuff hidden away in the last room, after you walk quickly past the atrocious stuff in the main galleries. They recently had a show with works by Sargent, Hals, Van Dyke and Raeburn. For anyone out in this area, THE museum to go to for realist painting in Seattle is really the Frye, though.

Marvin, I'm with you on Renoir. I never liked his stuff. Mush is the right word.

I will hold to my opinion on Ingres though. A lack of heart and soul in a painting is still a fault, in my view. I'm sure he could have created works with more emotion. Too bad he didn't feel like it.

Michele and Marvin,

If Renoir was a clumsy and muddy painter, I wish I was as clumsy as Renoir. this painting is so alive! To me, one of the great paintings of the world (I'm sorry to be a little off-topic here, this one is not in the Met)

Peter

P. S. If Bouguereau knocks on the door I will give him my brushes to wash ;) And he may clean my palette too!

Peter, your work (like your portrait of Rene, for example) is better than that Renoir, in my opinion!

The proletarians...unite, (and vote for)
 

Rembrandt:

Karl Marx or Engels said, (not exact words)
"If someone finally dipicted, in Rembrandt's strong light, the breathing images of revolutionary leaders, that would be wonderful!"

More than reality
 

Referring back to the statements that claim that great painting is the copying of what is in front of one (or in the photo one is copying) and do-able in paint - that is called "COPYING".

Now, painting, as in Art, is the enhancement of reality, creation of the illusion of reality, making it more than the real color, more than the real person, more than a photograph. It is enhancement of reality - like a Raeburn or a Carravagio, or a Dewing (albeit strange anatomy at times...) or an Ingres.

Sargent enhanced reality and succeeded greatly. So did Bouguereau. Enter creativity and thought and sheer energized concentration of learned technical ability of a true artist - then we use the words "GREAT and INCREDIBLE" to describe the work.

A little late - but I wanted to chime in.

Denise

Michele - Thanks!

Peter

Bouguereau... now there's an artist I would attempt to swim an ocean in a hurricane to study and work with on an ongoing basis. Me, I have trouble doing a spazoole doggy paddle too.

His Satyrs and Nymphs in the Clark Museum in Massachusetts is incredible to see. I've only just discovered it and will be back to see again. You been there, Marvin? The Met's Bouguereau does not compare.

There is a self portrait by Rembrandt (when he was older, poor, and doing not so well) that I go to see often. It emotionally speaks volumes. The attachment doesn't begin to do it justice.

I will look at your choices (think I'll make a list and check out everyone

Hi Carl,

Is that a digital photograph of the Rembrandt? I see colouring in the face that I don't see on most reproductions.

Peter

Carl, that's a good version and frame.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art
 

For those who have not yet had the privilege of going to the met, this is the front door. A fairly imposing structure located on the east side of Central Park in NYC.

Does anyone know of books or other publications showing Raeburn's paintings? I have not made an all out effort to find his work but even museum's like the Philadelphia Museum of art where his work is exhibited has virtually nothing.

I searched on Amazon and there wasn't really much there. I did find this link on a Scottish website that had two interesting books on Raeburn:

http://www.scotlandsource.com/www.sc...books/bl01.htm

Frans Hals: Yonker Ramp & His Sweetheart
 

Call me crazy but I would take this Hals piece. Not because it's his best work but because it's his. I have always been in awe of his brush work (second to none) and his ability to capture "the moment" (second to none). He had the ability to capture with a brush what many photographers today wish they could capture with a lens.

Peter & Tim,
The color may be pushed just a tad, but I don't think very much, if it is. It is a quick digital I took at the Met (you can tell by the crooked framing of the shot). I didn't really think it would come out, but it did quite well. I hit the auto levels in Photoshop, as the photo out of the camera was just a bit dark. Next time I'm there I'll double check and let you know how much extra intensity the camera may have added. If I remember correctly there is a reasonable amount of color in this particular portrait.

I forgot to mention that there is a little Vermeer with a mostly bluish cast there (forgot the title) of a woman in a window (go figure). The values have nice sensitive relationships, and even though it is tiny, it draws me back to it. I'm not a particular fan of the way Vermeer depicts female heads, but the value handling, edges, and color in this particular one is very special.

Of course if we are not talking painting with people... Fredrick Churches "Heart of the Andes" and the Gifford Catskill landscape hanging near it, are very special. There's a Church there that overall is not among the best, however the rainbow painted in it literally glows with it's own light. It

Carl, I saw that Vermeer in 1996 over here. Great painting! You have some great paintings over there imported from our little country. ;)

To get back to the original subject of this thread: I like the Aristotle by Rembrandt.

Peter

Here it is.

Thanks Michele for the Raeburn link.

I think art criticism is a fine and worthy pursuit and I'm glad we can have discussions of what we like and do not like here.

The essential nature of such discussions cannot be for us all to agree. That would be sweeter than Renoir. What we all may hopefully do is respectfully disagree and explain pointedly why.

Wow, you leave for a few days and everyone gets to go to the museum but you!

I remember the paintings that Marvin shared with us in his presentation where incredibly beautiful and you could see why they would have been under his arm.

I also must point out that the tour of the Met and visiting the Cincinnati Wing of the Cincinnati Art Museum with Tim was two of the most educational endeavors of my workshops. The statement of

...

...

I'm going to try that!

Timothy, for the sake of argument or opinion, I believe it is really important to keep the apples with the apples and the oranges with the oranges.

I was making a point about Renoir as an Impressionist. I don't think it is
right to compare him to a classic realist. He was't one. But I felt that he could draw better than the others I mentioned. As to him doing a portrait of one of my daughters, I think the examples below are nice. (Sorry, the garden image is fuzzy).

Hey Beth--

I don't know...think you're giving The Great Renoir way too much credit for draftsmanship. There are better Impressionists for drawing--Manet and Degas, to name two. Mr. R's people all look like generic dolls to me, inflated from the inside with a tire pump, I believe. So much for the realization of form.

But I love ya,
Tom