Best of the Fray

The dog

Camille Claudel — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:03:22 GMT

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!

You know, it's quite possible

Camille Claudel — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:57:02 GMT

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....

Um...

biteoftheweek — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:46:53 GMT

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Cur And Taper, Cur And Taper. . .Go Together Like A. .

Thrasymachus — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:05:44 GMT

. . ."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.

Candles And Dogs? Who Knew?

Thrasymachus — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:24:21 GMT

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?

as usual you're an idiot.

Camille Claudel — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:59:40 GMT

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.

If it's true ...

watt4bob — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:07:53 GMT

... 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.

Who really knows?

Camille Claudel — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:31:16 GMT

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.

For God's sake ...

watt4bob — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:31:11 GMT

... 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?

I'm not wrong,

Camille Claudel — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:17:17 GMT

..... 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.

You are so wrong ...

watt4bob — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:06:16 GMT

... There’s no question about it.

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.

... and so,

Camille Claudel — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:47:59 GMT

there's really no ambiguity. This ain't a marriage.......

very nice.

Camille Claudel — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:47:01 GMT

Anyway - lots of points back.

1. Candlesticks were, surprisingly (to me too) a major theme. Hope this link works. (Let me know if it doesn't get you to the description containing the discussion of the candlestick.) This work, by Havicksz, was actually where I was first put onto the candlestick theme. Note the dog too.

2. The painting is currently on display at the Frans Hals Museum. I don't have time to look at each work, but the description beside it, which contained the information, was what I took a fancy too. The misinterpretion, for years, of the work. That the symbolism lost its significance is fascinating, to me.

3. The dress isn't a lot too much for the 17th century - for a top notch bordello - that's a pretty nice bed. But he looks like he can afford it.

4. That does look like lust in his eyes.

5. It's common when your client is someone special that when not alone with him, you avert your eyes. Alternatively, they might just want to get down to business, and want to end any idle chat. And also consider, the painter can't depict all that much more (Vermeer pushed it to the limit in the work I cited to Dawn, above.)

6. Unlikely too, that he'd want to paint a face on the young woman.

7. The candle isn't currently the source of light - that's for sure. It's just there for the symbolism.

Anyway, glad you added your two cents.

Re: Betrothal? Brothel? . .Betrothel?

MaryAnn — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:22:39 GMT

That's what I find amusing: the painting, by underscoring the similarities between marriage and prostitution, is also slyly hinting that they are equivalent.

Nice insight, Thras.

On the other hand, why do we have to come to a definitive "answer"? Why can't we accept the painting's ambiguity, admire the artist's ability (and devices) to convey such ambiguity, and notice the fine brushwork on the younger woman's dress?

Re: Betrothal? Brothel? . .Betrothel?

Schadenfreude — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:22:18 GMT

Good. Wonder how much more light there would be if the painting were fully restored?

The dress is a bit of a mystery. Seems far too fine for a whorehouse - looks like silk. I suppose it might be a dressing gown, but then those laces up the back don't seem right. Who around here knows the finer points of 17th century Dutch women's clothing?