Portrait of Gertrude Stein

Prompt: How does Portrait of Gertrude Stein explain its Description?

Shortly after meeting Stein in 1905, Picasso began to paint her portrait. According to Stein, the process took "eighty or ninety sittings". She recalled how during one session, when the sittings were nearly coming to an end in the winter, Picasso suddenly painted out the head and irritably said, "I can't see you any longer when I look." The portrait was left in this condition until the following autumn, when Stein returned to Paris. After returning from a trip to Spain, Picasso completed the head without even seeing Stein again. When the portrait was complete, both were content with the finished work. Stein said of the portrait, "I was and I still am satisfied with my portrait, for me, it is I, and it is the only reproduction of me which is always I, for me."Picasso's painting challenged the traditional ideas of portraiture, by depicting the subject as a large, hulking figure who stares blankly across the image, rather than towards the viewer. Her body is a round mass, as she leans forward and leans her arms weightily on her knees. In contrast to the work of Henri Matisse, Picasso uses dark, subdued hues of brown and red, rather than bright colours to portray his subject. Stein's physical details are not depicted realistically – her face has a mask-like appearance, with geometric features. This angular distortion is characteristic of his later Cubist works and is a notable contrast to the rounded, flat rendering of the rest of her body. The portrait's primitive style is inspired perhaps by Picasso's interest in African and Iberian art. The purpose of this was to convey Stein as she really was, and not simply to portray her physical appearance.Alfred H. Barr Jr., Director of the Museum of Modern Art, commented on the significance of the repainting of the head in Stein's portrait.During the period between painting out the portrait's face and painting it in again a change of great importance took place in Picasso's art. The original style of the portrait had been naturalistic, comparatively soft and flat, as you can still see in the costume and background. But the repainted face is in the new style, suggesting a sculptured mask with severely drawn, boldly modeled features, rather like the faces of some ancient Spanish sculptures which Picasso had just seen in the Louvre. This change of style turned out to be of great historic importance for it showed the direction Picasso was to follow step by step until it led to cubism.

Category:Cultural depictions of Gertrude Stein

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Portrait of Gertrude Stein

Prompt: In Portrait of Gertrude Stein, how is the Description discussed?

Shortly after meeting Stein in 1905, Picasso began to paint her portrait. According to Stein, the process took "eighty or ninety sittings". She recalled how during one session, when the sittings were nearly coming to an end in the winter, Picasso suddenly painted out the head and irritably said, "I can't see you any longer when I look." The portrait was left in this condition until the following autumn, when Stein returned to Paris. After returning from a trip to Spain, Picasso completed the head without even seeing Stein again. When the portrait was complete, both were content with the finished work. Stein said of the portrait, "I was and I still am satisfied with my portrait, for me, it is I, and it is the only reproduction of me which is always I, for me."Picasso's painting challenged the traditional ideas of portraiture, by depicting the subject as a large, hulking figure who stares blankly across the image, rather than towards the viewer. Her body is a round mass, as she leans forward and leans her arms weightily on her knees. In contrast to the work of Henri Matisse, Picasso uses dark, subdued hues of brown and red, rather than bright colours to portray his subject. Stein's physical details are not depicted realistically – her face has a mask-like appearance, with geometric features. This angular distortion is characteristic of his later Cubist works and is a notable contrast to the rounded, flat rendering of the rest of her body. The portrait's primitive style is inspired perhaps by Picasso's interest in African and Iberian art. The purpose of this was to convey Stein as she really was, and not simply to portray her physical appearance.Alfred H. Barr Jr., Director of the Museum of Modern Art, commented on the significance of the repainting of the head in Stein's portrait.During the period between painting out the portrait's face and painting it in again a change of great importance took place in Picasso's art. The original style of the portrait had been naturalistic, comparatively soft and flat, as you can still see in the costume and background. But the repainted face is in the new style, suggesting a sculptured mask with severely drawn, boldly modeled features, rather like the faces of some ancient Spanish sculptures which Picasso had just seen in the Louvre. This change of style turned out to be of great historic importance for it showed the direction Picasso was to follow step by step until it led to cubism.

Category:Cultural depictions of Gertrude Stein

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Portrait of Gertrude Stein

Prompt: Focus on Portrait of Gertrude Stein and explain the Significance and legacy.

On the portrait's importance, Alfred H. Barr Jr. remarked that, "Aside from its value as a landmark in modern art, Picasso's painting stands as a powerful characterization of one of the most remarkable and influential American writers of her generation."In 2006, David J. Chalif M.D. remarked on the significance of the painting. "Universally recognized as one of the classic and pivotal works of Picasso's late Rose period, Portrait of Gertrude Stein brilliantly captures the psychological character of one of the great American writers and cultural figures of the last century."In 2015, Jonathan Jones wrote: "Ever since the Renaissance, the portrayal of women had been shaped by ideals of beauty and constrained social roles. Picasso’s Portrait of Gertrude Stein turns all that upside down. Stein has escaped from the confining categories with which western art previously ensnared women. She is neither old nor young, sexual nor submissive – her stone face makes her something new on Earth. She is in command of her identity."

Category:Cultural depictions of Gertrude Stein

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Portrait of Gertrude Stein

Prompt: Explain the Significance and legacy of this artwork, Portrait of Gertrude Stein.

On the portrait's importance, Alfred H. Barr Jr. remarked that, "Aside from its value as a landmark in modern art, Picasso's painting stands as a powerful characterization of one of the most remarkable and influential American writers of her generation."In 2006, David J. Chalif M.D. remarked on the significance of the painting. "Universally recognized as one of the classic and pivotal works of Picasso's late Rose period, Portrait of Gertrude Stein brilliantly captures the psychological character of one of the great American writers and cultural figures of the last century."In 2015, Jonathan Jones wrote: "Ever since the Renaissance, the portrayal of women had been shaped by ideals of beauty and constrained social roles. Picasso’s Portrait of Gertrude Stein turns all that upside down. Stein has escaped from the confining categories with which western art previously ensnared women. She is neither old nor young, sexual nor submissive – her stone face makes her something new on Earth. She is in command of her identity."

Category:Cultural depictions of Gertrude Stein

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Portrait of Gertrude Stein

Prompt: How does Portrait of Gertrude Stein explain its Significance and legacy?

On the portrait's importance, Alfred H. Barr Jr. remarked that, "Aside from its value as a landmark in modern art, Picasso's painting stands as a powerful characterization of one of the most remarkable and influential American writers of her generation."In 2006, David J. Chalif M.D. remarked on the significance of the painting. "Universally recognized as one of the classic and pivotal works of Picasso's late Rose period, Portrait of Gertrude Stein brilliantly captures the psychological character of one of the great American writers and cultural figures of the last century."In 2015, Jonathan Jones wrote: "Ever since the Renaissance, the portrayal of women had been shaped by ideals of beauty and constrained social roles. Picasso’s Portrait of Gertrude Stein turns all that upside down. Stein has escaped from the confining categories with which western art previously ensnared women. She is neither old nor young, sexual nor submissive – her stone face makes her something new on Earth. She is in command of her identity."

