Sorolla's letters to Gil Moreno de Mora

On my recent visit to Madrid I had the good fortune of meeting with one of the great granddaughters of Joaquín Sorolla, Fabiola. Due to time constraints our meeting at the Casa Museo Sorolla was necessarily brief. She managed however to show me some of her grandmothers sculptures and slip me a copy of one of three published volumes of  commented letters from the master.

This  Epistolario , volume I,  consisted of the letters he wrote to his life long friend Gil Moreno de Mora.  Gil was a fellow artist Sorolla met in Rome at a time when artists were awarded an educational residence in that city if they achieved certain merit in their youth. Gil however, belonged to a very wealthy family from Catalonia and increasingly left art and occupied his efforts  augmenting the  family fortune which consisted mostly of mines in the province of Córdoba. His position allowed him to do many favors for his talented friend. Sorolla returned these favors later on when he was the one with the ears of power.

I learnt much about Sorolla's daily preoccupations through these wonderful letters. I've always maintained -for my own sake, this is an interested opinion- that artists come in all shapes and forms. Married, single, rich, poor, young, old, kind or vicious. Successful artists are a rare breed despite appearances and they also evade any listing of defining features in their  path to success. Let's set aside for a minute the "hard work"and "persistence" formula which despite being almost an essential ingredient is far from fail-safe,  I am sorry to say.

 These  are some things I learnt from Sorolla's abundant correspondence with his friend:

Success:
Measured just in financial rewards, Sorolla was very successful indeed. His first exhibition at the Georges Petit gallery in Paris during the year 1906 produced approximately 300,000 french "ancien" francs after the sale of 75 out of 400 paintings and drawings shipped for the occasion. That is more than a million and a half dollars of today. The apex of his career, which critics place squarely during his first exhibition at the Hispanic Society of New York under the auspices of Archer Milton Huntingon, saw him earn  aprox. 190,000 $ worth of paintings sold  in dollars from 1909. That is 2 1/2 million dollars in today's money. And as if that wasn't enough, it does not take into account the tens of portraits commissioned in this occasion. The portraits could fetch hefty sums. President Taft paid 3000$ for his, almost 80,000$, and that was not a full body portrait. Ok, so he became very wealthy. Moving on.

Art Awards. Sorolla could make a circus tent with all the ribbons and medals. The only insight is that he was quite open about his award anxiety with his friend.  He often asks about the competition and the impression his paintings are causing. Sorolla also earned some national honors like the Legion d'Honeur and St Olof Cross. He was quite pleased with these.

Taft by Sorolla

Who's who. Another measure of success is certainly how many important people Sorolla met and influenced. The artist really got to know the Gotha of the art world fin de siècle sometimes in very close quarters. Of course he met every relevant artist from Spain: from Benlliure and Aureliano Beruete to Francisco Pradilla and Ignacio Zuloaga . He dined with the Royal Family and prominent politicians like Maura and the creamy top of literary Spain. He also enjoyed international appeal.  He showed Zorn the walls of Avila while the hefty Swede drank himself blind with champagne, for example. (Ah, northern tourists...)  He perceived Sargent as the guy to outshine and had some  vague respect for Alma Tadema but none for Tissot. Naturally, he got to portrait many of these prominent figures. The editors of the book point out Zuloaga had some acerbic commentary about Sorolla (while maintaining always pleasant rapport in person) but one could set that aside as mere artists rivalry. After all, Zuloaga mastered the representation of the "black" Spain and felt a certain threat when Sorolla started invading his turf in Segovia with his luminous experiments.


Politics. Sorolla had definite political opinions initially in line with those of Blasco Ibañez, a fellow Valencian and very prominent writer. He was very influenced  by the renovation agenda of  a few progressive intellectuals bent on liberating Spain from its dark mood after all vestige of empire was lost in 1898.  In other words, he was mostly a liberal thinker. Despite this leanings, he kept his opinions to a minimum,  the Royal family was an assiduous and prestigious client after all.  The painter talks fondly about them to his friend. I am not sure if he really held that opinion as Alfonso XIII was very unpopular and became extremely disliked later on due to his African wars. Sorolla was a well informed man in world affairs as he mentions the Russian pre-revolution of 1905 and other international and national events of relevance. Calling him well travelled is  an understatement.

Raimundo de Madrazo by Sorolla

More importantly, the letters go sometimes into details about the work process and paintings. The editors had the foresight of adding some plates of the sketches and drawings Sorolla added to his writing.

