The man is a rich and fashionable merchant from Sweden, the woman drinking from the glass is indeed the house madam, and the girl has just learned that the beautiful dress is a gift, that portends the man intends to purchase her contract, and take her back to Stockholm where she is to be his mistress.

She’s not thrilled about this turn of events; he is surprised by this, and is putting a positive spin on the proposition.

Begining of story.

..... you see this isn't my interpretation - I don't own it. It's the interpretation of both the private collector and the Frans Hals Museum.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm merely telling you what I've been studying, first hand, based on what has caught my fancy.

Your disagreements have been with the Frans Hals Museum and the Rijksmuseum.

... Camille, lighten up.

I've got no argument with you or the owner, or the curators of the museums, it's art after all, and nobody's life is on the line.

It was painted hundreds of years ago, who really knows?

Don'tcha think my story was pretty good?

Well - I'll lay my money down on the experts. No - I don't think your story was any good. And if I need to lighten up, it will be when I want to, and not on your say so. My argument is with you - and your willingness to bluff as if its reasoned opinion. Being unable to put anything in the painting into any reasoned context, you think that somehow anyone can just make up a story and that it will hold it's own against that of seasoned experts.

I don't know much about art, but I'm confident I know much more than you, and I'd never ever ever be willing to make up the stuff you do. I'd never ever ever be willing to put forward the opinions that you do. That is singularly what offends me with you. And thats exactly why I won't lighten up with you. I won't give you that slack.

The first stages of the practice of learning are very simple: withdraw your previous judgments and try to listen. You fail at the first step.

There's no need to respond to me. You might think me wrong here - but surely by now you've figured out I'm sincere.

... it aint braggin'.

I'll put my education up against your's anytime, and it's not me who's bluffing you arrogant snob.

"I'll lay my money down on the experts."

You're not really wagering anything because there's no way to resolve the question you insist on arguing.

you resolve the question by looking to experts......

And - feel free to state your education. There's not a chance in the universe........ honestly, it's a stupid game to play.......... and you repeatedly act like a collosal idiot. There's not a chance you have a decent education. I've met people I've disagreed with on everything, but I've never met an educated ignoramus like you. If you ever say anything I agree with, it makes me think twice - that's my opinion of you. And you know this, and continue with your bluff nonsense.

Great research on the strange use of symbolism here and in some other contemporary Dutch paintings, Camille. I'm impressed!

I can see the sleazy, Freudian appeal (especially to the Dutch) of using dogs and candles to signify sexual license and depravity. . . but what made them think they could succesfully "re-brand" two of humanity's most ancient and powerful symbols by themselves, with a handful of cryptic paintings that they didn't even bother to think up titles for?

I love the misinterpretation of the work for centuries on end. . . I'm reminded of the millions of dollars that NASA spent on developing a special, high-tech pen that could write in zero-G. It took them years to crack the problem. . . . which their Soviet counterparts solved by just using *pencils*. Smart people can be very, very stupid at times.

I've been looking at the client/gallant gentleman, and I'm having a difficult time deciding how important he is, really. . . he looks like a Spanish officer, newly arrived in Holland from the look of his unscuffed boots. . .not a high-ranking or obscenely wealthy one, either, from his (relative) lack of ornamentation. . .

That's definitely lust in his eyes, but that would be appropriate to a suitor just as much as to a john. . .

On balance, I still find the scene ambiguous. . . even given the use of symbolism here. . . don't you?

. . ."Sir" and raper?

Needs work, I know. But I still find ambiguity in the work, even with the artist's innovatively filthy use of symbolism. There are too many jarringly wrong notes for the scene to be a straightforward representation of a transaction in a whorehouse. The artist is at great pains to show his conscientious attention to detail, which tells me that the "off" notes (like the client not having a drink in his hand, the prostitute's dress being almost impossible to remove, the madam paying no attention to the client's offer of money for sex, etc) cannot be written off as careless mistakes.

I'm still not sure why the artist didn't name this piece. . . it could have saved centuries of bother if he'd simply named it "Painting of a Whore In A Brothel, With A Dog Symbolizing Sexual License (NOT Loyalty!!) And A Candle Symbolizing Feminine Depravity (NOT Love, Unity, Or Knowledge!!)"

Fascinating subject, Camille, and great research. Thank you for a truly enjoyable conversation.

<link>

he did name the piece, and the name has been long lost. Don't want to claim expertise in the sense of being an expert - I'm more reporting what I'm studying.........

Glad to see you around....

thing is pretty cheap, but I guess effective. The candlestick still strikes me as a little bizzare, but having seen the claim in two different museums, on two different artists from the same era, I've got to go with these guys knowing what they are talking about....

Ambiguity - in some sense, always, I first glanced at it, having seen the title. Believed the title was accurate. Then happened - no particular reason, to read the details beside the title. So hard for me to now say there isn't some level of ambiguity!