Category:Cultural depictions of Gertrude Stein

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Portrait of Gertrude Stein

Prompt: In Portrait of Gertrude Stein, how is the Significance and legacy discussed?

On the portrait's importance, Alfred H. Barr Jr. remarked that, "Aside from its value as a landmark in modern art, Picasso's painting stands as a powerful characterization of one of the most remarkable and influential American writers of her generation."In 2006, David J. Chalif M.D. remarked on the significance of the painting. "Universally recognized as one of the classic and pivotal works of Picasso's late Rose period, Portrait of Gertrude Stein brilliantly captures the psychological character of one of the great American writers and cultural figures of the last century."In 2015, Jonathan Jones wrote: "Ever since the Renaissance, the portrayal of women had been shaped by ideals of beauty and constrained social roles. Picasso’s Portrait of Gertrude Stein turns all that upside down. Stein has escaped from the confining categories with which western art previously ensnared women. She is neither old nor young, sexual nor submissive – her stone face makes her something new on Earth. She is in command of her identity."

Category:Cultural depictions of Gertrude Stein

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: Focus on The Sleeping Gypsy and explain the abstract.

The Sleeping Gypsy  (French: La Bohémienne endormie) is an 1897 oil on canvas painting by the French Naïve artist Henri Rousseau (1844–1910). It is a fantastical depiction of a lion musing over a sleeping woman on a moonlit night.  It is held by the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, to which it was donated by Mrs. Simon Guggenheim in 1939. In the museum, the painting is housed next to Vincent van Gogh's famous painting; The Starry Night.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, The Sleeping Gypsy.

The Sleeping Gypsy  (French: La Bohémienne endormie) is an 1897 oil on canvas painting by the French Naïve artist Henri Rousseau (1844–1910). It is a fantastical depiction of a lion musing over a sleeping woman on a moonlit night.  It is held by the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, to which it was donated by Mrs. Simon Guggenheim in 1939. In the museum, the painting is housed next to Vincent van Gogh's famous painting; The Starry Night.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: How does The Sleeping Gypsy explain its abstract?

The Sleeping Gypsy  (French: La Bohémienne endormie) is an 1897 oil on canvas painting by the French Naïve artist Henri Rousseau (1844–1910). It is a fantastical depiction of a lion musing over a sleeping woman on a moonlit night.  It is held by the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, to which it was donated by Mrs. Simon Guggenheim in 1939. In the museum, the painting is housed next to Vincent van Gogh's famous painting; The Starry Night.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: In The Sleeping Gypsy, how is the abstract discussed?

The Sleeping Gypsy  (French: La Bohémienne endormie) is an 1897 oil on canvas painting by the French Naïve artist Henri Rousseau (1844–1910). It is a fantastical depiction of a lion musing over a sleeping woman on a moonlit night.  It is held by the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, to which it was donated by Mrs. Simon Guggenheim in 1939. In the museum, the painting is housed next to Vincent van Gogh's famous painting; The Starry Night.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: Focus on The Sleeping Gypsy and explain the Description.

Rousseau described his painting as follows: "A wandering Negress, a mandolin player, lies with her jar beside her (a vase with drinking water), overcome by fatigue in a deep sleep. A lion chances to pass by, picks up her scent yet does not devour her. There is a moonlight effect, very poetic. The scene is set in a completely arid desert.  The gypsy is dressed in oriental costume."In the painting, a dark-skinned woman – the Romany gypsy of the title, variously linked in French literature to Bohemia or to Egypt – is sleeping in an arid landscape with mountains in the background, under a dark sky with a few stars and a full moon.  She is wearing a long robe with a rainbow of colourful stripes, perhaps a djellaba or jellabiya, and lies upon a similarly striped cloth.  Her right hand holds a staff, while beside her rests a mandolin and a tall jar with slim neck.  While she continues to lie passively, a maned lion has approached and dips its head to cautiously sniff.  The painting measures 129.5 cm × 200.7 cm (51.0 in × 79.0 in).  Although painted in a naïve manner, with simple shapes and large blocks of colour, the painting may be based on Rousseau's observations of animals at the Jardin des Plantes and of reconstructed colonial villages at the 1889 World's Fair in Paris.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, The Sleeping Gypsy.

Rousseau described his painting as follows: "A wandering Negress, a mandolin player, lies with her jar beside her (a vase with drinking water), overcome by fatigue in a deep sleep. A lion chances to pass by, picks up her scent yet does not devour her. There is a moonlight effect, very poetic. The scene is set in a completely arid desert.  The gypsy is dressed in oriental costume."In the painting, a dark-skinned woman – the Romany gypsy of the title, variously linked in French literature to Bohemia or to Egypt – is sleeping in an arid landscape with mountains in the background, under a dark sky with a few stars and a full moon.  She is wearing a long robe with a rainbow of colourful stripes, perhaps a djellaba or jellabiya, and lies upon a similarly striped cloth.  Her right hand holds a staff, while beside her rests a mandolin and a tall jar with slim neck.  While she continues to lie passively, a maned lion has approached and dips its head to cautiously sniff.  The painting measures 129.5 cm × 200.7 cm (51.0 in × 79.0 in).  Although painted in a naïve manner, with simple shapes and large blocks of colour, the painting may be based on Rousseau's observations of animals at the Jardin des Plantes and of reconstructed colonial villages at the 1889 World's Fair in Paris.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: How does The Sleeping Gypsy explain its Description?

Rousseau described his painting as follows: "A wandering Negress, a mandolin player, lies with her jar beside her (a vase with drinking water), overcome by fatigue in a deep sleep. A lion chances to pass by, picks up her scent yet does not devour her. There is a moonlight effect, very poetic. The scene is set in a completely arid desert.  The gypsy is dressed in oriental costume."In the painting, a dark-skinned woman – the Romany gypsy of the title, variously linked in French literature to Bohemia or to Egypt – is sleeping in an arid landscape with mountains in the background, under a dark sky with a few stars and a full moon.  She is wearing a long robe with a rainbow of colourful stripes, perhaps a djellaba or jellabiya, and lies upon a similarly striped cloth.  Her right hand holds a staff, while beside her rests a mandolin and a tall jar with slim neck.  While she continues to lie passively, a maned lion has approached and dips its head to cautiously sniff.  The painting measures 129.5 cm × 200.7 cm (51.0 in × 79.0 in).  Although painted in a naïve manner, with simple shapes and large blocks of colour, the painting may be based on Rousseau's observations of animals at the Jardin des Plantes and of reconstructed colonial villages at the 1889 World's Fair in Paris.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: In The Sleeping Gypsy, how is the Description discussed?

