On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Robin Netherton wrote: > On 4/4/2012 1:18 AM, Sharon Collier wrote: >> It almost looks as if the ear was added later, as it is much more red than >> her face. > > Well, it's covered with a veil, and the baby's ear is reddish too. But the > Virgin's looks practically separate from her head, a bit too far to the left. > I wonder if it *was* meant to evoke the idea of a sex organ!
Both versions of the painting are considered to be, errrrrrrr, somewhat less than masterpieces of painting, I think. ;) No one seems to have decided exactly who painted either of them, as I mention in the article. It may just be that no one has gotten around to researching these paintings specifically. As you might imagine, I'm always a sucker for paintings of the Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus playing with beads ;) ____________________________________________________________ O Chris Laning <clan...@igc.org> - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
