Luis, We live in very different times. In past people were accustomed to things that we wouldn't tolerate. As far as I know many people were portrait with real instruments, otherwise we could say that all iconography is rubbish. Is portrait of Moutton just a rubbish? Was he holding a prop? A very reputable lute maker made an exact copy of that instrument by making computer calculations on measurements taken from the very picture. As far as painting as an art is concerned there are ways to make things much easier for a model like taking some sketches and then assembling everything afterwards without a model. Then some corrections are made by confronting it with reality. I am sure she wasn't posing in her garden as can be seen on the picture. The whole background was added independently. The whole beauty of Rococo (obviously if you like it) is in that mixture of reality of figures and fantasy of landscapes. A little bit soppy it is, but this is the way people loved it at that time. About your concerns on the dirty soundboard I'd say that one has to be very cautious in making such statements as the texture of Rococo paintings is usually very uneven, impressionistic, unclear, colorful, without photographic gloss, and therefore it can't be taken as if it was a reality. I can't see any dirt, sorry. It's just shading.
Jaroslaw Wiadomość napisana przez Louis Aull w dniu 20 lip 2012, o godz. 20:07: > Jaroslaw, > > > Just conjecture, but I would not use a working instrument to pose for > many hours for a painting of this detail. I keep mine in a case at all > times it is not being played to help keep it in tune. Do you think she > would tolerate a lute of her own that dirty? In that dress? > > > Louis Aull > > > > -- > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