Rousseau described his painting as follows: "A wandering Negress, a mandolin player, lies with her jar beside her (a vase with drinking water), overcome by fatigue in a deep sleep. A lion chances to pass by, picks up her scent yet does not devour her. There is a moonlight effect, very poetic. The scene is set in a completely arid desert.  The gypsy is dressed in oriental costume."In the painting, a dark-skinned woman – the Romany gypsy of the title, variously linked in French literature to Bohemia or to Egypt – is sleeping in an arid landscape with mountains in the background, under a dark sky with a few stars and a full moon.  She is wearing a long robe with a rainbow of colourful stripes, perhaps a djellaba or jellabiya, and lies upon a similarly striped cloth.  Her right hand holds a staff, while beside her rests a mandolin and a tall jar with slim neck.  While she continues to lie passively, a maned lion has approached and dips its head to cautiously sniff.  The painting measures 129.5 cm × 200.7 cm (51.0 in × 79.0 in).  Although painted in a naïve manner, with simple shapes and large blocks of colour, the painting may be based on Rousseau's observations of animals at the Jardin des Plantes and of reconstructed colonial villages at the 1889 World's Fair in Paris.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: Focus on The Sleeping Gypsy and explain the Provenance.

Rousseau first exhibited the painting at the 13th Salon des Indépendants in 1897, and tried unsuccessfully to sell it to the mayor of his hometown, Laval. Instead, it entered the private collection of a Parisian charcoal merchant where it remained until 1924, when it was discovered and bought by the art critic Louis Vauxcelles.  The Paris-based art dealer Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler purchased the painting in 1924, although a controversy arose over whether the painting was a forgery. It was acquired by art historian Alfred H. Barr Jr. for the New York Museum of Modern Art.It was bought by John Quinn in 1924, and after his death later that year his estate sold at Hôtel Drouot to Henri Bing, who sold to Mme Emma Ruckstuhl of Küssnacht in Switzerland.  She sold to  Mrs. Simon Guggenheim  in December 1939, who donated it to the Museum of Modern Art. The painting also became the subject of a Between the Lions episode, in which the cubs try to tell their own stories based on the painting. In the episode, the mandolin was misreferred to several times as a lute.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: Explain the Provenance of this artwork, The Sleeping Gypsy.

Rousseau first exhibited the painting at the 13th Salon des Indépendants in 1897, and tried unsuccessfully to sell it to the mayor of his hometown, Laval. Instead, it entered the private collection of a Parisian charcoal merchant where it remained until 1924, when it was discovered and bought by the art critic Louis Vauxcelles.  The Paris-based art dealer Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler purchased the painting in 1924, although a controversy arose over whether the painting was a forgery. It was acquired by art historian Alfred H. Barr Jr. for the New York Museum of Modern Art.It was bought by John Quinn in 1924, and after his death later that year his estate sold at Hôtel Drouot to Henri Bing, who sold to Mme Emma Ruckstuhl of Küssnacht in Switzerland.  She sold to  Mrs. Simon Guggenheim  in December 1939, who donated it to the Museum of Modern Art. The painting also became the subject of a Between the Lions episode, in which the cubs try to tell their own stories based on the painting. In the episode, the mandolin was misreferred to several times as a lute.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: How does The Sleeping Gypsy explain its Provenance?

Rousseau first exhibited the painting at the 13th Salon des Indépendants in 1897, and tried unsuccessfully to sell it to the mayor of his hometown, Laval. Instead, it entered the private collection of a Parisian charcoal merchant where it remained until 1924, when it was discovered and bought by the art critic Louis Vauxcelles.  The Paris-based art dealer Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler purchased the painting in 1924, although a controversy arose over whether the painting was a forgery. It was acquired by art historian Alfred H. Barr Jr. for the New York Museum of Modern Art.It was bought by John Quinn in 1924, and after his death later that year his estate sold at Hôtel Drouot to Henri Bing, who sold to Mme Emma Ruckstuhl of Küssnacht in Switzerland.  She sold to  Mrs. Simon Guggenheim  in December 1939, who donated it to the Museum of Modern Art. The painting also became the subject of a Between the Lions episode, in which the cubs try to tell their own stories based on the painting. In the episode, the mandolin was misreferred to several times as a lute.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


The Sleeping Gypsy

Prompt: In The Sleeping Gypsy, how is the Provenance discussed?

Rousseau first exhibited the painting at the 13th Salon des Indépendants in 1897, and tried unsuccessfully to sell it to the mayor of his hometown, Laval. Instead, it entered the private collection of a Parisian charcoal merchant where it remained until 1924, when it was discovered and bought by the art critic Louis Vauxcelles.  The Paris-based art dealer Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler purchased the painting in 1924, although a controversy arose over whether the painting was a forgery. It was acquired by art historian Alfred H. Barr Jr. for the New York Museum of Modern Art.It was bought by John Quinn in 1924, and after his death later that year his estate sold at Hôtel Drouot to Henri Bing, who sold to Mme Emma Ruckstuhl of Küssnacht in Switzerland.  She sold to  Mrs. Simon Guggenheim  in December 1939, who donated it to the Museum of Modern Art. The painting also became the subject of a Between the Lions episode, in which the cubs try to tell their own stories based on the painting. In the episode, the mandolin was misreferred to several times as a lute.

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City)


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: Focus on Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon and explain the abstract.

Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon (or Portrait of a Man with a Blue Hood, earlier Portrait of a Jeweller or Man with a Ring) is a very small (22.5 cm x 16.6 cm with frame) oil on panel portrait of an unidentified man attributed to the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck.The painting was commissioned and completed sometime around 1430. It contains a number of elements typical of van Eyck's secular portraits, including a slightly oversized head, a dark and flat background, forensic attention to the small details and textures of the man's face, and illusionistic devices. Artists did not give titles to their works during the Northern Renaissance period, and as with any portrait of a sitter whose identity is lost, the painting has attracted generic titles over the years. It had long been thought that the ring held in the man's right hand was meant as an indication of his profession as a jeweller or goldsmith and so the painting was long titled on variants of such. More recently the ring is interpreted as an emblem of betrothal and the titles given by various art historians and publications since are usually more descriptive of the colour or form of the headdress.The painting was attributed to van Eyck in the late 19th century, but this was repeatedly challenged by some art historians until a 1991 cleaning when infrared photography revealed an underdrawing and methods of handling of oil that were unmistakably van Eyck's.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon.

Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon (or Portrait of a Man with a Blue Hood, earlier Portrait of a Jeweller or Man with a Ring) is a very small (22.5 cm x 16.6 cm with frame) oil on panel portrait of an unidentified man attributed to the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck.The painting was commissioned and completed sometime around 1430. It contains a number of elements typical of van Eyck's secular portraits, including a slightly oversized head, a dark and flat background, forensic attention to the small details and textures of the man's face, and illusionistic devices. Artists did not give titles to their works during the Northern Renaissance period, and as with any portrait of a sitter whose identity is lost, the painting has attracted generic titles over the years. It had long been thought that the ring held in the man's right hand was meant as an indication of his profession as a jeweller or goldsmith and so the painting was long titled on variants of such. More recently the ring is interpreted as an emblem of betrothal and the titles given by various art historians and publications since are usually more descriptive of the colour or form of the headdress.The painting was attributed to van Eyck in the late 19th century, but this was repeatedly challenged by some art historians until a 1991 cleaning when infrared photography revealed an underdrawing and methods of handling of oil that were unmistakably van Eyck's.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: How does Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon explain its abstract?

Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon (or Portrait of a Man with a Blue Hood, earlier Portrait of a Jeweller or Man with a Ring) is a very small (22.5 cm x 16.6 cm with frame) oil on panel portrait of an unidentified man attributed to the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck.The painting was commissioned and completed sometime around 1430. It contains a number of elements typical of van Eyck's secular portraits, including a slightly oversized head, a dark and flat background, forensic attention to the small details and textures of the man's face, and illusionistic devices. Artists did not give titles to their works during the Northern Renaissance period, and as with any portrait of a sitter whose identity is lost, the painting has attracted generic titles over the years. It had long been thought that the ring held in the man's right hand was meant as an indication of his profession as a jeweller or goldsmith and so the painting was long titled on variants of such. More recently the ring is interpreted as an emblem of betrothal and the titles given by various art historians and publications since are usually more descriptive of the colour or form of the headdress.The painting was attributed to van Eyck in the late 19th century, but this was repeatedly challenged by some art historians until a 1991 cleaning when infrared photography revealed an underdrawing and methods of handling of oil that were unmistakably van Eyck's.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: In Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon, how is the abstract discussed?

Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon (or Portrait of a Man with a Blue Hood, earlier Portrait of a Jeweller or Man with a Ring) is a very small (22.5 cm x 16.6 cm with frame) oil on panel portrait of an unidentified man attributed to the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck.The painting was commissioned and completed sometime around 1430. It contains a number of elements typical of van Eyck's secular portraits, including a slightly oversized head, a dark and flat background, forensic attention to the small details and textures of the man's face, and illusionistic devices. Artists did not give titles to their works during the Northern Renaissance period, and as with any portrait of a sitter whose identity is lost, the painting has attracted generic titles over the years. It had long been thought that the ring held in the man's right hand was meant as an indication of his profession as a jeweller or goldsmith and so the painting was long titled on variants of such. More recently the ring is interpreted as an emblem of betrothal and the titles given by various art historians and publications since are usually more descriptive of the colour or form of the headdress.The painting was attributed to van Eyck in the late 19th century, but this was repeatedly challenged by some art historians until a 1991 cleaning when infrared photography revealed an underdrawing and methods of handling of oil that were unmistakably van Eyck's.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: Focus on Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon and explain the Description.

The man is shown in three-quarters view with his face dramatically lit by light falling from the left. This device provides striking contrasts of light and shadow and draws the viewer's attention on to the man's face. He has brown eyes, and while his expression is impassive there are traces of melancholy, especially in the down-turn of his mouth. He is obviously a member of the nobility, being very well dressed in a fur lined brown jacket over a black undervest. His headdress, a chaperon, contains two wings which hang down over the man's shoulders and extend to his chest. The edges of the cloth are given a shredded look at the edges of their trains. The hood is brightly and dramatically coloured using a pigment, ultramarine, extracted from the expensive lapis lazuli gemstone to give it its bright, intense hue. The headdress is of a similar but less extravagant type to that seen in van Eyck's c. 1433 Portrait of a Man, and worn by a figure in the distance in his c. 1435 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin. This type of headdress was to go out of fashion by the mid-1430s, conveniently and definitively dating the painting as having been completed before then.It is not known if the ring held in his right hand is intended to indicate that the sitter was a jeweller or goldsmith – as had been previously thought until Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the mid century – or that the painting was commissioned as a betrothal portrait to mark a proposal of marriage intended for an unseen bride and her family. This latter theory is supported by the panel's near miniature dimensions; such a small size would have been easily packed and transported to the intended's family.He has a light beard of one or two days' growth, a common feature in other of van Eyck's male portraits, where the sitter is often either unshaven, or according to Lorne Campbell of the National Gallery, London, "rather inefficiently shaved". Art historian Till-Holger Borchert praises van Eyck's recording of the man's stubble "with painstaking precision; nothing is idealised." Yet it is interesting to consider such an idealised portrait in the context of a betrothal portrait, where the intended bride's family most likely had not met the man and are dependent solely on the portrait for an indication of his means and character. Carol Richardson observes that the unidealised representation would have been a significant novelty and shock at the time, and that, complete with the evident skill of the painter, the verisimilitude would have given the sitter weight and creditability.The panel contains two illusionistic passages; the ring and his right hand appear to project out of the painting, while the minutely described fingers of his left hand seem to lie on a parapet positioned on what would have been the lower border of the original—but now lost—frame.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon.

The man is shown in three-quarters view with his face dramatically lit by light falling from the left. This device provides striking contrasts of light and shadow and draws the viewer's attention on to the man's face. He has brown eyes, and while his expression is impassive there are traces of melancholy, especially in the down-turn of his mouth. He is obviously a member of the nobility, being very well dressed in a fur lined brown jacket over a black undervest. His headdress, a chaperon, contains two wings which hang down over the man's shoulders and extend to his chest. The edges of the cloth are given a shredded look at the edges of their trains. The hood is brightly and dramatically coloured using a pigment, ultramarine, extracted from the expensive lapis lazuli gemstone to give it its bright, intense hue. The headdress is of a similar but less extravagant type to that seen in van Eyck's c. 1433 Portrait of a Man, and worn by a figure in the distance in his c. 1435 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin. This type of headdress was to go out of fashion by the mid-1430s, conveniently and definitively dating the painting as having been completed before then.It is not known if the ring held in his right hand is intended to indicate that the sitter was a jeweller or goldsmith – as had been previously thought until Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the mid century – or that the painting was commissioned as a betrothal portrait to mark a proposal of marriage intended for an unseen bride and her family. This latter theory is supported by the panel's near miniature dimensions; such a small size would have been easily packed and transported to the intended's family.He has a light beard of one or two days' growth, a common feature in other of van Eyck's male portraits, where the sitter is often either unshaven, or according to Lorne Campbell of the National Gallery, London, "rather inefficiently shaved". Art historian Till-Holger Borchert praises van Eyck's recording of the man's stubble "with painstaking precision; nothing is idealised." Yet it is interesting to consider such an idealised portrait in the context of a betrothal portrait, where the intended bride's family most likely had not met the man and are dependent solely on the portrait for an indication of his means and character. Carol Richardson observes that the unidealised representation would have been a significant novelty and shock at the time, and that, complete with the evident skill of the painter, the verisimilitude would have given the sitter weight and creditability.The panel contains two illusionistic passages; the ring and his right hand appear to project out of the painting, while the minutely described fingers of his left hand seem to lie on a parapet positioned on what would have been the lower border of the original—but now lost—frame.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: How does Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon explain its Description?

