天涯小站 2.0

查看: 8072|回复: 18


发表于 2020-8-23 19:23:47 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2021-4-1 01:00 PM 编辑

ZT:Critical Assessments: View of Delft


Vermeer, Martin Bailey

1995, pp. 60–62

Vermeer's magnificent townscape of Delft seen from the south has always been regarded as one of his masterpieces. In the 1696 auction of Dissius's 21 Vermeer's, it was the most expensive picture, fetching 200 guilders. In 1822 the picture was bought by the Mauritshuis for the high price of 2,900 guilders, a purchase said to have been instigated by the Dutch King, Willem I. In the mid-nineteenth century View of Delft was the painting which inspired the French critic Théophile Thoré to rediscover Vermeer.

The picture is divided into four horizontal bands: the quay, the water, the town and the sky. On the left side of the quay are a mother and baby, and two fashionably dressed men and a woman talking together, and further towards the centre are two more women. The water represents a section of the River Schie, which eventually flows into the Rhine at Schiedam, near Rotterdam. The area of river depicted by Vermeer had been widened in 1614 to form a triangular pool which served as the harbor for Delft. Looking towards the town, the view is dominated by the ramparts and the Schiedam and Rotterdam Gates. The distant tower of the Old Church (fig. 1) can only just be seen on the horizon on the left of the picture. Most of the town is in shadow, except for the sunlit New Church (fig. 2). The dramatic morning sky takes up over half of the picture; a tiny clock on the Schiedam Gate shows that it is just past 7 o'clock.

The view is from an elevated position, looking down onto the waterfront, and Vermeer may have painted the town from the upper floor of a house that is marked on contemporary maps just off the road named Hooikade. The pointillist technique that Vermeer used to suggest reflections flickering off the water, most easily visible on the two herring boats on the right, is evidence that he probably used a camera obscura to help compose the picture; diffused highlights such as these would appear when a partially focused image was obtained from this device.

The meticulous way that Vermeer worked on this masterpiece is shown by the fact that he mixed grains of sand (fig. 5) into some of his paint to achieve a certain texture. An examination of the picture has revealed that the sand was added to the ochre used on the window frames of the long building to the left, behind the ramparts, giving a greater reflective quality to the paint surface.

View of Delft shows the ramparts and the two fourteenth-century gates on either side of the stone bridge spanning the canal that passes through the town; on the far side of the bridge the water divides to become the Oude Delft and Nieuwe Delft canals. The Schiedam Gate with the clock-tower is on the left of the stone bridge and to the right is the Rotterdam Gate. Vermeer's home, Maria Thins's house in Oude Langendijk, would be just to the right of the tower of the New Church, although it is not visible in this picture.

Despite the impression of accuracy which the painting gives, Vermeer did not make a precise representation of the view. In a topographical drawing (fig. 3) by Abraham Rademeker (1675–1735), executed about half a century later from a similar vantage point (fig. 4), it is noticeable that the buildings appear taller and crammed closer together than in Vermeer's picture. Vermeer seems to have shifted the buildings slightly to produce a more harmonious composition and this is most noticeable in the way he depicted the long section of the Rotterdam Gate.

Today the view from Vermeer's vantage point looks quite different, although the shape of the old harbor remains. The town's ramparts have long gone and the two gates were demolished between 1834 and 1836. Most of the medieval buildings near this part of the river have also been lost. The spire of the New Church burned down in 1872 and was replaced by a taller neo-gothic one. The original tower of the Old Church survives, although it has now developed a pronounced tilt.
detail of Delftfig. 4 Vermeer most likely worked from the house that has been circled below.
Plan of Delft from Willem Blaeu's 1648 Atlas Plan of Delft from Willem Blaeu's 1648 atlas showing the area which Vermeer represented.

