RoR: Forum

This is a sweet picture, but her pose, the tilt of the hip and the angle of the head, make her look uncomfortable.

Post 1

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 12:06pm

Yes, it doesn't look like a comfortable position and that seems strange. Her head doesn't look supported. You can't see exactly where she is looking which diminishes the connection to the parrot. Your eyes move back and forth between the parrot and her face, both of which are far off center, leaving most of the canvas irrelevant. The light colored patch near the top left is a visual distraction. I think the picture was a good idea, but lacking attention to composition. If it had been more of a close-up, with her face and the parrot occupying more of the canvas, we could have had a facial expression that told us more of her mood, her attention, her inner-life.

Post 2

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 1:52pm

I think the connection between the quote and the painting is interesting.

(Edited by Newberry on 3/13, 1:59pm)

Post 3

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 4:06pm

Steve,

You wrote this: "If it had been more of a close-up, with her face and the parrot occupying more of the canvas, we could have had a facial expression that told us more of her mood, her attention, her inner-life."

I sincerely find your opinion on what Courbet should have painted puzzling.

Michael

Post 4

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 5:33pm

I also find Steve W's assessment puzzling. This lovely woman is clearly on some sort of bed. (Some more detail, from a larger-file-size scan, might be helpful, as this version may be unduly dark.)

The display of her body, to me, was meant to show an attitude that extended beyond her face — attentive, focused pleasure about this encounter.

The parrot, no matter what she may have paid for him in a shop, clearly doesn't "belong to her," either. To me she seems to be acknowledging this, as echoed in the quote from Courbet.

Post 5

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 5:46pm

Studying it more, I note that her hair is carefully spread out, as if she were lying there to let it dry after bathing. And that might explain the odd, stiff position of her head, because if she moves her head, she'll disarrange her hair. (For guys not familiar with drying long hair, these are real considerations.)

There is something about the spread of the bird's wings and the spread of her hair, a parallel of some abstract sort. What do you think about comparing how the bird sits on her finger and how tenuously her youth and beauty are possessed by her?

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 3/13, 5:52pm)

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 3/13, 6:39pm)

Post 6

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 7:24pm

Michael,

I was just imagining a different painting... one that would be more interesting to me. It was more an expression of my personal reaction to a painting then criticism or a suggestion for some artist to follow. I am usually drawn to see a facial expression and particularly the eyes. So, in my mind, I had left that particular painting and was talking about another, one in my imagination, one that I might find more engaging.

I'm puzzled that anyone would find that puzzling :-)
----------

Steve R. says, "The parrot, no matter what she may have paid for him in a shop, clearly doesn't "belong to her," either. To me she seems to be acknowledging this, as echoed in the quote from Courbet." That's interesting. Did he relate that quote and this painting? I'm not sure I see it that strongly.

Post 7

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 9:13pm

There is something about the spread of the bird's wings and the spread of her hair, a parallel of some abstract sort. What do you think about comparing how the bird sits on her finger and how tenuously her youth and beauty are possessed by her?

You are so observant, Mindy. I really enjoy how you see things.

Post 8

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 9:18am

Mindy: "What do you think about comparing how the bird sits on her finger and how tenuously her youth and beauty are possessed by her?"

Wow. If I get your meaning, Oscar Wilde has nothing on you. ;)

Post 9

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 9:32am

Steve: "I was just imagining a different painting... one that would be more interesting to me."

Thanks for explaining that. Now I am even more puzzled. I look at art differently...I look for what an artist is showing me.

Michael

Post 10

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 9:37am

In what way, tho, are you intimating that tenuousness of youth and beauty is actually being considered, as opposed to being read into this, that perhaps it is intimating the sense of life of an 'unchanged youth' of freedom and liberty... the spreading of the hair, for instance, need not imply any form of 'shackling' to life's experiences, but rather, like the wings, an openness...

Post 11

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 9:42am

Robert,

I read the painting along your lines as well.

Michael

Post 12

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 11:21pm

The woman and parrot appear to be froze in a moment of time as the parrot lights on her outstretched hand. This may be a display of a person in a very serene state of mind . One of those fleeting moments when 'critters' accept humans as one of there own sort of thing.
Two points of perspective influenced my observation of the painting ,her forehead, and the ankle of her outstretched leg. The light plays on her arm held for the parrot to light There appear to be windows in the obcsure back ground. A very peaceful painting.
One can appreciate the skill of the artist. Exhibiting an experience many have never experienced.

Post 13

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 10:39am

Michael,

You said, "I look for what an artist is showing me."

I, like everyone else, react emotionally to the work first, and then, sometimes, I look at the work from an analytic perspective and ask what am I being shown, what did the artist intend, how did he achieve this or that effect?

But that isn't where my mind stops. Why would someone stop their mind for going past the work they are looking at and wondering what else might have been done? Maybe that's just me.

Post 14

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 11:30am

Harley: "This may be a display of a person in a very serene state of mind . One of those fleeting moments when 'critters' accept humans as one of there own sort of thing."

Enjoyed your perspective on that.

I have a friend with intense analytical mind, but when she walks her dogs out in nature, her normal working personality is replaced with a carefree spontaneous mood--quite a transformation.

Michael

Post 15

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 11:53am

Steve: "...and then, sometimes, I look at the work from an analytic perspective and ask what am I being shown, what did the artist intend, how did he achieve this or that effect?"

I wonder how you would see the painting if you applied this process.

"Why would someone stop their mind for going past the work they are looking at and wondering what else might have been done?"

I can think of positive and negative issues in "going past" the work. Sometimes a teacher does this to help a student improve their skill. But, regarding a master's work, I think there is a great deal more to learn from him than vice versa.

Michael

Post 16

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 12:07pm

Michael,

You speak from the perspective of an artist. When my mind wanders about in the area of art, it is curiosity or momentary interest and I don't expect that to change. Two areas where I have a working professional's level of expertise: psychology and software development - I wouldn't expect you look at piece of software and ask how the architect did what he did, or to examine an individual from a psychologist's perspective.

To label a work the product of a master, and then to apply 'rules' that would make a whimsical observation of how someone could do something similar, but with this or that change, as sacrilegious rubs me wrong. There is a line somewhere that separates respect for a great artist, and creating sacred cows. 'Going past the work,' or engaging in objective study of the work, or making a personal comment on how the work struck one... all seem legitimate and none would seem to preclude the other.

Post 17

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 12:36pm

Steve: "When my mind wanders about in the area of art, it is curiosity or momentary interest and I don't expect that to change."

Then you don't mind that I don't find that too serious?

Michael

Post 18

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 12:46pm

Big thanks to Theresa and Michael Newberry for the compliments. Means a lot.

Robert, if I'm right that her posture involves some awkwardness, and I'd point out that her right arm isn't resting on the couch, while her left arm, raised to meet the bird, is luxuriously graceful, then I think the general notion of some cost to her or limit for her is warranted. I'm having trouble, to tell the truth, deciding the sense-of-life of the picture.

By the way, the whole picture is about 15% larger than shown here; this view is a little truncated.

Post 19

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 12:52pm