Letter fragments and a portrait Archer Milton Huntington.

Shipping & Handling: I simply can't believe the amount of shipping that went on. Hundreds of canvases crisscrossed Europe during the 1900's. Travel must have been a constant for painters and their families since their presence often meant a more favorable hanging at the Salon, a proper frame or an important commission. The exchange of photographs and sketches was necessary. One must reserve some praise for agents and gallerists that had to receive and ship back all these works. Sorolla only had some choice words for the British galleries love of commissions and contracts full of sly clauses. He exhibited at Grafton Gallery in London. 

His friend Gil became a de-facto agent in Paris for the painter. He seems to have been trusted with everything, from letting him pick the frames in France so as to reduce shipping weights and cargo bulk to demanding payment from galleries and even, in one occasion,  edit a canvas by folding one whole figure out to aid the composition. Sorolla not only approved the change, he cut the figure out. The painting in question is below: "Trata de Blancas", a rather benign glimpse into prostitution.

"Trata de Balncas". Sorolla. From his costumbrist period early on.

Thought process. Hidden among the worldly affairs of travel and family are some insights into Sorolla's creative process. He liked Winsor colors, who knew?  What was he aiming at, what inspired him, what did he expect from a painting and how did he go about composing one. Little snippets punctuated by delicious sketches and instructions. In contrast with the snobbery of today's curators and conceptual artists, Sorolla comes across as almost too adroit. He likes the sun, the play of light, the flow of fabrics, the beach and the scenery.  "Send me a winged Victory" he begs his friend.  Hard not to see the influence of he helenistic statue on the fabrics flapping against sun and wind..... what a direct and yet original take. It's what makes him happy. Commissioned portraits are a pain but pay the bills, oh well. Family portraits are a labor of love and it shows. He probably created the greatest family album ever, I'd say.

Museo Sorolla. Observe the Nike sculpture sent by Gil from Paris.

Family life. Sorolla was an orphan and was adopted by his uncle and aunt. He repaid  them by supporting them till their last day. But he was a married man as well and nary a letter is written where he doesn't mention his Clotilde or his kids, Joaquin, Maria and Elena; often  worrying about their health and fevers which must have been a lot scarier then than they are today. One reads about plagues of cholera and flu sweeping all over Europe.  During WWI , Spain remained neutral. Mostly because the King had allegiances to both sides. The press in Spain had no qualms about reporting flu outbreaks but the foreign press kept quiet about their own for obvious reasons. That's how the "Spanish Flu" came to be by the way. The more you know...
Sorolla was  most definitely a devoted family man. There you go, no need to embrace bachelorhood. But oh boy, is the right partner ever SO important.

The wife of the painter, Clotilde  (detail)

"Walk in the beach" Museo Sorolla

Work, too much of it: He says it. He feels the pressure. Sorolla worked hard. Clotilde also worked hard dedicating herself to the household while her husband painted and enduring long trips along with the master.  They moved often to ever grander premises. Sorolla loved his hometown of Valencia and says so very often. There he found his most original and sun drenched compositions. Conversely, he disliked Madrid where he had to live for business reasons  and yearned for his Valencia beaches. His last residence in Calle Martinez Campos was an example of traditionalist architecture, clean lines and luminous interiors.

My sketch of Sorolla's house. Watercolor.

The constant movement of clients, canvases and studio accoutrements must have been a tad much. One interesting datum, Huntington initially commissioned a mural of the History of Spain. It was Sorolla's idea to make instead a frieze showing Spain's peoples. He did this, not to defy Huntington but to have the chance to gather  true and natural inspiration from travelling around the peninsula. If one must judge against his Columbus portrait for example, it was a genius stroke. Shortly after finishing the huge commission for the library of the Hispanic Society  (2 million dollars of today) Sorolla had an hemiplejic attack at the youthful age of 56. The work  had taken its  toll. His friend Gil kept writing letters,  increasingly commiserating with Clotilde and less directed towards his fading friend. Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida  never painted again and died in Cercedilla on August 1923. Pace yourselves fellows.

"Ayamonte, fisherman's catch". Murals at the Hispanic Society, NYC.

Changing the world one bad sunset painting at a time.

Picture this: You see a portrait of a war veteran and it is clumsily  drawn, the colors feel flat and cold. The flag hangs like a kitchen rag and the pose is as uninspired as a yearbook's. It doesn't even resemble the subject.

