500 years of women in portraiture

Post by **Impenitent** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:09 am

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/blogon ... ideo_id=78

Post by **Holbytla** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:32 am

That is pretty neat. It is interesting to see how women and art have evolved through the years. It was very well done.

Post by **yovargas** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:40 am

That was lovely, Impy. Thanks for sharing.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:14 am

Absolutely beautiful, and for some reason it made me tear up.

Post by **vison** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:53 am

It was absolutely lovely. But, Holbytla, I disagree with you: they could almost all have been the same girl! Just beautiful.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:26 am

What got to me (I think) was the occasional really expressive ones, the ones with a look that said there was more to them than met the eye. You think about all the centuries when that was how even beautiful and aristocratic women said what they really thought: through their eyes. At least around men.

Post by **vison** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:28 am

Yes, I felt a tear or two in me eyes, too. So young, so lovely, and so long dead.

Post by **samaranth** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:31 am

It's almost hypnotic. It does all revolve around the eyes, and each of them expresses so much: hope, shyness, confidence, sadness, innocence, happiness, sensuality, propriety. The whole gamut of young life (especially the hope part). Looking out at us even when they are long since gone.

Post by **River** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:51 am

They look so much alike, all through the ages. Even the modern ones. So are they really gone?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

I almost said "they're our moms," except my moms were Scandinavian farm wives, and nobody ever painted them, even if they could have afforded to sit still that long.

But I do wonder what some of those privileged and possibly quite accomplished women would make of their opportunities today.

Post by **Siberian** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:30 pm

Why no old ladies? Or not so pretty ones?
I'd say it's discrimination

Post by **yovargas** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:40 pm

I really wouldn't call Picasso's and such pretty.

(

btw

)

Post by **Siberian** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:36 pm

But they're still young
I definitely remember seeing some portraits middle-aged and older ladies in the European galleries.

Post by **BrianIsSmilingAtYou** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:39 pm

Siberian wrote:But they're still young
I definitely remember seeing some portraits middle-aged and older ladies in the European galleries.

4/4/2009 - In Silence at Her Portrait

BrianIs

AtYou

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:31 pm

That was very neat!

I was left thinking how beautiful women really can be.

Post by **narya** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:58 pm

The first half was definitely the Western European standard for beauty (young, healthy, well-proportioned, pale skin, no acne), but if you stop to look at some of the individuals, you can see that fashions change (plucked eyebrows, plucked eyelashes (!), rouged cheeks, hairstyle, tendency to smile, and of course, clothing). Those individuals if looked at alone might not fit today's idea of "beautiful", but together they do flow as the many moods of one woman.