#portraits full length

[kentnaturaltribrid]

Ended up bored and drew Agatha, still have nothing left for drawing yet. Still have a few things to finish up for projects, but finally finished up with most of them. Most of the rest of these are smaller projects and have some of the pieces in place, but most of them are still being worked on in a full piece, since there’s still very little time and there’s still lots of room left for other projects that I might be able to finish if there’s still time left for the rest of October .

Happy October!

[roehenstart]

Portrait of Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg, Grand Duchess of Russia. By Alexander Roslin.

[dynasoar5]

painting. ceratopsian mercenary posing with rifle and sword, 2023

[art-portraits]

Portrait of Félicité-Louise de Durfort, Maréchale de Beurnonville

Artist: Merry Joseph Blondel (French, 1781-1853)

Date: 1808

Medium: Oil on Canvas

Collection: Private Collection

Description

Félicité-Louise de Durfort (1782-1870) was the youngest daughter of Count de Durfort, the pre-Revolutionary French Ambassador of France to the Republic of Venice (where died in exile in 1801). She is depicted standing in a simple high-waisted white dress, the splendid cashmere shawl draped over her right arm falling to the ground where the sun streams across it. Her hair is done in the latest fashion, while she is partially shaded by the splendid orange tree against whose large, painted wooden pot she is leaning. To the left we see some steps leading down to a winding path with a distant view of the Château of Balincourt.

[dreamconsumer]

Marguerite d'Anjou, Reine d'Angleterre (1430-1482).

[royalty-nobility]

Queen Charlotte (1744-1818)

Artist: Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727-1788)

Date: c.1781

Medium: Oil on Canvas

Collection: Royal Collection,

Description

When this portrait was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1781, Sir Henry Bate-Dudley praised it as ‘the only happy likeness we ever saw pourtrayed of her Majesty’. Gainsborough had already received commissions from the King’s brothers but the exhibition of these major full lengths proved his pre-eminence as unofficial court painter, ‘the Apollo of the Palace’. A portrait of Prince William, painted in the same year, was followed by the set of 15 ovals of the royal family in 1782. Reynolds commented on Gainsborough’s practice of ‘forming all the parts of the picture together’. Here all the parts have a suggestive delicacy. The Queen’s dress of gold-spangled silk net over white silk, punctuated by tasselled bunches of gold lace, dominates the painting. Its intangible gauze-like effect is echoed by the flowers in the Queen’s powdered hair and in the foliage and sky in the landscape beyond. Famous for capturing an exact likeness, Gainsborough gives the Queen’s unremarkable features latent gaiety and animation as she moves into the light, her dog in step with her. Her regal bearing is reinforced by the height of her elaborately dressed hair, her easy control of her hooped dress and train and the grandeur of the classical temple behind her. James Northcote, Reynolds’s pupil, also praised the portrait: ‘with what a graceful sweep she seems to move through the picture! ’Tis actual motion, and done with such a light airy facility . . . The drapery was done in one night by Gainsborough and his nephew, Gainsborough Dupont; they sat up all night, and painted it by lamplight.’ Although not a State Portrait like that painted by Ramsay in 1761, this full length by Gainsborough has been rightly described as a ‘portrait of grand informality’; it was much copied. George III hung the painting in the Dining Room at Buckingham House, although it was briefly transferred to Windsor in 1804/5.

Note: In an exhibition, The King's Gallery, Palace of Holyroodhouse

[resplendentoutfit]

Anthony van Dyck (Flemish,1599 - 1641) • Lord John Stuart and his Brother, Lord Bernard Stuart • 1638

We want to be underwear models but Mother will not allow us to dial the Time Machine to the 21st century.

[thingsdavidlikes]

The Morning Fire by Roberto Pazzi

[scottishsquirrel]

Diego Velazquez 1599-1660

Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand of Austria, in Hunting Dress 1632-1634 ca.

Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid

[stagefoureddiediaz]

This is becoming the slowest painting in the world, but I am so happy with how the shirt is turning out so I don’t mind the slow progress!!!