Vermeer's View Delft is probably the most memorable cityscape in western art. Though not an interior scene, as most works by Vermeer are, the painting draws us into his mental and social world: into his artistic vision and into his city. What we see seems almost too obvious, too plainly descriptive, too perfectly observed to require comment or analysis: the city of Delft appears before us under the partial clouds characteristic of the North Sea climate, a palpable grouping of brick, mortar, and clay structures seen across the broad Schie canal. It is all there, still nameable today: the Schiedam gate at left, the Rotterdam gate with its twinned turrets at right, the tower of the Nieuwe Kerk, or New Church, picked out in the brightest sunlight, the diminutive tower of the Oude Kerk, or Old Church, just breaking the long roofline at left. The scene's varied light effects look so natural—deep shadow and bright patches, pinpoint highlights and watery reflections—that the eye ignores what the mind knows: that this light is high artifice, that it is a work of painting.

Despite the unusualness of this exterior scene within Vermeer's production, it has, for many modern viewers, come to stand for Vermeer himself. When Marcel Proust needed an image for artistic perfection he chose the patch of yellow that, in Vermeer's curious vision, wedges a splendid sun-drenched roof between shaded walls (fig. 6). How could the View of Delft become an epitome of artistry in western culture? Some answers to this question tell us more about the novel and self-aware character of Vermeer's art, which is so central to the continuing appeal of his interior painting.

Art historians have traced various precedents for Vermeer's direct rendition of the city from the south side, and the painting unquestionably acknowledges this genealogy. Vermeer knew the descriptive profile views of cities that appeared in historical descriptions of cities. Such views were often printed alongside the edges of city maps, and Vermeer included a wall map of this kind in The Art of Painting. He also must have known paintings of cities seen in profile against a low horizon. Yet unlike the cityscapes Vermeer found before him, View of Delft does not amount to a somewhat clinical, dry inventory of the local architectural scene. There is an unprecedented immediacy and tangibility about Vermeer's Delft.

Much accounts for the difference the View of Delft makes. Crucial is the framing, which cuts off the view to left and right at seemingly arbitrary points. Eyes trained on photography accept such slicing, but it must have been startling to contemporaries. This move brings the city closer, makes it loom large. Another tactic that makes the city seem monumental yet near is the remarkably high key of the coloring of distant architectural features. While the colors are limited in range, their intense saturation is surprising given the presumed distance at which the city is seen. And then there is the strong composition of the painting into broad but loose horizontal bands of light and dark, unobtrusive at first. Insistent patterns also arise from Vermeer's judicious distribution of sunlight and shadow, and from his emphasis on dark foreground clouds and dark reflections in the water.

The result is an arresting monument to Delft and its historical place, signaled subtly by the sunlit aspect of the tower of the Nieuwe Kerk. This church had gained fame in the seventeenth century as the location of the tomb of William of Orange (fig.7), the sixteenth-century prince who had led the Northern Netherlands in their revolt against Spanish governance. The Father of the Fatherland, as he became known, had chosen Delft as his residence, and it was there, in 1584, that a political adversary assassinated him.

Most Delft contemporaries would have recognized Vermeer's emphasis on the tower, in marked contrast to the diminutive presence of the tower of the Oude Kerk (fig. 1). And yet View of Delft is no Orangist propaganda piece, for the image subsumes the venerable and complex history referenced by the tower into an image that looks contingent on an immediate atmospheric moment. Most of Vermeer's paintings derive their fascination from such a tension between acute momentary observation (registered in accidents of lighting or human actions) and a sense that the resulting image freezes a moment in a narrative history.

Vermeer included about 15 figures in his painting (fig. 8). The costumes of the six figures in
the foreground designate their social standing, from the fashionable attire of the three burgers standing by the boat, to the simpler regional or peasant garment of black skirts and jackets with white collars and shoulder clothes of the other women. A figure of a man just to the right of the two women was painted out by Vermeer.