The man is shown in three-quarters view with his face dramatically lit by light falling from the left. This device provides striking contrasts of light and shadow and draws the viewer's attention on to the man's face. He has brown eyes, and while his expression is impassive there are traces of melancholy, especially in the down-turn of his mouth. He is obviously a member of the nobility, being very well dressed in a fur lined brown jacket over a black undervest. His headdress, a chaperon, contains two wings which hang down over the man's shoulders and extend to his chest. The edges of the cloth are given a shredded look at the edges of their trains. The hood is brightly and dramatically coloured using a pigment, ultramarine, extracted from the expensive lapis lazuli gemstone to give it its bright, intense hue. The headdress is of a similar but less extravagant type to that seen in van Eyck's c. 1433 Portrait of a Man, and worn by a figure in the distance in his c. 1435 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin. This type of headdress was to go out of fashion by the mid-1430s, conveniently and definitively dating the painting as having been completed before then.It is not known if the ring held in his right hand is intended to indicate that the sitter was a jeweller or goldsmith – as had been previously thought until Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the mid century – or that the painting was commissioned as a betrothal portrait to mark a proposal of marriage intended for an unseen bride and her family. This latter theory is supported by the panel's near miniature dimensions; such a small size would have been easily packed and transported to the intended's family.He has a light beard of one or two days' growth, a common feature in other of van Eyck's male portraits, where the sitter is often either unshaven, or according to Lorne Campbell of the National Gallery, London, "rather inefficiently shaved". Art historian Till-Holger Borchert praises van Eyck's recording of the man's stubble "with painstaking precision; nothing is idealised." Yet it is interesting to consider such an idealised portrait in the context of a betrothal portrait, where the intended bride's family most likely had not met the man and are dependent solely on the portrait for an indication of his means and character. Carol Richardson observes that the unidealised representation would have been a significant novelty and shock at the time, and that, complete with the evident skill of the painter, the verisimilitude would have given the sitter weight and creditability.The panel contains two illusionistic passages; the ring and his right hand appear to project out of the painting, while the minutely described fingers of his left hand seem to lie on a parapet positioned on what would have been the lower border of the original—but now lost—frame.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: In Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon, how is the Description discussed?

The man is shown in three-quarters view with his face dramatically lit by light falling from the left. This device provides striking contrasts of light and shadow and draws the viewer's attention on to the man's face. He has brown eyes, and while his expression is impassive there are traces of melancholy, especially in the down-turn of his mouth. He is obviously a member of the nobility, being very well dressed in a fur lined brown jacket over a black undervest. His headdress, a chaperon, contains two wings which hang down over the man's shoulders and extend to his chest. The edges of the cloth are given a shredded look at the edges of their trains. The hood is brightly and dramatically coloured using a pigment, ultramarine, extracted from the expensive lapis lazuli gemstone to give it its bright, intense hue. The headdress is of a similar but less extravagant type to that seen in van Eyck's c. 1433 Portrait of a Man, and worn by a figure in the distance in his c. 1435 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin. This type of headdress was to go out of fashion by the mid-1430s, conveniently and definitively dating the painting as having been completed before then.It is not known if the ring held in his right hand is intended to indicate that the sitter was a jeweller or goldsmith – as had been previously thought until Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the mid century – or that the painting was commissioned as a betrothal portrait to mark a proposal of marriage intended for an unseen bride and her family. This latter theory is supported by the panel's near miniature dimensions; such a small size would have been easily packed and transported to the intended's family.He has a light beard of one or two days' growth, a common feature in other of van Eyck's male portraits, where the sitter is often either unshaven, or according to Lorne Campbell of the National Gallery, London, "rather inefficiently shaved". Art historian Till-Holger Borchert praises van Eyck's recording of the man's stubble "with painstaking precision; nothing is idealised." Yet it is interesting to consider such an idealised portrait in the context of a betrothal portrait, where the intended bride's family most likely had not met the man and are dependent solely on the portrait for an indication of his means and character. Carol Richardson observes that the unidealised representation would have been a significant novelty and shock at the time, and that, complete with the evident skill of the painter, the verisimilitude would have given the sitter weight and creditability.The panel contains two illusionistic passages; the ring and his right hand appear to project out of the painting, while the minutely described fingers of his left hand seem to lie on a parapet positioned on what would have been the lower border of the original—but now lost—frame.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: Focus on Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon and explain the Attribution.

The painting is not signed or dated by van Eyck. Curiously the panel bears an imitation of the "AD" signature associated with Albrecht Dürer to the top right, and was for a period dated 1492. These are later additions by an unknown hand for unknown reasons. The work was given its current attribution in the late 19th century and exhibited as such in Bruges in 1902. However, there were disagreements and often heated arguments among art historians in the early and mid-20th century over the authorship. Max J. Friedländer, like Georges Hulin de Loo, was convinced that it was a van Eyck; among other factors he saw a lot of similarity with the signed and dated London Léal Souvenir of c. 1432. Friedländer strongly and at length refuted claims by German art historian Karl Voll that the panel was completed in the 1490s by a follower. Although Voll later came to believe that work originated in the early 1430s, he remained convinced that it was not from the hand of van Eyck. His view was shared, some 30 years later, by Panofsky, who saw weakness in the portrait he believed irreconcilable with as skilled and accomplished a painter.Attribution to van Eyck is now broadly accepted since an infrared photography examination carried out during a 1991 restoration revealed an underdrawing and paint handling very similar to that found in confirmed, signed works by the artist.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: Explain the Attribution of this artwork, Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon.

