Posted on 01/22/2020 8:19:59 AM PST by Red Badger
Yes, way too much. Plus, y'know, from time to time they weren't trying to do anatomically correct paintings of animals, particularly not in this case.
I didn’t see a spigot.....................
:^) And that was a surprisingly restrained response by the big M, considering he'd complained in a letter home that Julius hadn't paid him a cent in a year.
Julius was too busy spending his money on war. A true blight on the papacy.
I could very eaily see Jan (or Hubertus) Van Eyck painting the lamb the way it is shown despite them both being masters of their craft as well as knowing perfectly well what a real lamb looks like. The symbolism of the day was often more important than fidelity to reality.
They didn’t repaint the picture. They removed painting that had been done OVER the original. The ‘weird’ lamb IS the original lamb.
I think post 51 has got it. Some later painter, fancying himself more technically able, decided to repaint the lamb more ‘realistically’.
I think they have ways of ‘x-raying’ old paintings to see if there are pictures underneath (terahertz spectroscopy); but I wonder if they can tell how much later a layer of paint was added over an original...
If you look close you can see the eyes as they originally were under the paint before this last restoration.
PAINTER:
OK, OK, let me see if I understand what you want?
You want me to paint a man that looks like a sheep?
ENDOWER:
No, I want you to paint a sheep that looks like a man.
PAINTER:
You got it, boss.
My eyes aren’t that good :-)
But the thought struck me that some of these ‘paintings over’ have actually served to preserve the work and intent of the original artist. The painters-over didn’t know that someday we’d have the ability to detect and bring back.
I’m not sure what you mean; but the people back then thought very differently than we do today.
Pictorial Symbol was very important - most people couldn’t read. They ‘learned’ important concepts from paintings like this, and from all the other paintings, statuary - even the architecture itself - of the churches.
I think the original Lamb, as re-discovered in this painting, is very beautiful.
Oh, thanks I see. I also see why the artist rejected his first try.
Well, if that’s how you see it, I can’t help.....:-)
Absolutely.
Most people from the Middle Ages would have no trouble understanding why Van Eyck painted that lamb as he originally did. The Lamb of God might not be comprehended - nor found acceptable - by them if presented simply as a realistic lamb from a contemporary Flemish barnyard.
It took the high-priced smarties of the Renaissance to "reeducate" us.
This looks like a really interesting website; not completely up yet:
http://legacy.closertovaneyck.be/#home/sub=teaser
It's the 'weird' one that's the original! and you're right, a lambs eyes do not face forward but sideways for greater span..............
Check out new info here:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3869655/posts
Why did they paint Jar Jar Binks eyes onto the thing? What a disaster!
That’s the point I’m trying to make, the ‘ORIGINAL’ is the weird looking one!
The ‘restorer’ painted a more normal looking sheep, even moved the ears.
The original artists wanted the face to look like that!.........................
As much as I would like to read the entire article, I have no interest in putting money in CNN’s pocket. If everyone here did the same, maybe CNN would go out of business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.