The great View of Delft by Jan Vermeer, now in the Mauritshuis, The Hague, the first of his paintings to enter a public collection, is unique among his known works. The canvas known as The little street [Het Straatje], in the Rijksmuseum, and a lost piece recorded as "A view of some houses" are the only other exteriors. The Little street is a small work, little more than a fifth the size of the View of Delft, and the lost work is unlikely to have been larger. But the View of Delft (98.5 x 117.5 cm.) is almost the largest picture the mature Vermeer ever painted.
DelftA photograph taken from approximately the point
where Vermeer placed himself to paint his
View of Delft as the scene
appears today

Photograph courtesy of Adelheid Rech

It is not a landscape in the contemporary manner. That is, it is not a pictorial invention with a rural motif. It is a topographical view of the town, apparently giving an accurate record of its appearance from the south as it was in the early 1660s. Prominent, immediately across the river Schie, are two of the city's gates, the Schiedam gate on the left and the Rotterdam gate on the right. In the distance, above the roof-tops can be seen the towers of the Oude Kerk (Old Church) on the left and the Nieuwe Kerk (New Church) to the right. So vivid and distinctive is the impression of visual accuracy given by the painting, that it has been suggested that despite its considerable scale and the novelty and impracticability of the procedure at the time, it must have been painted on the spot, directly from observation, rather than in the studio after drawings. The discovery on a map of Delft published in 1649 that on the bank of the river Schie among gardens and open land is a solitary building at exactly the spot where the artist would have needed to work has given credibility to the hypothesis. It has even been proposed that the building could have, at least temporarily, housed a camera obscura. This optical device would have projected an image of the town on to a screen. By its aid, Vermeer could have achieved the precise perspective his painting exhibits and also certain curious optical effects that are unique to his work. For what strikes the viewer of the painting itself is its total difference from the topographical pieces of Gerrit Berckheyde or Jan van der Heyden or others. They show every brick and minute feature of the scene. Vermeer establishes the scene as viewed from a distance. And he achieves this by brilliant optical and painterly inventions that can only have been developed in front of the subject.

Topography is a branch of geography and by the second half of the seventeenth century topographical representations were of two principal types. There was the bird's-eye view, which provided a quasi-map and called for considerable inventive ingenuity from the artist, and there was the panoramic profile. Among the earliest of the latter is an anonymous woodcut View of Antwerp (fig. 9) of 1515. This already has the format adopted by later topographers. The town is presented as a frieze of architectural elevations with a narrow band of sky (cluttered with inscribed cartouches, escutcheons and allegorical figures) above and below the river busy with maritime traffic, and the near bank of the river appears as a narrow strip along the bottom edge. In paper prints the scroll format is attractive, in paintings it is less so. Yet in the flat Netherlands, it was hard to avoid. When the draughtsman was at the distance necessary to view the full extent of the town it became on his drawing paper a narrow ribbon spiked with towers. So the majority of painted topographical views of towns are cast in the narrow extended form of the topographical print. This is true of two views of Delft that Vermeer must have known. These were both by Hendrick Vroom and both are now in the Delft Stedelijk Museum "Het Prinsenhof." There is a View of Delft from the west of 1615 and a View of Delft from the north-west dated 1617. In area, these canvases are only slightly smaller than Vermeer's painting but their proportions are very different, both aver twice as wide as they are high, approximating 71 x 160 cm. Both show the full extent of Delft as seen from its chosen direction. In both cases the town is reduced to a narrow band above which are the towers of the two churches and the Prinsenhof project. In both, though, the town is shown in profile, and the view of the foreground is from an unexplained lofty vantage point.

View of Antwerp, 1515fig. 9 View of Antwerp
Woodcut in twelve blockswith: 2.2 meters
Museum Plantin-Moretus, Antwerp

* The View of Antwerp, by an anonymous mapmaker, is one of the oldest known panoramic cityscapes. The map represents a section of Antwerp: the mooring-places for the ships, the shipyard with its crane, the towers, the ramparts along the Scheldt, the main secular and religious buildings. Every building is realistically depicted, and locations are identified. Although it is dated 1515, the tower of the Church of Our Lady was not "volmaect" (completed) until 1521, but it is already there on the print, which is why some specialists have proposed the date of 1521, rahter than 1519. h The two Venetian galleys are also problematic, as shipping was suspended between Venice and Antwerp from 1508 to 1518.

The map bears a Latin inscritpion on the banderole near the Church of Our Lady, "Antwerp: the merchants' emporium." This suggests that the print was intended to highlight the citys economic importance.

