|
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!
|