The Sphinx

I've stumbled upon another painting.  Not something that is as striking to me as yesterday's Lady Violet but nevertheless interesting.

oh hai.

Sphinx in the Desert, Marcus Waterman 1872

Looks a little different from the ol cat that we know now.  This is a prime example of Artistic License.  About 21% of people, myself included up until recently are under the impression that Napoleon shot the nose off of the Sphinx.  Target practice if you will.  This is false.  The nose has apparently been missing since around 1378 where a person by the name of Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr broke it off because he found locals offering tributes to the Sphinx hoping for a better harvest.  He broke it off and was hung for his monumental rhinoplasty.

This means that when Marcus painted this picture it was more a flight of fancy than a representation of an actual observable figure.  However we have to take into account what we actually see in the painting.  There is nothing in there that says that it was supposed to be a current representation.  Yes, the Sphinx was covered in sand up to the neck in 1870, there are plenty of photos backing that up but presumably, since it has been around for thousands of years I imagine there are several periods of history where it has just been a head sticking out of the sand.

I doubt Marcus had heard of al-Dahr though when he painted this.

Lady Violet

Every once and a while I run across something that causes pause.  This portrait is one of them.

Goodness

This is Lady Violet, The Duchess of Rutland  painted by Sir James Jebusa Shannon in 1896.  This morning I had no idea this painting existed.  I can't say exactly what about it grabbed me but it did.  Apparently Shannon painted her three times but looking at the other portraits I would have to say I like this one the most.  His other works can be found here.

One day I think I'd like to paint something like that.

Those who can't, critique.

Art.  I think by now if you read this or if you know me in Meatspace know that I love it in just about every shape and form.  My most favorite art though has to be painting.  Any medium, most subjects and most movements are like catnip.  I love to see them and try to figure out how some people painted what they did and why.

That in mind I think I will take this time to critique a fairly well known artist, though he is not known primarily for his paintings.

George W. Bush.

43rd president of the USA, a first lieutenant in the national guard and staunch republican.  I didn't like him as a president as his policies seemed to favor rich friends over the rest of the country.  I didn't think we should have attacked Iraq and I find it offensive that Bin Laden wasn't caught during his run as president.  However I think it is good that he is pursuing art.  Undoubtedly he has a lot on his mind and painting is a grand way to relieve some stress.

Recently he reveled a portrait of himself and his father.

Not as bad as it might've been.

Art, at it's best should allow us for reflection in ourselves.  I look at this painting and I see mistakes that I have made in the past.  The blotch of white, probably completely unpainted canvas in Sr's coat.  Some sloppy color changes and thickness issues that take a lot of practice to really control.  I see my errors in this picture, a common struggle shared by novice artists. 

Some people may be turned off by the roughness of the painting.  Completely understandable. There are some bad colors in here that muddy the image.  But there are elements there that show he has improved since his Putin painting.  His forms are more defined and he is trying to push light and dark contrast.  Something that I have issues with.

It shows promise that with a lot of practice he, like anyone who practices, will get better, but I don't like the picture.  I'm certain there are people who do, I'm not one of them but I would not tell him to stop if I had the chance.