{"id":1389,"date":"2016-10-12T12:35:27","date_gmt":"2016-10-12T17:35:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/?p=1389"},"modified":"2016-10-12T12:35:27","modified_gmt":"2016-10-12T17:35:27","slug":"art-comparisons-and-comments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/archives\/1389","title":{"rendered":"Art Comparisons and Comments"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"water-lilies-and-japanese-bridge-1897-1899-monet\"<\/a>
Monet’s “Water Lilies”<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ophelia and the Water Lilies<\/em><\/p>\n

“Water Lilies”\u00a0is painted with the same depth as “Ophelia” – the same thought, layering, penetration. The rushes are not the fronts of rushes but bushes of unseen rushes. It is hard not to admire\u00a0both paintings\u00a0with hushed reverence for \u00a0their detail. I believe “Water Lilies” is the more successful because it does not let the detail overwhelm the big picture but balances its merits to compose a harmonious whole.<\/p>\n

Millais’ “Ophelia”<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Renoir’s “Dance at Bougival”<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Boldini and Renoir’s Females<\/em><\/p>\n

Do you not see the resemblance? It is a bit difficult. While Renoir’s ladies are always puffs of air, floaty china dolls with winsome mouths and pleading eyes, Boldini’s are fierce nobles\u00a0of high\u00a0society. \u00a0Yet\u00a0this coy woman at the dance\u00a0is as aloof as\u00a0Boldini’s princess. Both artists painted beautiful women over and over again, and their women are all very woman-like but very different. Renoir’s are plump, rosy-cheeked, and bourgeois. Boldini’s are slim, rouged, and oozing with old money. Renoir painted as a true impressionist, with soft dashes of color, while Boldini’s brushstrokes are harder swishes of light. Though both placed great emphasis on light, Boldini, as a portrait artist, used light to flatter his subjects while Renoir washed his entire\u00a0paintings with\u00a0cheery warmth. \u00a0The resemblance between the artists is in their material (women) not their styles.<\/p>\n

Boldini’s “Portrait of Princess Marthe Bibesco”<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Portrait of Marcelle Roulin<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ugly Babies (and a Sunflower Soapbox)<\/em><\/p>\n

Van Gogh’s ugly baby is just silly. But a quick search on the Web made me grateful Van Gogh’s baby even looks like a baby.\u00a0There are many paintings of baby\u00a0Jesus and Cupid that paint them\u00a0looking like old men.<\/p>\n

I’m glad Van Gogh\u00a0practiced painting his subjects over and over again, because\u00a0some of the sunflower pictures are disgusting – weird, gross colors – while others are beautiful.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(scroll down to see sunflowers)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Giovanni_Boldini<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bianchi’s “Arion Riding on a Dolphin”<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Van
Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” (ugly version)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” (pretty version)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Ophelia and the Water Lilies “Water Lilies”\u00a0is painted with the same depth as “Ophelia” – the same thought, layering, penetration. The rushes are not the fronts of rushes but bushes of unseen rushes. It is hard not to admire\u00a0both paintings\u00a0with hushed reverence for \u00a0their detail. I believe “Water Lilies” is the more successful…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1389","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-writings"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4WcVY-mp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1389","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1389"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1389\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1397,"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1389\/revisions\/1397"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rasmusen.org\/special\/ameliajane\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}