No, I learned it from art historians and all agree it's a mystery, especially since a nude model stands next to the little boy. Aside from the problems with Victorian mores, the nude probably stands for the Muse of art, also admiring Courbet's work. No interpretation is ever secure, even when the artist proclaims it. Courbet was very interested in composition, the edges, etc., as all great artists are. WC
--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 11:04 AM > On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:55 AM, William Conger wrote: > > > So I suppose all artists should have Miller in their > studios to tell > > them what's important and what's not. In > Courbet's great > > allegorical painting of his studio he shows a small > boy watching him > > paint. Courbet never explained this painting but > scholars have > > assumed the artist meant the boy to represent the > innocent-eyed > > future that would appreciate his paintings > > > How do you know that? You learned it from an art teacher, > didn't you? > Maybe we should have a test -- to find out why -- Corbett > painted it > -- maybe the boy was telling Coorbet to watch out for the > edge of the > painting or -- else the paint will sail off the edge and > never come > back. Like those dotted painting in Roy Boy's gallery. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