Now imagine a portrait of Donald Trump where the artists has managed to miraculously dissipate all of the  arrogance and idiocy into a masterpiece of lush tones, an elegant poise and even a hint of a brain behind the constipated squint.  -(Just in case you were wondering, nah, it hasn't been done.)

This is not 'tremendous' at all . But how to make a good painting out of such poor subject matter.

Which one would the 'good' painting be? Should the soldier's portraitist be immune from criticism for his efforts to memorialize a hero? Should today's Zorn be criticized for elevating a gasbag into a statesman? (Like I mentioned, there's no examples of this particular feat).

Of course the answer is simple, the quality of the art is quite independent of the message it conveys.

"Three Prostitutes" Otto Dix 1925 Love this!

I  often wonder how art can help heal the world; what does it mean to make "important art?  We constantly read about 'significant' works and paintings that challenge the status-quo.  Are they? Did they? As much as I look I come out empty. It would appear  that art has never 'created' the necessary change but only reflected it back and commented on it, sometimes acutely.

 I've avoided this subject for very good reasons.  People are fanatic enough already about oil mediums.  Political and social issues are a whole other ball game because they involve the artist as a person and a citizen, not just as creator of works. And just in case it might sound as if I am censoring or trying to say something 'important', rest assured I am not.  Most artists I know aspire to something great and it is the process of perfecting  one's  expression that  keeps artists  trying and failing, not the results per se and -definitely-  not how amazing some of those artists  believe these results to be.

Jan Kasparec.

No matter how lofty the message, artistic excellence is about the 'how', not the 'what'.  I'm not only talking about technique even though it matters more than some would like to acknowledge.  And I am not dismissing "conceptual art" offhand either...but again, it is not the idea but how it is delivered.  How many horrid paintings of sunsets have you seen lately? How many godawful baby portraits?

This communicates Buddhism and environmental awareness.

Are there any bigger 'messages' today than the growing inequality of the world's wealth and the reality of environmental degradation?  Everything else either pales in comparison or is a direct consequence of these global maladies. If History is any guide the planet will find balance again by its own means of disease and mass extermination. So how do you make art with that?  Is it really the artist's job to even try to tackle things like these?

There's no right answer, of course. Some would say the artist must tackle what she is concerned about as a citizen only. "Just shut up and sing" as they say. Or even turn his lofty head AWAY form it and choose to ignore or even deny the issues. At least until the apocalypse withers his garden and burns the studio.
 

*My point is  that art is probably not  the right medium to affect change but a perfect means to express it.

*My second more important point is that artistic merit is indifferent to how urgent or radical the message is and a worthy message cannot insure a work of art from being awful. (Fortunately, evil messages have suffered the same lack of insurance or more.)

*The 'importance' of art often starts and ends with its importance to the artist. It only grows from there to wards the viewer, the community, the market and the world at large. 

Painting exalting racial purity (Nazi period)

Let's look at some 'big issue' paintings.

I know a few artists that paint homeless people. They mostly do in an effort to convey the dignity inherent in people that normally would not be portrayed at all, anywhere, and much less be able to pay for the luxury.  Not your run-of-the mill "pretty" subject matter. And easy to sentimentalize to boot. I like all of the following works. I especially like the one of the multiple boards stuck together because it makes the homeless the authors and they were paid for their words.  The Bastien Lepage is just phenomenally well painted and it has charm for miles. Fit for a chocolate box though. It also has a message but I'd say it is more of a literary type, heartfelt as it is.  The Jose Ribera is just powerful, unflinching and probably the superior piece.

Bastien LePage. "Pas Meche" 1882

A board made with homeless signs purchased from the writers. Artist: Willie Baronet.

well-wishing graffiti by Skid Robot.

 Jose Ribera "Clubfooted boy or the beggar" 1642

 Let's move on to the subject of war. Without a doubt , one of the most represented subjects in History. From heroic generals to fields of strewn corpses, war paintings are everywhere. Let's  look at recent examples.   Sargent, whom nobody would accuse of being a hack, created his incredible  "Gassed" painting after briefly visiting the front  at the age of 62. It is a masterpiece of light and composition but "war" it ain't. Oh, yes, there are soldiers and wounds and dead people but Sargent might as well have painted a row of angels. It resembles more of  an heroic Hellenistic frieze than a war condemnation. He might have been affected by what he saw but really didn't set out to question the war or war mongers .