The painting is not signed or dated by van Eyck. Curiously the panel bears an imitation of the "AD" signature associated with Albrecht Dürer to the top right, and was for a period dated 1492. These are later additions by an unknown hand for unknown reasons. The work was given its current attribution in the late 19th century and exhibited as such in Bruges in 1902. However, there were disagreements and often heated arguments among art historians in the early and mid-20th century over the authorship. Max J. Friedländer, like Georges Hulin de Loo, was convinced that it was a van Eyck; among other factors he saw a lot of similarity with the signed and dated London Léal Souvenir of c. 1432. Friedländer strongly and at length refuted claims by German art historian Karl Voll that the panel was completed in the 1490s by a follower. Although Voll later came to believe that work originated in the early 1430s, he remained convinced that it was not from the hand of van Eyck. His view was shared, some 30 years later, by Panofsky, who saw weakness in the portrait he believed irreconcilable with as skilled and accomplished a painter.Attribution to van Eyck is now broadly accepted since an infrared photography examination carried out during a 1991 restoration revealed an underdrawing and paint handling very similar to that found in confirmed, signed works by the artist.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: How does Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon explain its Attribution?

The painting is not signed or dated by van Eyck. Curiously the panel bears an imitation of the "AD" signature associated with Albrecht Dürer to the top right, and was for a period dated 1492. These are later additions by an unknown hand for unknown reasons. The work was given its current attribution in the late 19th century and exhibited as such in Bruges in 1902. However, there were disagreements and often heated arguments among art historians in the early and mid-20th century over the authorship. Max J. Friedländer, like Georges Hulin de Loo, was convinced that it was a van Eyck; among other factors he saw a lot of similarity with the signed and dated London Léal Souvenir of c. 1432. Friedländer strongly and at length refuted claims by German art historian Karl Voll that the panel was completed in the 1490s by a follower. Although Voll later came to believe that work originated in the early 1430s, he remained convinced that it was not from the hand of van Eyck. His view was shared, some 30 years later, by Panofsky, who saw weakness in the portrait he believed irreconcilable with as skilled and accomplished a painter.Attribution to van Eyck is now broadly accepted since an infrared photography examination carried out during a 1991 restoration revealed an underdrawing and paint handling very similar to that found in confirmed, signed works by the artist.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: In Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon, how is the Attribution discussed?

The painting is not signed or dated by van Eyck. Curiously the panel bears an imitation of the "AD" signature associated with Albrecht Dürer to the top right, and was for a period dated 1492. These are later additions by an unknown hand for unknown reasons. The work was given its current attribution in the late 19th century and exhibited as such in Bruges in 1902. However, there were disagreements and often heated arguments among art historians in the early and mid-20th century over the authorship. Max J. Friedländer, like Georges Hulin de Loo, was convinced that it was a van Eyck; among other factors he saw a lot of similarity with the signed and dated London Léal Souvenir of c. 1432. Friedländer strongly and at length refuted claims by German art historian Karl Voll that the panel was completed in the 1490s by a follower. Although Voll later came to believe that work originated in the early 1430s, he remained convinced that it was not from the hand of van Eyck. His view was shared, some 30 years later, by Panofsky, who saw weakness in the portrait he believed irreconcilable with as skilled and accomplished a painter.Attribution to van Eyck is now broadly accepted since an infrared photography examination carried out during a 1991 restoration revealed an underdrawing and paint handling very similar to that found in confirmed, signed works by the artist.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: In the context of Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon, explain the Provenance and the Attribution.

The painting came into the collection of Samuel von Brukenthal (1721-1803), Habsburg governor of Transylvania from 1774 to 1787.  Along with the rest of his collection at his Baroque house, Brukenthal Palace in Hermannstadt (Sibiu), it became part of a public collection that opened in 1817.  Until 1948, the panel belonged to the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu, Romania. That year, the new Communist regime seized the panel, along with eighteen others it considered the museum's most valuable holdings, and gave it to the National Museum of Art of Romania in Bucharest. At the end of 2006, in time for Sibiu's stint as European Capital of Culture, the works were returned to the Brukenthal Museum.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: Explain the Provenance about the Attribution of this artwork, Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon.

The painting came into the collection of Samuel von Brukenthal (1721-1803), Habsburg governor of Transylvania from 1774 to 1787.  Along with the rest of his collection at his Baroque house, Brukenthal Palace in Hermannstadt (Sibiu), it became part of a public collection that opened in 1817.  Until 1948, the panel belonged to the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu, Romania. That year, the new Communist regime seized the panel, along with eighteen others it considered the museum's most valuable holdings, and gave it to the National Museum of Art of Romania in Bucharest. At the end of 2006, in time for Sibiu's stint as European Capital of Culture, the works were returned to the Brukenthal Museum.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: In Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon, how is the Provenance of the Attribution explained?

The painting came into the collection of Samuel von Brukenthal (1721-1803), Habsburg governor of Transylvania from 1774 to 1787.  Along with the rest of his collection at his Baroque house, Brukenthal Palace in Hermannstadt (Sibiu), it became part of a public collection that opened in 1817.  Until 1948, the panel belonged to the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu, Romania. That year, the new Communist regime seized the panel, along with eighteen others it considered the museum's most valuable holdings, and gave it to the National Museum of Art of Romania in Bucharest. At the end of 2006, in time for Sibiu's stint as European Capital of Culture, the works were returned to the Brukenthal Museum.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Provenance in Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon's Attribution.

The painting came into the collection of Samuel von Brukenthal (1721-1803), Habsburg governor of Transylvania from 1774 to 1787.  Along with the rest of his collection at his Baroque house, Brukenthal Palace in Hermannstadt (Sibiu), it became part of a public collection that opened in 1817.  Until 1948, the panel belonged to the Brukenthal National Museum in Sibiu, Romania. That year, the new Communist regime seized the panel, along with eighteen others it considered the museum's most valuable holdings, and gave it to the National Museum of Art of Romania in Bucharest. At the end of 2006, in time for Sibiu's stint as European Capital of Culture, the works were returned to the Brukenthal Museum.

File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

The portrait on a 1966 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Romania


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Focus on Diana and Her Companions and explain the abstract.

Diana and Her Companions (Dutch: Diana en haar Nimfen or Diana en haar gezellinnen) is a painting by Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer completed in the early to mid-1650s, now at the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague. Although the exact year is unknown, the work may be the earliest painting of the artist still extant, with some art historians placing it before Christ in the House of Martha and Mary and some after.The painting's solemn mood is unusual for a scene depicting the goddess Diana, and the nymph washing the central figure's feet has captured the attention of critics and historians, both for her activity and contemporary clothing. Rather than directly illustrating one of the dramatic moments in well-known episodes from myths about Diana, the scene shows a woman and her attendants quietly at her toilette. The theme of a woman in a private, reflective  moment would grow stronger in Vermeer's paintings as his career progressed.Nothing of the work's history before the mid-19th century is known, and the painting was not widely accepted as one of Vermeer's until the early 20th century, when its similarities with Mary and Martha were noticed. About one ninth of the painting's width has been removed from the right side, and it was not discovered  until 1999 or 2000 was that the sky in the upper right-hand corner had been added in the 19th century.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Diana and Her Companions.