This is my contribution to WIP wednesday. Tagging @spotsandsocks @honestlydarkprincess @xxfiction-is-my-realityxx and anyone else who has work they’d like to share 😎

[fideidefenswhore]

"By comparison with numerous ‘workshop’ versions, this rediscovered print from an apparently lost portrait of Anne Boleyn has every appearance of an authentic likeness, with its claim to represent Anne supported by Sir Roy Strong’s Tudor and Jacobean iconography and Eric Ives’s work in establishing a link between the portrait style and the gold and enamel image in the ‘Queen Elizabeth’s ring’, currently held by the Trustees of Chequers. Two copies of the print have so far emerged – one revealing the inscription near the top: ANNA BOLINA UXOR HVIII, perhaps added at a later date, and the other, of lesser quality, showing a little more of the shadowed background to the portrait and of the sitter’s wide black sleeves. It would not appear that the portrait is by Holbein. But in style and pose it does correspond closely to other contemporary female paintings by the German artist, Joos van Cleve, particularly his 1530 portrait of Eleanor, Queen of France (below).

[...] It is further significant that its sitter’s features, unlike those of other ‘workshop’ copies, bear close comparison with the Holbein ‘Anne Boleyn’ drawing in the British Museum, which has been and is still disputed as a likeness. With the ‘Van Cleve’ portrait reversed and the two images set side by side, the lines of forehead, cheek and chin appear virtually identical. The long, narrow jawline – also evident in portraits of Anne’s daughter, Elizabeth, and of her Howard and Carey relatives – is accentuated in the painting by the (invisibly narrow) ribbon which holds the French crépine head-dress in place. The shapes of the nose, mouth and brows, a little flattered in the painting, are essentially similar; while something indefinable in the expression of the dark eyes establishes a common likeness.

Moreover, there are good reasons for supposing that Van Cleve had the opportunity to paint Anne Boleyn in 1532. His well attested portrait of Henry VIII has been dated for the early 1530s and it has been suggested that Van Cleve came to England for the commission. According to the Royal Collection Trust, this portrait ‘may have been painted to commemorate his visit to Calais in 1532’. In fact, it is more likely that the King sat for the artist in Calais or Boulogne during the visit itself; and it follows that a portrait of Anne Boleyn by Van Cleve could also have been undertaken while she was there with him. It is known that Van Cleve was summoned to work at the French court by François I in the early 1530s, and the 32 days Henry and Anne spent in France in the autumn of 1532 would have allowed ample time for preliminary sketches, if not for completed portraits. The question of how a portrait of Anne Boleyn, sketched in 1532 and perhaps completed in time for her coronation in 1533, survived her disgrace and death in 1536, when other images of her were deliberately destroyed, might be explained by the fact that artists were frequently required to undertake multiple versions of royal portraits. Van Cleve was known for his ‘impressive studio organisation and collaboration’, and at least two versions of his portrait of Eleanor of France survive, wearing different costumes and jewellery. There are also two copies of Henry VIII’s portrait by Van Cleve, both of good quality, in the Royal Collection and that of Burghley House. If Anne Boleyn did sit for Van Cleve in Calais, one would expect official versions of the portrait to feature jewellery obtained for her from Katherine of Aragon in time for the French visit; (e.g. the jewelled cross with pendant pearl in Katherine’s miniature by Lucas Horenbout, and worn successively by Anne in her portrait medal of 1534, Queen Jane in the Whitehall Mural and by Catherine Parr in another Horenbout miniature.) Moreover, if the one surviving original portrait of Anne features a symbolically initialled ‘B’ pendant – with B being for Boleyn, rather than A for Anne – it was very possibly ordered by her father, Thomas Boleyn, for his portrait gallery at Hever, where a later copy hangs today. In similar circumstances, Edward Seymour commissioned his own portrait of his sister Jane. Nor is it hard to imagine a plausible chain of ownership for such a survival – from Thomas Boleyn’s death in 1539 – through Anna of Cleves, who gained Hever Castle and its contents as a part of her divorce settlement in 1541 – to her executor, Henry Fitzalan, who had charge of her effects on Anna’s death in 1557 – to his son-in-law, John, Baron Lumley, who inherited Fitzalan’s paintings in 1580 and included a likeness of Anne Boleyn in his inventory of 1590. It is known that Anna of Cleves personally occupied Hever Castle and would have been familiar with its paintings. If she had decided to sell a portrait of her disgraced predecessor by her countryman, Van Cleve – as a notable art collector, her friend Henry Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel would have been an obvious buyer. Alternatively, if she’d left the painting for his disposal as her executor, he’d surely have taken the opportunity to acquire it, having known Anne Boleyn personally and accompanied her to Calais in 1532. On Henry Fitzalan’s death, his art collection was merged with that of his son-in-law and heir, John, Baron Lumley, which a decade later certainly did include a portrait of Anne Boleyn. The fact that the portrait in the Lumley Inventory of 1590 is described as ‘full-length’ would not have made it unusual (Queens Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr were both painted full-length) or incompatible with other commissions for Joos van Cleve’s studio. We now know that the Lumley portrait was cut down at a later date; and if the rediscovered head-and-shoulders print is amalgamated with another three-quarter-length female portrait by Van Cleve (as below), some idea can be gained of how such a painting might originally have appeared."

