Portraits of dead guys
This (to the left) is my favorite portrait of the greatest of men; Spinoza. The artist does a good job capturing Spinoza's famous tranquility without making him look like a pansy. He appears confident, and relaxed, like a european aristocrat with a jewish face.
I always wonder what these famous people actually looked like. I saw a show on the discovery channel where some scientist was trying to recreate George Washington's face as a young man. All of our drawings of him are after he lost his teeth and his hair and so our image of him is kind of like our image of our grandparents--we have no idea the type of presence he had when he was in his prime. When the guy showed a computer image of him with a strong jaw line, red hair, and straight back, he looked like a total bad ass, not like some gummy coot looking for dentures. Seriously, the picture of him as a strong young man sort explained why he was always called a natural leader, and why everyone assumed he would lead the revolutionary army. He looked like a total hardcore warrior.
I was also thinking, since portraits are usually pretty generous to the subject (its not as if someone was going to paint an unflattering shot of Napoleon) how ugly were some of these guys? Look at this drawing of Descartes. He could not have been a pretty man.
4 Comments:
Let me explain my observation Jos:
I contend that back in the day, portraits were most likely going to be flattering to their subject. A drawing is not like a photo--an artist does not have to commit to an instantaneous image of their subject. If they produce of drawing of their subject that captures how they appear in an unflattering light, the subject will probably complain. On the other hand a portrait still has to look like the guy. The artist who drew the portrait of Descartes can't just draw a picture of Fabio and say to Descartes, "See, that's you, you sexy beast."
So the artist has a challenge-he must draw what he sees, but he also has a motivation to make the person look as good as he can. So my "joke" concerning Descartes, is that despite the likelihood that the artist tried to capture him at his best, he still looks incredibly ugly. Get it? So I concluded (hilariously) that he was probably even uglier than his portrait suggests.
But thanks for "correcting" me. The act of going to a stranger's blog and insisting upon a rigorous standard of truth in response to a half-hearted attempt at a joke speaks highly of your social skills. My thanks also for your opinion about Bismarck's mustache. I bet you are right that it served to intimidate many of his opponents.
I bet you are right about a lot of things.
That's why its fun to look at portraits of Spanish royalty that Goya painted. He hated the royalty and they weren't all that bright, so his paintings subtley show them as retarded mutants.
"WELL ACTUALLY", indeed. jos is obviously right, professor. you can clearly see in the portrait that descartes was ugly. i can't understand why you would argue otherwise. WHY? WHY? no god no. where are you when i need you most, logic? please save me and my new best friend jos.
Cliff's Notes for this post and its first comment:
Dan: Descartes is ugly.
jos_mrtz: Well actually, Descartes is ugly.
I'm going to be like Jos. All I have to do is drop the last letter from my first name and live my life the Jos way. Example: I'm shooting the breeze with a neighbor, friend, and/or sexy teen. This person says, "George W. Bush is a bad president." I reply, "Look, moron, wake the fuck up. George W. Bush is a bad president, idiot."
Example 2: I'm eating some bread. "Hey," someone says. "You're eating bread. How's that bread?"
"Listen up, fuckface," I reply. "I'm eating bread. You just don't get it, dickhead."
Post a Comment
<< Home