Yesterday was Mothers Day. We planned a lovely day with the kids that began with a visit to the Met and the excellent John Singer Sargent exhibit.
A truly great exhibit helps the viewer to understand
an artist a bit differently.
I am not going to put my art historian hat here and write an essay about my new insights into John Singer Sargent because that isn't the point of this post, (although if you ask me I will be happy to share my insights).
As we left the exhibit we passed by this Degas.
I remember visiting the Met soon after my mother in law had died or perhaps she was at the very end of her life. I was struck at just how much the woman in this painting resembled my mother in law.
Here she is in 1964,
It isn't just that my mother in law resembled Degas' model but also the way the model holds her hand to her face. The resemblance is so strong that I added this painting to our digital photo frame and every time the photo of the painting goes by we say hello to my mother in law.
So in honor of Mother's Day we took photos with the woman who so resembles Ida.
 |
| Mother and son |
 |
| and with her descendants |
Yesterday, our daughter mentioned that as a child, she assumed that this portrait had been painted not by Degas, but by her grandfather, an artist. Who else could the woman in the painting be, but my daughter's grandmother?
I hope that all of you who are mothers had a lovely day.
I'd like to hear your insights about the exhibition! I'll be seeing it soon and wonder if there is any painting in particular or information that surprised you. For years I had a postcard of Smoke of Ambergris and didn't even realize it was by Sargent. Thanks for your great, thoughtful blog. Mimi
ReplyDeleteOK a few things that I realized during the exhibit.
ReplyDeleteWe tend to think of Sargent as the anti-Impressionist and kind of old fashioned and classisist in his painting style. While his training was influenced by Velasquez and the Dutch painters there is a whole lot of Impressionist type brush strokes going on throughout his paintings. i was struck by how even the very loose brush work on garments stil lets you as the viewer know exactly which textiles were being portrayed. You could tell which bits were lace or tulle or velvet or satin---and all with loose brush strokes.https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/896440/2278171/restricted He is paying attention to the work of Degas and Renoir. He isn't rejecting that approach at all but is adding it to his bag of painting tricks. So often he will add a shot of light on a surface with just a raw smear of paint.
There was one men's suit jacket in a portrait where the paint was so thin that the weave of the canvas became incorportated into of the jacket. The paint was thicker elsewhere-- this was a choice.--a clever and subtle one.https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/895147/2259236/restricted
I also hadn't realized how deeply influenced he was by cameras and how photography changes how reflections and shadows and light are viewed as opposed to how they are seen by the eye alone. https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/895165/2250730/restricted
https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/895179/2260480/restricted
Here he paint Monet painting outdoors---in the style of Monet
Anyway, a terrific exhibit that i am still thinking about
I really appreciate your perspective as a textile artist. It's fascinating to thing about how his brush strokes show the fabric itself and not just as different textures on the painting. I'll see the exhibit this weekend and will keep an eye on those kinds of details.Thank you for explaining and teaching! Mimi
ReplyDelete