Diana and Her Companions (Dutch: Diana en haar Nimfen or Diana en haar gezellinnen) is a painting by Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer completed in the early to mid-1650s, now at the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague. Although the exact year is unknown, the work may be the earliest painting of the artist still extant, with some art historians placing it before Christ in the House of Martha and Mary and some after.The painting's solemn mood is unusual for a scene depicting the goddess Diana, and the nymph washing the central figure's feet has captured the attention of critics and historians, both for her activity and contemporary clothing. Rather than directly illustrating one of the dramatic moments in well-known episodes from myths about Diana, the scene shows a woman and her attendants quietly at her toilette. The theme of a woman in a private, reflective  moment would grow stronger in Vermeer's paintings as his career progressed.Nothing of the work's history before the mid-19th century is known, and the painting was not widely accepted as one of Vermeer's until the early 20th century, when its similarities with Mary and Martha were noticed. About one ninth of the painting's width has been removed from the right side, and it was not discovered  until 1999 or 2000 was that the sky in the upper right-hand corner had been added in the 19th century.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: How does Diana and Her Companions explain its abstract?

Diana and Her Companions (Dutch: Diana en haar Nimfen or Diana en haar gezellinnen) is a painting by Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer completed in the early to mid-1650s, now at the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague. Although the exact year is unknown, the work may be the earliest painting of the artist still extant, with some art historians placing it before Christ in the House of Martha and Mary and some after.The painting's solemn mood is unusual for a scene depicting the goddess Diana, and the nymph washing the central figure's feet has captured the attention of critics and historians, both for her activity and contemporary clothing. Rather than directly illustrating one of the dramatic moments in well-known episodes from myths about Diana, the scene shows a woman and her attendants quietly at her toilette. The theme of a woman in a private, reflective  moment would grow stronger in Vermeer's paintings as his career progressed.Nothing of the work's history before the mid-19th century is known, and the painting was not widely accepted as one of Vermeer's until the early 20th century, when its similarities with Mary and Martha were noticed. About one ninth of the painting's width has been removed from the right side, and it was not discovered  until 1999 or 2000 was that the sky in the upper right-hand corner had been added in the 19th century.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: In Diana and Her Companions, how is the abstract discussed?

Diana and Her Companions (Dutch: Diana en haar Nimfen or Diana en haar gezellinnen) is a painting by Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer completed in the early to mid-1650s, now at the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague. Although the exact year is unknown, the work may be the earliest painting of the artist still extant, with some art historians placing it before Christ in the House of Martha and Mary and some after.The painting's solemn mood is unusual for a scene depicting the goddess Diana, and the nymph washing the central figure's feet has captured the attention of critics and historians, both for her activity and contemporary clothing. Rather than directly illustrating one of the dramatic moments in well-known episodes from myths about Diana, the scene shows a woman and her attendants quietly at her toilette. The theme of a woman in a private, reflective  moment would grow stronger in Vermeer's paintings as his career progressed.Nothing of the work's history before the mid-19th century is known, and the painting was not widely accepted as one of Vermeer's until the early 20th century, when its similarities with Mary and Martha were noticed. About one ninth of the painting's width has been removed from the right side, and it was not discovered  until 1999 or 2000 was that the sky in the upper right-hand corner had been added in the 19th century.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: In the context of Diana and Her Companions, explain the The scene and the Description.

The painting depicts the Greek and Roman goddess Diana ("Artemis" in Ancient Greece) with four of her companions. She wears a loose fitting, yellow dress with an animal-skin sash and, on her head, a diadem with a symbol of the crescent moon. As she sits on a rock, a nymph washes her left foot. Another, behind Diana, sits with her partially bare back to the viewer (the most skin Vermeer shows on a figure in any of his extant paintings), a third nymph, sitting at Diana's left, holds her own left foot with her right hand. A fourth stands in the rear, somewhat apart from the rest of the group and facing them and the viewer at an angle, her eyes cast down, her fists in front of her. A dog sits in the lower left-hand corner near Diana, its back to the viewer as it faces the goddess, her attendants and, immediately in front of it, a thistle.Except for the woman whose face is completely turned away from the viewer, all of the other faces in the painting are to one degree or another in shadow, including that of the dog. None of the women look at each other, each seemingly absorbed in their own thoughts, a fact which contributes to the solemn mood of the piece.In 1999-2000, when the painting underwent restoration work and was cleaned, it was discovered that an area of blue sky in the upper right corner had been added in the 19th century. Numerous reproductions up to that time had included the blue sky. Restorers covered over the patch with foliage to approximate the original image. The canvas had also been trimmed, particularly on the right, where about 15 cm was removed. Descriptions of the scene being in a "woodland glade" or "near the edge of a wood" may rely heavily on the patch of sky erroneously thought to be original to the painting, although light without shadows does fall on the scene from above and to the left, with short shadows forming to the viewer's right. The observation that the scene appeared to be taking place in "the gathering dusk" may have been influenced by the lighter, but darkening patch of sky contrasted sharply with the dark mass of foliage in the background of the painting, together with the shadows on all the visible faces.The painting is signed on the lower left, on the rock between the thistle and the dog.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Explain the The scene about the Description of this artwork, Diana and Her Companions.

The painting depicts the Greek and Roman goddess Diana ("Artemis" in Ancient Greece) with four of her companions. She wears a loose fitting, yellow dress with an animal-skin sash and, on her head, a diadem with a symbol of the crescent moon. As she sits on a rock, a nymph washes her left foot. Another, behind Diana, sits with her partially bare back to the viewer (the most skin Vermeer shows on a figure in any of his extant paintings), a third nymph, sitting at Diana's left, holds her own left foot with her right hand. A fourth stands in the rear, somewhat apart from the rest of the group and facing them and the viewer at an angle, her eyes cast down, her fists in front of her. A dog sits in the lower left-hand corner near Diana, its back to the viewer as it faces the goddess, her attendants and, immediately in front of it, a thistle.Except for the woman whose face is completely turned away from the viewer, all of the other faces in the painting are to one degree or another in shadow, including that of the dog. None of the women look at each other, each seemingly absorbed in their own thoughts, a fact which contributes to the solemn mood of the piece.In 1999-2000, when the painting underwent restoration work and was cleaned, it was discovered that an area of blue sky in the upper right corner had been added in the 19th century. Numerous reproductions up to that time had included the blue sky. Restorers covered over the patch with foliage to approximate the original image. The canvas had also been trimmed, particularly on the right, where about 15 cm was removed. Descriptions of the scene being in a "woodland glade" or "near the edge of a wood" may rely heavily on the patch of sky erroneously thought to be original to the painting, although light without shadows does fall on the scene from above and to the left, with short shadows forming to the viewer's right. The observation that the scene appeared to be taking place in "the gathering dusk" may have been influenced by the lighter, but darkening patch of sky contrasted sharply with the dark mass of foliage in the background of the painting, together with the shadows on all the visible faces.The painting is signed on the lower left, on the rock between the thistle and the dog.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: In Diana and Her Companions, how is the The scene of the Description explained?

