sandr037

I ran across this article in the Wall Street Journal a couple weeks ago, but didn’t have the time to post and comment. It essentially notes that Van Gogh (as well as Degas) used “perspective frames” more than was previously suspected.   “There are references to the frames in van Gogh’s letters, says Ms. Vellekoop, but until now researchers thought he ‘only had one.’ Now, she says, we know he had several in different sizes. New infrared examinations revealed that he actually traced the outlines of the threaded frame right onto the canvas, fixing a sense of order early on, and giving a hidden rigor to paintings that are admired for their wild expressiveness.” It all makes one wonder if other artists took advantage of “perspective frames”, or similar tools. It also makes me wonder why such technical information is missing from all the art history books I had available to me most of my life (1960 to 2000)? There are a couple websites that cover van Gogh’s techniques. First there is Va...

Glancing at my desk I saw this image.   Weird, I thought.  Walking around the desk, the image rotated, but I still did not recognize anything. Finally, with the newspaper oriented correctly I saw the familiar painting by Winslow Homer.   The Life Line is not a favorite of mine, but I have seen the painting dozens of times over the years.   Why couldn’t I recognize it?   Part of the problem was the rotation, but more important is the fact that Homer is working hard to disorient the viewer.   There is no horizon, no vanishing point, and the figures have been crumpled into a dark mass with only one face visible.    Here, however, is a painting that I would easily recognize upside down, but on the other hand, it creates a strange abstract in black and white. The Ecstasy of St. Paul by Nicholas Poussin does not camouflage the figures as Homer does, but the horizon and architectural elements are severely downplayed, while the heavenly “explosion” of ...