telophase | (no subject)

So, as I said this weekend in comments over on DW, I mmmmight just now own greatmastersdisasters.com. And I'm open for submissions while I'm working out how the site should look -- I won't be able to really see how it should look until I get 10 or so works posted.

My basic idea is a picture of a painting/sculpture/etc. with the basic info on it (title, artist, dimensions, location) and, after the jump (cut for you LJ/DW users), a closeup of the bit that the artist screwed up or dropped the ball on, with some text explaining why (and maybe even why it probably wasn't a priority for the artist - in some cases, if you spend too much time on an unimportant aspect, it takes away from the focus of the painting, in other cases the painting was meant to be viewed from way down below on the ground, so some liberties with perspective were taken).

And maybe even some things where artists break the rules to great effect - there were a couple of paintings by Caravaggio followers in the exhibit (one was a copy of the other, actually) where the rule that you never have a strong diagonal leading directly off the corner of a picture was broken. Normally you don't do this because it takes the eye of the viewer out of the picture. In these cases, the strong diagonal leading off the page was an angel pointing out heaven to a saint about to be martyred. In this case you want the viewer heading off the canvas and up towards God. Although preferably after spending some time circling the action in the painting first.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

OH OH I HAVE ONE.

The Lansdowne portrait of George Washington, by Gilbert Stuart. It is a masterpiece of Washingtonian icnonography/hagiography. It's a magnificent painting and one of the centerpieces of the National Portrait Gallery's collection. http://www.georgewashington.si.edu/portrait/non-flash.html

And it is COMPLETELY RUINED by the worst-looking rainbow in artistic history http://www.georgewashington.si.edu/portrait/rainbow.html

Hahahahhahaha! Fantastic! Thank you!

Wow, that IS a lame rainbow! But looking at it, I wonder if it's mostly the fault of the old pigments. Looks like the artist used thin glazes to paint the bands, and where the pigment concentration is thinnest in between the pure colors, the more fugitive pigments (probably madder for the violet) have just faded away to nothing. The yellow is possibly chrome yellow, which often gets dark and muddy with time, especially in mixtures. That might account for the yucky olive green!

Not that pentimentos and so forth aren't hilarious anyway. :D There's a Cimabue fresco in Italy where the lead white has turned into black lead sulfide. It looks like a photographic negative!

http://italianhours.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/cimabueassisicrucifixion1.jpg

*swiping your explanation for the site*

Although you can't blame fugitive pigments for the Valentin de Boulogne I just posted! XD

And it's up as the (for now) first post - my plan is to get several more and pre-date some of them the site fills up a bit, and set several more for posting at hopefully a rate of one a day.

http://uploads2.wikipaintings.org/images/jacopo-pontormo/deposition-from-the-cross.jpg

Here's a good one! Check out the floating head directly above that of Christ -- IT HAS NO BODY. There's no available space where that person could be standing -- the artist just wanted a head there, so he darn well put it there. :) And the crouching man holding Christ's legs has apparently broken his own spine forcing his torso into that bizarre position. The Mannerists in general are a gold mine of 'WTF'? human anatomy. :D

Then this lady by Ingres is of course famous for apparently having several extra vertebrae.

http://www.paintinghere.com/uploadpic/Jean_Auguste_Dominique_Ingres/big/Ingres_The_Grande_Odalisque.jpg

After having spent some minutes this morning exploring this Tumblr (http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/) about weird poses and anatomy in women's portrayals in comics, it strikes me that this problem has a long history...

(Thanks! :D)