Dear Martyn, Obviously everything is possible. We could invent lots of scenarios on the spot. What I am trying to do however, is to simplify things. I can sense your reluctance in accepting that this particular instrument could have been the real thing and I can understand this as there are some features that are difficult to explain, but my attitude would be rather to find things that make sense and find what could be the reason for someone to do so. No one carefully restrings a lute in a very unusual but careful and logical way just to make a prop for a painting (or maybe she knew I would discover it and we will be talking about it and now she is laughing hearing it somewhere in the sky - it was just a pun of hers). If the picture was from 16th century Italy, I'd say it's a fake, but in 1745 Germany it seems to make sense. So what is that we don't like about it. As far as your objections are concerned I can see that it's mainly the angle of the strings and the bridge. Dealing with the ! bridge issue is easier as it is not as much off center as it may seem from the first impression. I measured the distance between the last bass string - top edge of the belly and compared to the distance from the first string - bottom edge of the belly. The difference isn't very significant, so it could be either painter's error or Eleonore moved all strings up from bass towards treble side. The angle of the strings is a little bit skewed, but again we could find many explanations for this too. One could be that Pesne didn't get it right because he didn't care if the strings show on the fingerboard or not. As for your and Louis's concerns about posing I can tell you (as my wife is a painter) that there are thousand ways to arrange a posing session without causing much fatigue for a model. As an Englishman probably you are familiar with the collection of the Royal family paintings in the National Portrait Gallery in London (close to Leicester Square tube station). Some of them have explanations underneath that the portrait was made only from the sketches made during very short posing sessions as the King was too busy to sit for a longer period of time. If I didn't read it I would never ever say it was made from some sketches. Some portraits look as if a painter spent many hours with the model. Absolutely unbelievable, but people knew their profession and ways to deal with difficult situations.
Regards Jaroslaw Wiadomość napisana przez Martyn Hodgson w dniu 21 lip 2012, o godz. 08:49: > > Dear Jaroslaw, > > It's clear that none us can present a definitive case about this > instrument. > > But just one other thought: a noble sitter would not expect to pose > indefinitely for their portrait and mostly only the face and general > physique would have been taken from life. You suggest it would have > been just the background: I suspect the clothes etc and any other > appendages (such as an instrument) would probably also have been > painted in separately. Is it not possible that even if the lute were > Elizabeth's own instrument it was lent to Pesne in a state without the > top two courses (possibly the strings had broken) - but he, realising > that strings ought to come from the bridge, made his own corrections > there but not at the nut...... All speculation of course. > > Mouton was a celebrated professional lutenist and we can > reasonably expect him to be have been concerned about the precise > depiction of his (sole?) means of income. > > regards > > Martyn > --- On Fri, 20/7/12, JarosAA'aw Lipski <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: JarosAA'aw Lipski <[email protected]> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Eleonore von Schlieben-Sanditten > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 20 July, 2012, 21:00 > > 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 > WiadomoAA>Ae/= 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 >> [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> > > -- > > References > > 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