*image and text from:
https://www.museumplantinmoretus ... w-antwerp-roadstead       

Against this tradition, Vermeer's invention is remarkable for its subtle ingenuity. He takes the traditional high viewpoint that divides the composition into four bands with the town spread across the picture between sky above, the river and near bank below. Indeed, he exaggerates the frieze-like aspect of the perspective. It is established and dominated by the parallel horizontals of the red roofs and wall on the left, confirmed by the four-square rectangularity of the Schiedam gate at the centre of the composition and continued to the Rotterdam gate by the bridge across the entrance to the Oude Delft canal. But it is not immediately striking that the buildings that make up the Rotterdam gate (the one with the high-pitched roof beside the bridge and the actual gate with its twin spires linked by a lower building with a long pitched roof) are at right angles to the bridge and the entire line of the waterfront on the left. Indeed, the bascule bridge that appears to the extreme right of the painting connects the gate with the near bank of the Schie. This is concealed by several devices. The horizon is level with the line of the roof linking the two main buildings of the gate, so bringing it into line with the horizontals of roof-tops and bridge. Then, again, the horizontal below the pitched roof of the rear building and the crenellated top of the gate, below its twin spires, are almost aligned with the sunlit roof visible between the two main buildings, so presenting a rectilinear unity. The impression created by these devices is furthered by a cunning use of light. Judging by the sunlit roofs and the tower in the distance, the sun appears to be behind and over the right shoulder of the viewer. This might be expected to have created a striking contrast, in the foreground, between the facades of the Schiedam gate and the main buildings of the Rotterdam gate in strong sunlight and the flank of the Rotterdam gate that should have been in deep shadow. But it appears from the clouds overhead that the foreground is overcast, and so those contrasts are reduced. A recent study of the painting by X-ray has revealed a number of small alterations, notably in the extension of the reflections, that further contribute to the impression of the town spread across the horizon apposite the viewer.

The most appropriate position from which to represent Delft would have been, without question, that chosen by Vroom far his painting of 1615 (fig. 10). The town had grown about two long canals, the Oude Delft and its parallel Nieuwe Delft, with the Oude Kerk built between them. Despite an expansion to the east in the mid-fourteenth century, the older part of the town and the more important buildings remained extended along the lines of the original canals. From Vroom's perspective from the west, the line of the canals and, thus, of the entire town lay spread across his canvas, secure behind its defensive wall. To the extreme right can be seen the small bascule bridge that reappears to the right of Vermeer's view. In his second view, from the north-west, Vroom again embraced the entire visible expanse of the town but from a viewpoint that reversed the orientation of old and new churches.

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2020-9-13 00:42:07 | 显示全部楼层

The Umbrellas by Pierre-Auguste Renoir
回复 支持 1 反对 0

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2020-8-27 14:51:01 | 显示全部楼层

Scenes from the Life of Moses by Botticelli
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2020-8-27 14:53:06 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2020-8-27 02:57 PM 编辑

Bathsheba (the wife of Uriah the Hittite) Observed by King David

Painted by Jean-Léon Gérôme

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2020-9-13 00:43:02 | 显示全部楼层
印象派就是光的运作。Renoir 忽然画了下雨,没有光,估计是had enough of impressionism.


回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2020-10-4 12:02:04 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2020-10-4 12:08 PM 编辑

The Secret Message by François Boucher

François Boucher (UK: /ˈbuːʃeɪ/ BOO-shay, US: /buːˈʃeɪ/ boo-SHAY; French: [fʁɑ̃swa buʃe]; 29 September 1703 – 30 May 1770) was a French painter, draughtsman and etcher, who worked in the Rococo style. Boucher is known for his idyllic and voluptuous paintings on classical themes, decorative allegories, and pastoral scenes. He was perhaps the most celebrated painter and decorative artist of the 18th century.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2020-10-4 12:09:18 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2020-10-4 10:18 PM 编辑

Click,enlarge it!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2021-1-14 15:52:05 | 显示全部楼层

All is Vanity - Charles Allan Gilbert

optical illusion.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2021-3-8 15:59:19 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2021-3-8 04:03 PM 编辑