[roehenstart]

Portrait of Natalia Alexeievna of Russia (1755-1776), wife of Paul I of Russia. By Peter Falconet.

[clarabowlover]

Vera Zorina - 

Beautiful German Dancer and Actress (ca.1930′s)

[art-portraits]

Miss Jeanie Ranken

Artist: Harold Abbott (Australian, 1906-1986)

Date: 1937

Medium: Oil on canvas

Collection: Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Miss Jeanie Ranken

This portrait of Miss Jeanie Ranken was runner up in the 1937 Archibald Prize, receiving the following praise from the Sydney Morning Herald art critic:

"… one of the younger artists has increased his scope and provided an impressive work. This is Harold Abbott's portrait of Miss Jeanie Ranken. The general effect is discriminating, not to say highly discreet. The figure has been displayed as an element in a piece of flat decoration. A parallel with well-known portraits by Whistler is unavoidable. But Mr Abbott's sense of colour is definitely his own. He uses his colours tenderly, yet with a keen sense of accent. The characteristic mien and appearance of the sitter, too, have been calmly and surely conveyed."

Visible on the wall behind the sitter is a small self portrait sketch of the artist painted in 1932 while Abbott was a student at the Royal Academy Schools, London. This self portrait is now in the collection of the National Gallery of Australia.

Miss Ranken was a Sydney journalist. In 1939 she was awarded The Order of the British Empire - Member (Civil).

[dreamconsumer]

Rollo (died in 933), Count of Rouen and first ruler of Normandy.

[triflesandparsnips]

Something something Ed seeks out or is confronted by his own reflections three times in ascending order of violent emotions (the hand mirror, the salver, the knife)--

And we see Stede being painted twice in his old life, not looking at the painter or the painting but at some distant other thing, and then finally seeking to see himself in the third appearance of his portraiture-- only to find he's been painted out.

I wonder if Stede will someday ask to be drawn, and how, and whether he will look at the artist while they work, or the other people in it (if any), and seek out the finished work and be happy to see himself reflected in it.

...and I wonder if Ed will avoid reflections now (remove the mirrors, avert the eyes, but sometimes he'll catch himself in still water and flinch away--) because he knows what he is, he made himself this way, he knows how others see him and he can see it in their eyes without needing any further proof (except what he sees in Stede's eyes doesn't seem to match, so better not look there, fuck, fuck--)

Stede will look so, so hard now, and Ed will look at anything but-- a switch now, from their season 1 selves, lasting, perhaps, until they can finally see themselves -- and each other -- fully.

(And maybe, after that, they'll be able to see themselves together.)