Galloglas
Guest
|
I'm no expert, but if the painting is correctly attributed - as we must suppose - then it is the work of an artist who made most progress as a 'society' portrait painter:
http://www.panterandhall.com/ArtistPage.aspx?I'd=af45d085-e010-421f-bcfe-a1cf77d1446c Strange, then, that he should compose a picture in a way so obviously in conflict with the historic accounts which by then would have been very well known and well documented. We can only assume that a private client wanted the commission drawn up exactly in a particular way and that the artist simply obliged. If it was not publicly exhibited then it would not have drawn any attention or criticism when it was painted; probably some time after 1900/1905 and perhaps when the artist was just making his way. Most of his surviving portraits are very flattering to the sitter if compared with other imagery in the NPG. G |
||||||||||||
|
Alan
Site Admin
|
Sorry, it was only my five years at art college coming out.
|
||||||||||||
|
Alan
Site Admin
|
I didn't mean that to sound like I spent five years 'coming out'.
You know what I mean. |
||||||||||||
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
I'm very inclined towards Alan's wise views.
Besides, artistic licence should not be limitless where a historic event and its known personalities and circumstances are being depicted. Except of course in the writing of British regimental histories - as appears to be the common code of practice. G |
||||||||||||
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
Fripp's dramatic picture is not necessarily as fanciful as might be thought.
In particular in showing a Colour held aloft, which remains a possibility if not factually demonstrable based upon surviving accounts. G |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
Too late Alan, you've said it now!
Your knowledge of the finer points of painting will obviously be superior to mine, but I tend to go along with Saw & Rusteze in some ways, in that the drawbacks in this work for most of us here - the anoraks, as Rusteze says - are the historical inaccuracies. But as we are used to all sorts of paintings of the period following that sort of formula - heroic last stands, colours flying, guns blazing, bloody bandages and all the rest - we're not that surprised to see the anomalies in this one, such as an artillery piece at Rorke's Drift or whatever. This chap obviously wasn't a de Neuville or a Butler, or even a Caton Woodville, but to the layman his actual shortcomings with the brush or his eye are much less noticeable than this fairly predictable (if historically flawed) effort of his in joining the ranks of artists who portrayed British military episodes. He was, indeed, "copying what works." And who, 20-odd years after 1879 (by which time all sorts of spectacular military escapades throughout the empire had flooded the public's mind) would remember whether there had actually been a cannon ar R/Drift or not? But yes, he probably should have stuck to portraits! Peter |
||||||||||||
|
Alan
Site Admin
|
This detail from one of our own Simon Smith painting is what I call accomplished.
|
||||||||||||
|
rich
|
You know I have to agree with Rusteze that yes the picture in question "is art dear boy" even with it's inaccuracies in historical presentation. But on another note, just because a picture is "inaccurate" does that make it "flawed"? Perhaps "technically" but not metaphorically. Take for instance Leutze's famous famous painting of "Washington Crossing the Delaware". That poor artist has been vilified for ignoring the facts of the river crossing as he made the painting, i.e. the crossing was made at night in a snowstorm. But if you look at the painting it does give a visual metaphor of Washington leading his men to victory, facts be damned to the artist who as we know only lives to make "art". And I wonder if anyone has eyed Alphonse de Neuville's painting of Rorke's Drift for "inaccuracies".
When doing it, I'd think they'd have to remember he's an "artiste" not a military man...... |
||||||||||||
_________________ Rich |
Rusteze
|
Alan
I agree that the Simon Smith painting is very accomplished and I envy his skills. However, If I was asked to criticise it, and I would do so only very mildly, I would sat that to my eyes it is perhaps a little too photographic. If pressed, I might also say that it is peopled with faces more from a Hollywood film set than those ordinary blokes that appear in the well known "Pinetown" photograph of B Company. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder! |
||||||||||||
_________________ Rusteze |
Galloglas
Guest
|
It went for �4,000 including buyer's premium.
A snip really, very awful though it really was. G |
||||||||||||
|
peterw
|
The key to collecting is to buy things you like, not because you think you might get a bargain.
I wouldn't hang this in the dog kennel. Peter |
||||||||||||
|
Alan
Site Admin
|
If I had a dog, I wouldn't either.
|
||||||||||||
|
Julian whybra
|
Neither would the dog.
|
||||||||||||
|
ONE FOR THE LOTTERY WINNERS - A "RORKE's DRIFT" PI |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.