General Bonaparte giving orders at the Battle of Lodi,

the Battle of Lodi, 10th May 1796, detail of Napoleon (1769-1821) and his staff, by Louis Lejeune

洛迪(意大利语:Lodi,意大利语:[ˈlɔːdi] 是意大利伦巴迪的一个城市,位于意大利北部,在阿达河的右岸上,是洛迪省的首府。





回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2021-4-1 12:56:27 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2021-4-1 01:04 PM 编辑

Cézanne: ‘The Father of Modern Art'


Apr 24, 2018


过去60年代很红的法国有个哲学家, 语言学家,文学评论家,叫Jacques Derrida,文章写得非常难懂,比普鲁斯特还要难懂。10多年前我看过,脑袋疼。诠释的文章都不着调。这个家伙的理论就是去中心,解构之类的。他的去中心理论实际上后来被演化为”政治正确”!现在诠释他的著作的文章读起来非常达意。看来,一个理论,一种画派,需要时间沉淀。离远一些,看得更清楚。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2021-4-2 23:06:49 | 显示全部楼层
https://hyperallergic.com/462359 ... of-the-world-model/

Experts are now "99 percent" certain that the genitalia featured in Courbet's painting belongs to the ballet dancer Constance Quéniaux.
Zachary Small
by Zachary Small September 25, 2018

The identity of Gustave Courbet’s model for “L’Origine du Monde (The Origin of the World)” (1866) has proved elusive for many decades. It’s an especially difficult — and strange — task for art historians considering that the artist’s painting only depicts a cropped closeup of the woman’s genitals.

Soon, though, French literary scholar Claude Schopp will detail new research pointing toward Opéra ballet dancer Constance Quéniaux as the muse of Courbet’s infamous crotch-shot in a book released by the Paris-based publisher Phébus on October 4.

Previously, researchers were convinced that the naked torso belonged to Courbet’s lover, the Irish model Joanna Hiffernan, who was also romantically involved with the artist’s friend, American painter James Whistler. The attribution never really made sense, though, seeing as Hiffernan was a redhead while the pubic hair of “Origin” is a considerably darker shade of brown. (On the other hand, contemporary texts regard Quéniaux as having “beautiful black eyebrows.”)

According to The Art Newspaper, Schopp was going through a letter from Alexandre Dumas fils — the son of The Three Musketeers author — to George Sand, dated June 1871 at the the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF, National Library of France) which had erroneously been transcribed into English as, “One does not paint the most delicate and the most sonorous interview of Miss Queniault [sic] of the Opera.” Upon closer inspection, Schopp realized that the word “interview” was actually “interior.”

“Usually I make discoveries after working away for ages,” Schopp told the Agence France-Presse. “Here I made it straight away. It almost feels unjust,” he joked.

The literary scholar shared his discovery with the head of the BNF’s prints department, Sylvie Aubenas, who is also now convinced that Quéniaux was the painter’s model.

“This testimony from the time leads me to believe with 99% certainty that Courbet’s model was Constance Quéniaux,” she told AFP.

At the time of the painting’s creation, Quéniaux would have been 34-years-old. The ballet dancer was then a mistress of the Ottoman diplomat Halil Şerif Pasha (also known as Khalil Bey) when Courbet painted “Origin” in summer of 1866. Pasha had commissioned the French realist for his personal collection of erotica, which included a series of major works by other artists like Eugène Delacroix and Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres.

When she died in 1908, Quéniaux left a Courbet painting of camellias in her will. The central flower of the painting is open in a full, red bloom. Aubenas pointed out to AFP that camellias were strongly associated with courtesans at the time thanks to Dumas’ novel The Lady of the Camellias, which was adapted into Verdi’s opera, “La Traviata.”