"Gassed" S.Sargent. 1919

Next is someone that goes a step beyond Sargent, may be not in technique, but in message. We have a wailing mother holding a mutilated  soldier over some oil burning fields. Oil for blood. Not a frieze, but a 'Pieta'. Clearly, the artist has some very strong opinions about this and has focused the scene eliminating other corpses and avoiding contemporary clothing on the mother figure. She is both symbolic and realistic. The American flag does not have a single stain despite being crumpled under the agonizing soldier (the painter is buying insurance here since patriotism is beyond reproach -and the last refuge of scoundrels as they say) . The work is well painted but -and you may disagree- it is a scene in a play. So poised and theatrical that I don't think it is too far off ,  indictment-wise,  from the  Sargent in leaving us cold. I love it as an illustration. No more.

Max Ginsburg. "War Pieta" 2017

Now, here it is. Even better and edited down. The horror of war. No mom coming to cry. No patriotic hints. No face to recognize. No heroic pose. Just mud and shit and this was someone who went to help (he is a red cross soldier)   and got gassed instead. I really nails the point and this painting hasn't left my head since I saw it two years ago. We are in Goya territory here as far as driving the message home.

Ardius Fidelis. Gilbert Rogers 1919

And, oh the irony, that most capitalist of artists, Mr. Bansky, going directly to the thinking cap. Two childish characters ( pst, they are really stand-ins for large corporations)  holding the hands of a Vietnamese real life child burnt by a war chemical. How much do these children-loving logos really give a flying crap?  And Bansky didn't even have to create anything but combine a few iconic images -my opinion. Is this a war painting/image? I'd say 'yes' and its offensive value is off the charts because any war, just or unjust, should leave one offended, not exalted. The funny thing is that it is a stretch to call this a painting, but few would argue that it is not art.

May be paintings are not the right way to express disent or rock the boat. More on this later.

Banksy

And what about feminism? Did pop-art endless display of vaginas, vacuum cleaners and Barbie dolls stir the masses towards  an improvement in women's status? In my opinion they might have helped reclaim art as a feminine endeavor.  Big iffy "might".

Marie Chorda. 'Great Vagina'

-If you've lived in any population (Los Angeles, for example) where there has been a racial minority (even though 'latino' populace is now a majority in LA) or native population in need of reclaiming some pride,  you've seen the murals. Some are riots of color, direct and, well, proud, but few are also good. Criticizing the quality of the mural is often tantamount to criticizing the message. You either like it or you clearly are an 'imperialist' parading Western post-colonial prejudice.  I don't care. Some of these murals are lurid messes with little merit.  It really has nothing to do with the sympathy their message might stir in the viewer. I am sure I can find some examples of well executed murals painted by the people claiming their space.

Cesar Chavez portrait in mural form. artist?

For contrast, the great Mexican muralist Diego Rivera.....well,  true,  he was not a struggling immigrant. He was also well  aware of the Western art world  and therefore had a large advantage. OK! May be not the best example of "urgency". But he could convey the anti-imperial anti-capitalist message liek nobod's business.  As I said,  I will look for examples of "good" murals made by the people they are intended to portray. There's got to be a few as the gift of art does not stop at the strawberry fields of Camarillo or the Laguna Beach mansions.

Diego Rivera. "The river" mural

Economic inequality is a tough one. Art is considered a luxury item so who in their right mind would paint something  that goes against the very belief in luxury? But that hasn't  stopped artists who wanted to make a name for themselves and make a splash. After all, even corporations are not always opposed to own their own critics as long as they can hang them in a lobby and not in their conscience.  The mansions of moguls are filled with images of peasants and their quaint simple lives. The offices of real estate titans often feature beautiful animal sculptures and landscapes of the West.

Anyway, nothing new here. At this point I think we get the idea.  There are many other areas of meaning like art done as therapy  which I'd love to talk about  or environmental art, native art, propaganda ... The citizen artist is allowed to be stirred by his day to day concerns and worries, could he or she do otherwise?

"And They Still  Say Fish Is Expensive!" Joaquin Sorolla. 1894

Alex Schefer. "Burning Bank of America"

 Actually, many artists have found that sending a 'message' was what their mission in life was. Many have found illustration and caricature the proper means to do so.

