Years ago, when I was engaged to a gentleman with an art degree from the Chicago School of Art, I learned a lot of interesting things from him, but the one I remember was when we were looking at prints of the old Dutch Masters, and Tim said, “If there’s a dog in the painting, it’s pornography.”
What???
I’ve never been able to find anything on that topic, but I haven’t really searched all that hard, either. It’s too good a story to have it possibly ruined by actual facts. According to what Tim told me, if there was a dog in the painting, it was a lewd painting. The piano instructor really wasn’t instructing the girl how to play the piano, they were in a brothel and he was sizing her up. Such an innocent painting—a girl at the piano, her tutor beside her. But the dog throws it into a different light. Is he staring at her with a lecherous lilt in his eye? Hmmmmm….
Cats didn’t seem to show up as often in paintings as dogs. My theory is, cats could not be controlled by the men/painters, therefore were unworthy to be immortalized. Also, possibly due to the lack of trainability/controllability, cats at some time or other became associated with evil.
Rembrandt did, however, engrave the Holy Family with a Cat in 1654. I was going to swipe the drawing from the web but got to reading about the 5 small thumbnails drawings that accompany it, and decided to include the link, as it’s pretty interesting, and won’t take long for you to read. With the added benefit that I won’t go to jail for copyright infringement.
https://www.everypainterpaintshimself.com/article/rembrandts_holy_family_with_a_cat_1654
I have a pencil once owned by Shakespeare…
Thanks to the cat it’s so chewed up I can’t tell if it’s 2B or not 2B
Is art what it seems? What/Who makes art qualify as ART?
Several years ago, one of our presidents made a remark about not knowing much about art (true), but he knew the difference between Michelangelo and Mapplethorpe (not really). Actually, there was probably more commonality between the two artists than our then president realized. The primary difference being Mapplethorpe had the advantage of a camera. I’ve often wondered how Michelangelo would take to our modern art media should he come back for a visit. Maybe there is something to reincarnation? Maybe he did come back? Maybe Mapplethorpe was Michelangelo reincarnated?
Here is a link to Michelangelo’s David, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw4w2A64hOA the video is under 2 minutes, if you don’t watch the ad.
And here is a link to Widewalls, and the copyrighted photograph by Robert Mapplethorpe of Dennis with Flowers, 1983. Same basic subject (nude males), different medium.
https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/10-nudes-by-robert-mapplethorpe/dennis-with-flowers-1983
Have a great week. Remember to laugh often and loud, sing a new song, dance like you’re four years old and wearing a Wonder Woman costume or Batman cape, and be sure to stop by again—same bat time, same bat channel. The coffee’s hot, the biscotti are homemade, and we always have time for a short break. Stay safe, stay healthy, and care for and love one another—because one another is all we’ve really got.
An epidemiologist, an ICU doctor, and a scientist all walk into a bar.
Just kidding, they know better.
And then there are the subjects that code differently in different eras. I’m thinking of Degas’ ballet dancers, who in the ’50’s seemed to embody the innocence of youth (or was it just that I, at that time, was an innocent youth myself?), and now may be just as admired, but with the knowledge that at the time of their painting, the young women were, like it or not, assumed to combine their skill with prostitution. And I can’t find a citation, but there is a Classical statue of a nude woman who has in recent decades been identified as a famous courtesan, so celebrated that the statue itself caused a sensation at the time.
Don’t think I’d heard about Degas’ ballet dancers, but it makes sense. I mean artists have to make a living somehow, eh?
“They know better…” Awesome!