“What better tribute from the artist and his patron to Constance?” Aubenas asked.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2021-7-21 12:24:00 | 显示全部楼层
Loneliness: coping with the gap where friends used to be

Friendships can be difficult, and lockdowns have made them even harder to maintain. But we should cherish them

Almost every day for the past few months, I’ve told my husband I am lonely. Obviously I’m glad that he’s around. What I miss are my friends. In the first lockdown, we stayed in touch with Zoom dates, which were awkward, often drunk and occasionally very joyful. Those days are long gone. I’ve returned to texting, and though I’m often deep in four or five conversations at once, it isn’t the same as being together.

In the past year, there was a difficult bereavement in my family, and work has been harder than normal. None of these things are unique or insurmountable but the isolation has left me feeling almost capsized by anxiety and paranoia.

I’m definitely not alone in this. The other night, my stoical husband stunned me by crying out in what sounded like real devastation: “No one texts me! No one WhatsApps me!” He’s a generation older than me, and rarely discusses his feelings or expresses emotional needs. But the lack of ordinary time with friends has worn away at his defences too.

We’re lucky. There are people we can and will see. But a lack of friends is a growing problem, in Britain and America alike. A recent study, conducted by the American Enterprise Institute, suggests that the proportion of people who can name six close friends has dropped from 55% to 27% since the 1990s, while people who have no close friends at all had risen from 3% to 12%. One in five single men say they do not have any close friends, while only 59% of Americans have what they would describe as a best friend.

Some of this is undoubtedly the effects of the pandemic, which caused a global increase in loneliness because people were confined to their homes, no longer able to gather in offices, pubs, sportsgrounds or nightclubs. But long before lockdown, it seems that people were struggling with friendship, especially the young. A YouGov study carried out in 2019 suggested that 9 in 10 people between the age of 18-24 suffered from loneliness to some degree, and nearly half had difficulty making friends.

The old solutions – join a group, volunteer – have not been viable in the past year, which makes it unsurprising that so many people have turned to dating apps to track down new pals. That’s all very well, but simply meeting new people doesn’t quite solve the problem of loneliness.

Loneliness is not the same as being alone. It can be defined as a feeling of lack in response to an insufficiency of emotional closeness and connection. Everyone has different levels of contact they feel comfortable with, which is why some are truly content in solitude, while others feel deep loneliness despite being in a relationship or having a seemingly vast circle of friends. Loneliness is not about numbers. It’s about the depth of the connection, the feeling that you are being seen and loved.

The cure for loneliness, in short, is intimacy, and the problem with intimacy is that it’s frightening. There’s a risk of being rejected or having to deal with conflict, and both these things can feel insurmountable, especially when a person has been lonely for a long time.

One of the most useful things I found out while I was researching The Lonely City is that loneliness alters your perception, magnifying any sense of social threat. What this means is that you tend to notice and remember difficult or awkward social encounters far more than those that run smoothly. Instances of perceived rudeness or rejection loom large, making the lonely person more withdrawn and less willing to reach out.

What’s important to understand is that this is a warping of perception, which does not accurately represent reality. It’s the equivalent of the anorexic’s damaged sense of their own body: a dangerous illusion that needs to be challenged on a daily basis. It was the single most helpful thing I learned during my own lonely years, though I know that during the pandemic I let myself forget it, tumbling back into the paranoid self-doubt that is the hallmark of loneliness.

    It’s crucial we understand that friendship can involve disappointment on both sides

The other difficulty is that we have unrealistic expectations of friendship, just as we have unrealistic expectations of romantic love, including fantasies around its permanence and stability. In fact, friendship can involve conflict, it can end brutally and it can be as deeply, intensely heartbreaking as any sexual relationship.

The work of friendship is not discussed nearly enough, which means people assume they are failing, and failing alone – once again driving a retreat into self-protective isolation. It’s crucial we understand that friendship can involve disappointment on both sides, and to build a container that means it’s safe to discuss these things, to weather strife together.

Last night, I ate dinner with my friend Jenny. In real life, on a warm London evening, forking up aubergine from the same plate. We laughed, shared family news, told each other the things we’d been worrying over. At home, alone in my study, they’d felt insurmountable, a sign that something was irredeemably wrong with me. Under the gentle scrutiny of my friend, they diminished to a normal size: just the grit of everyday traffic with other humans. I walked home feeling buoyant, nearly invincible. I need my friends. I bet you need yours.