James Gillray. 1805. "The plumb-pudding in danger"

I am sure the painting below has some meaning -something about the story of a young artist's rise to maturity I read. It is part of a series much like Hogarth's "A Rake's Progress" or a "Book of Hours". It has nicely rendered lights and fabrics and it's finished within an inch of its life with Germanic thoroughness. The scene is a puzzle but between reading about  it to find out and just moving on I'd rather do the latter because I doubt I'd be impressed.  May be this piece is a victim of its own "cleverness" and a perfect example of that large group of artworks that belong in the ivory tower of academia art,  if not academic; enigma art,  if not enigmatic. But it wants to be an 'important' piece, it wants it so bad.  I am sure it is important for the artist, and may be that should be enough.

artist: Scott Hess

Our day of hero worship: Alexander McQueen and Singer Sargent.

Victoria & Albert Courtyard. watercolor

Today we decided to visit the spectacular Alexander McQueen exhibition at the Victoria&Albert Museum:"Savage Beauty". This is without a doubt the exhibition of the year in London where it returned after a successful run at the Met in New York. Ever since museums discovered fashion sells tickets, they have had a field day ordering mannequins and displaying the likes of Gaultier, Yves St Laurent, Vivienne Westwood and many others. Fashion allows for theatrical displays, multimedia madness and colourful crowds.

I like fashion, I think it's cool but it  doesn't keep  me awake at night.  I certainly subscribe to the idea that 99% of it is either bonkers, or just silly. In short, I didn't expect an impact. It did actually have one but  not because of McQueen's tragic death or anything particularly deep about the guy. It was just very well done. As a matter of fact the least theatrical of all rooms, the second, was the one that got my wheels whirring. These are my impressions about the show and the clothes themselves:

Very briefly, the exhibit follows a chronological scheme with every new room evoking the environment of McQueens' work and runway spaces at that stage of his career. The first room, for example, displays the low budget designs of a young taxi driver's son with lots of creativity. The environment is industrial-warehouse and the soundtrack -yes, fashion shows have soundtracks- is that of a muffled rave. His designs are inspired by the street, the club-scene, movies and very much by London. McQueen's work shows consistency from his very first stitch not only formally but also from a narrative point of view. He is very much an English designer down to his fetishism of birds, Hitchcock anyone?

The second room shows his MA project as well as his apprenticeship work in Savile Rd. and other places including a workshop that made uniforms. Flawless tailoring takes over. McQueen proves here that to break the rules, you need to know them. The construction of the suits and dresses is original, playful, almost like origami in some cases...one can sense the confidence of a craft well absorbed and ready for the jump into art.

 So what's a young gay guy to do with all that power under his scissors. The next room is invaded by romanticism and Gothic influences, it's operatic and baroque, barely edited.There is a sexuality and a power to it no doubt but except for a few details and signature forms, it seems it all has been done before. I like that he is deliberate in his avoidance of women and girls as naive or soft. These are some dark queens,  full of armor and sharp edges while wonderfully feminine. He accelerates the appropriation of elements from other arts with prints, plumage and embroidery .

Then begins a series of juxtapositions, the first one being the natural world versus man. McQueen seems to have had a very keen sense of the fragility of life and its savagery. The environment is cavernous and simulates a crypt made of bones and skulls.  I believe along with  the curators that London is essentially where this idea of the fragility and combat of life is materialized. It's an anarchic place at its core. The design becomes bold and tribal. The materials start to expand into the unheard: hair, horns, skulls,polyester. Had he lived longer, McQueen would surely have won an Oscar at some point.

"As a place of inspiration, Britain is the best in the world. You are inspired by the anarchy in the country"

With the next rooms, we are definitely in the presence of a master designer. He draws inspiration from his Scottish roots to create the "Widows of Culloden" and the show forcefully pairs the seductive tartans against the fairytale designs of "The girl that lived in a tree" (2008) collection which is inspired by Victorian and romantic English designs. I have no doubt that McQueen felt and loved his Scottish heritage very deeply and that he created a sort of indictment of ancient genocides. However, anybody that thinks for a minute that 'fashion cares' is delusional. Even the designer himself was aware of the inherent contradiction of creating excess while advocating a return to less consumerism, luxury while using cheap materials and so on.  From here on, AMQ seems to be "in search of a cause" but it is mostly just a thin thread to hold together his own ideas avalanche.

As if aware of the risk of a flood of photographers (and sketchers) or worse, selfie-stick holders, snapping pics is strictly forbidden. The guards enforcing this rule are polite but unlike  in any other exhibits, they are not distracted students or bored to tears matrons. These are tall strapping hawks. Hence no pics. Well, one. My husband has seen the show three times already -thanks god for that V&A membership! and he won't be deterred.

