- Add to Favorites
-
Your web browser does not support
Add to Favorites.
Please add the site using your bookmark menu.
The function is available only on Internet Explorer
10Story
|
|
||
|
Portrait of a Venetian woman. Girolamo Forabosco (1604–1679). Probably Padua, circa 1659/1662 |
||
|
|
||
|
The following is the English part of the label accompanying the original displayed in Vienna (emphases added):
‘As the most important portraitist of the Venetian Baroque, Forabosco shows his psychological skills in the intriguing contrast between seemingly fastidious, ceremonial representation, and the rather simple, almost uncertain look of the subject portrayed. The psychological power and ironic distance as well as the light painting method and lively, shimmering application of paint almost point the way towards Goya.’
Does this unknown subject’s ‘rather simple, almost uncertain look’ reveal a similar personality or is this just what a face connotes when no-one knows who owns it? Might not ‘innocent and diffident’ do equally well or badly as a description? What do ‘almost uncertain’, ‘psychological power’ and ‘ironic distance’ actually mean in the context of this picture?
No claim is made that Forabosco has plumbed the depths of his subject’s character, but would it be recognised if he had? If the artist did indeed create a contrast between fussy, formulaic aspects of the picture and the subject’s indefinite look, why this should be intriguing and how it demonstrates his ‘psychological’ skills is far from clear. But if he did not succeed in delving into her character, and perhaps did not even try, why are his skills ‘psychological’ at all? Could interpreters not otherwise maintain Forabosco’s reputation as the most important portraitist of the Venetian Baroque? |
||
| Back | ||