Olivia Laing’s latest book is Everybody: A Book About Freedom

https://www.theguardian.com/soci ... ource=pocket-newtab

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-2-6 22:31:04 | 显示全部楼层
https://ia800303.us.archive.org/ ... ofpasttim00from.pdf

The masters of the past time by Fromentin Eugene
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-5-27 17:02:39 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2022-5-27 05:06 PM 编辑

Wanderer above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich (1818)

1 of the Paintings That Show How Solitude Can Be Your Best Companion

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-6-22 18:19:41 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2022-6-22 08:14 PM 编辑

弗朗兹·克萨韦尔·温德尔哈尔特(Franz Xaver Winterhalter,1805 -1873),德国画家的两幅著名的画。

1855年的被侍女围绕的欧仁妮皇后(Empress Eugénie Surrounded by her Ladies in Waiting)

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-6-22 20:17:44 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2022-6-22 08:21 PM 编辑

1865年的奥地利皇后伊丽莎白像。Empress Elisabeth of Austria in dancing-dress,
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-8-20 20:20:13 | 显示全部楼层

The Wallace Collection
19.4K subscribers
The Princes in the Tower isn't just an infamous moment in the history of England, it's also the subject of one of French painter Paul Delaroche's most important works. The painting reveals Edward V and his brother trapped in the Tower of London in 1483 as their uncle the Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, wanted the throne for himself.
Watch Penina and Safirah explore the rumours of their deaths and the secrets about the painting with Stephen Duffy, the Senior Curator at the Wallace Collection.

Hello, my name is Safirah. Penina and I have been researching the murder mystery of
The Princes in the Tower. The painting was by Hippolyte (Paul) Delaroche in 1830. Penina will be talking to Senior Curator, Stephen Duffy, who will be revealing the dark secrets of the story.

What is the story behind this painting?

Well it's 1483, we're in the Tower of London. Here you see two boys, on the left the Duke of York, who is 11 years old. On the right is his elder brother, who is only 13, Edward V. Their father Edward IV has just died and they've been placed in the Tower of London by their uncle, who will soon be crowned Richard III. Of course they will soon disappear, some people believe they were murdered on the orders of Richard III, while some people question this. It is a great historical uncertainty. What is clear is that the painter of this picture, Paul Delaroche in 1831, believed that they were murdered by Richard III. So too did Shakespeare and this is a painting derived from Shakespeare's play Richard III.

Why do you think there is a glowing shadow of footsteps coming from beneath the door?

Shakespeare believed, and this is the story, that they will be suffocated by two men called Dighton and Forrest, who are acting for their uncle, Richard III. Clearly Delaroche is indicating here the approach of those assassins

Does it look like the two boys are crying?

I don't know if they are crying but they certainly seem watery-eyed and they are no doubt aware of their fate or at least they are aware that they are in great danger.

What do you think happened to the Princes?

I don't know and I wouldn't like to get too involved, it is a very contentious issue as to whether they were murdered by Richard III or not. The point for this painting is that Delaroche accepts Shakespeare's story

Why do you think this painter from the nineteenth-century chose to paint this?

In 1830 when Delaroche painted it, no French person when thinking about the death of these English princes in the 15th century in the Tower of London in mysterious circumstances, could fail to think of the young, uncrowned Louis XVII who also died in mysterious circumstances. He was the son of the executed Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette. He died in unknown circumstances in La Conciergerie in Paris, during the French Revolution. Delaroche refers to that in this picture. It is not just a scene from English history that he has taken by chance. He is thinking of Louis and expects his audience to have a French take on the subject here.

Thank you

So the mystery continues, if you would like to see this painting and many others then please come down to the Wallace Collection. Keep watching for the next podcast.

This podcast is part of the 'Secrets of the Wallace' podcast series and is available on iTunes.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-8-20 20:44:56 | 显示全部楼层

The princes in the Tower by Paul Delaroche
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2022-8-20 20:46:28 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2022-8-20 08:48 PM 编辑

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报


GMT-4, 2022-9-25 05:01 AM

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表