The middle room is amazingly built as a giant curio cabinet holding hats, corsets, bonnets and all kinds of magnificent shoes  and jewelry. Here we see the collaboration between AMQ and other designers of accessories like milliner Phillip Tracey or jewel designer Shauna Leane. He teamed up with an ever increasing set of trades like taxidermists, wood carvers and even 3d printers (is that a job yet?) The designs in this room put to shame most contemporary artists and sculptors, each one a   tastefully displayed piece, a masterwork in its own right.Videos of his runway parades are projected now full throttle. I think my favorite piece must have been a top made entirely of mussel shells. The idea alone is much better than the result but when you learn to appreciate the jasper beauty of a humble mussel, well , I sympathize with a designer that wants you to wear it. I liked it better than the coral peacock and the bird of paradise - the whole bird- bonnet owned by some countess Bismark or other.

In the middle of the cabinet of curiosities room, a dress spray painted by robots.  In the next room, a holographic Kate Moss frolics midair in her billowing wedding dress like a mermaid in a dark and pyramidal fishbowl.

 The next few rooms are dedicated to his take on the Western versus Eastern styles with some breathtaking kimonos and surprising combination of what by now are McQueen signature ingredients: powerful shoulder pads, elongated bodies by means of lowering the waistlines to the upper thighs, shrouded shoulders, swollen hips, magnificent hats and shoes, etc.. . If you are in London, the Tate gallery is simultaneously  exhibiting some photographs on the creation of his "Horn of Plenty" show. It's worth taking a look (and you can take a peek at Tracy Emin's putrid bed  and draw your own conclusions about art, life and depression as a creative force, or something.

The exhibit draws to a conclusion with the last show before his untimely death - he hanged himself  and let's face it, he must have been exhausted living in "his" world and allowed to roam it. "Plato's Atlantis" is about a world submerged by global warming where apparently we have evolved into incredibly chic survivors, drowned but stylish nevertheless. His animal prints and slick designs seem a lot more wearable all of a sudden. His shapes seem to arrive at a resting state, much more edited, hinted.
In conclusion: A show any artist of any discipline would enjoy. A temple to appropriately worship at the (silly or not, your choice) altar of fashion and romantic notions of genius. There is no doubt in my mind that MacQueen was an artist and I took that with me. The rest is frothing, oohing and aahing about how AMQ was "deep" and  general celebitching . Go see it.

On a side note. Another concurrent show at the V&A is called "What is luxury". It was interesting as dessert to reflect on McQueen and the relevance of the superficial, unique, precise and just plain expensive. Here is a lamp made of tiny bronze wires and dandelion seed heads harvested before their dispersion and assembled together with the addition of tiny lights that require a sort of wireless wiring to glow. Fancy. The conclusion of the show seemed to be that the real luxury of our times is TIME itself. Couldn't agree more.

 

Since we were in Chelsea and we were not done celebrating art deities, we decided to get to know that neighborhood in London where summer is a verb, Chelsea and pay a visit/stalk Mr. Sargent's ghost. Chelsea is lovely, a little bubble of everything-is-right-with-the-world. We moxie'd over to see the old digs and studio of boy-genius J.S. Sargent this time. His house on 31-33 Tite St., a stone's throw from the Thames, was surrounded by scaffolding except for number 31. This was the studio. Sargent bought number 33 as his residence but also bought 31 to create his workspace  and he labored here for 25 years until his death.  The street has blue plaques galore including Oscar Wilde's. So I leave this post with me looking smug and fat at Mr. Sargent's door.

31 Tite Street. Sargen'ts studio.

Some amazing portraits at the Huntington.

McEntee's symphony greys harmony conveys his mood after loosing his wife. The landscape as portrait.


Clearly a Vermeer inspired interior. A bit contrived but that light...



Formal and elegant . Love the risk of the brim shade.



I can totally see this woman just barge in a room. German painter active in England. Notice the "bottleneck" shoulders so typical of the period portraiture. Probably didn't have money to add hands.



Sargent. Just plain incredible.


Mr Watts. by Raeburn I think. Again, the light. And the uneasy stuffiness of this character who practically launched the industrial revolution.

They speak for themselves. However, I found it strange that anybody would collect portraits of families not their own. I guess Mr. Huntington was trying to import England wholesale. These are not just nice pictures of anonymous subjects as "figures" but people with clear genealogical roots, names and families. Then again, they are beautiful on their own and some of them were latter acquisitions.