The painting depicts the Greek and Roman goddess Diana ("Artemis" in Ancient Greece) with four of her companions. She wears a loose fitting, yellow dress with an animal-skin sash and, on her head, a diadem with a symbol of the crescent moon. As she sits on a rock, a nymph washes her left foot. Another, behind Diana, sits with her partially bare back to the viewer (the most skin Vermeer shows on a figure in any of his extant paintings), a third nymph, sitting at Diana's left, holds her own left foot with her right hand. A fourth stands in the rear, somewhat apart from the rest of the group and facing them and the viewer at an angle, her eyes cast down, her fists in front of her. A dog sits in the lower left-hand corner near Diana, its back to the viewer as it faces the goddess, her attendants and, immediately in front of it, a thistle.Except for the woman whose face is completely turned away from the viewer, all of the other faces in the painting are to one degree or another in shadow, including that of the dog. None of the women look at each other, each seemingly absorbed in their own thoughts, a fact which contributes to the solemn mood of the piece.In 1999-2000, when the painting underwent restoration work and was cleaned, it was discovered that an area of blue sky in the upper right corner had been added in the 19th century. Numerous reproductions up to that time had included the blue sky. Restorers covered over the patch with foliage to approximate the original image. The canvas had also been trimmed, particularly on the right, where about 15 cm was removed. Descriptions of the scene being in a "woodland glade" or "near the edge of a wood" may rely heavily on the patch of sky erroneously thought to be original to the painting, although light without shadows does fall on the scene from above and to the left, with short shadows forming to the viewer's right. The observation that the scene appeared to be taking place in "the gathering dusk" may have been influenced by the lighter, but darkening patch of sky contrasted sharply with the dark mass of foliage in the background of the painting, together with the shadows on all the visible faces.The painting is signed on the lower left, on the rock between the thistle and the dog.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the The scene in Diana and Her Companions's Description.

The painting depicts the Greek and Roman goddess Diana ("Artemis" in Ancient Greece) with four of her companions. She wears a loose fitting, yellow dress with an animal-skin sash and, on her head, a diadem with a symbol of the crescent moon. As she sits on a rock, a nymph washes her left foot. Another, behind Diana, sits with her partially bare back to the viewer (the most skin Vermeer shows on a figure in any of his extant paintings), a third nymph, sitting at Diana's left, holds her own left foot with her right hand. A fourth stands in the rear, somewhat apart from the rest of the group and facing them and the viewer at an angle, her eyes cast down, her fists in front of her. A dog sits in the lower left-hand corner near Diana, its back to the viewer as it faces the goddess, her attendants and, immediately in front of it, a thistle.Except for the woman whose face is completely turned away from the viewer, all of the other faces in the painting are to one degree or another in shadow, including that of the dog. None of the women look at each other, each seemingly absorbed in their own thoughts, a fact which contributes to the solemn mood of the piece.In 1999-2000, when the painting underwent restoration work and was cleaned, it was discovered that an area of blue sky in the upper right corner had been added in the 19th century. Numerous reproductions up to that time had included the blue sky. Restorers covered over the patch with foliage to approximate the original image. The canvas had also been trimmed, particularly on the right, where about 15 cm was removed. Descriptions of the scene being in a "woodland glade" or "near the edge of a wood" may rely heavily on the patch of sky erroneously thought to be original to the painting, although light without shadows does fall on the scene from above and to the left, with short shadows forming to the viewer's right. The observation that the scene appeared to be taking place in "the gathering dusk" may have been influenced by the lighter, but darkening patch of sky contrasted sharply with the dark mass of foliage in the background of the painting, together with the shadows on all the visible faces.The painting is signed on the lower left, on the rock between the thistle and the dog.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: In the context of Diana and Her Companions, explain the Technical description and the Description.

The canvas is a plain weave linen with a thread count of 14.3  by 10 per square centimeter. Vermeer first outlined the composition with dark brown brushwork (some of which shows through as pentimenti in the skirt of the woman washing Diana's foot. Hairs on the dog's ear were scratched in with the handle of the artist's brush. Paint has been lost in vertical lines left of the painting's center.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Explain the Technical description about the Description of this artwork, Diana and Her Companions.

The canvas is a plain weave linen with a thread count of 14.3  by 10 per square centimeter. Vermeer first outlined the composition with dark brown brushwork (some of which shows through as pentimenti in the skirt of the woman washing Diana's foot. Hairs on the dog's ear were scratched in with the handle of the artist's brush. Paint has been lost in vertical lines left of the painting's center.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: In Diana and Her Companions, how is the Technical description of the Description explained?

The canvas is a plain weave linen with a thread count of 14.3  by 10 per square centimeter. Vermeer first outlined the composition with dark brown brushwork (some of which shows through as pentimenti in the skirt of the woman washing Diana's foot. Hairs on the dog's ear were scratched in with the handle of the artist's brush. Paint has been lost in vertical lines left of the painting's center.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Technical description in Diana and Her Companions's Description.

The canvas is a plain weave linen with a thread count of 14.3  by 10 per square centimeter. Vermeer first outlined the composition with dark brown brushwork (some of which shows through as pentimenti in the skirt of the woman washing Diana's foot. Hairs on the dog's ear were scratched in with the handle of the artist's brush. Paint has been lost in vertical lines left of the painting's center.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Focus on Diana and Her Companions and explain the Attribution and relationship to other works.

According to Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., the painting "has no visual precedent". As a depiction of Diana, the painting is notable in part for what it does not depict—neither Actaeon catching sight of Diana and her nymphs bathing nor the actual moment when Callisto's pregnancy is revealed, both popular themes in mannerist painting in the early 17th century. Nor does the artist show Diana's hot temper or her harsh reactions to those episodes. The goddess's ability as a huntress is not signalled by dead game or bows and arrows. Even the dog is depicted as a gentle animal, not like the fast hounds normally seen in paintings of Diana.Nor does the painting use Diana as an allegorical portrait, a tradition for which had developed by the mid-17th century, with identifiable women depicted as the goddess, who was also a symbol of chastity. An example of this tradition is Diana and Her Nymphs, painted by Jacob van Loo in Amsterdam around 1648, about seven or eight years before Vermeer's work. (Vermeer's Diana has frequently been compared to van Loo's. In van Loo's painting, Diana also sits in a forest clearing with a small group of companions, but the mood is very different.The similarities between Vermeer's painting and Rembrandt's style are close enough that the work was  attributed to Rembrandt's student, Nicolaes Maes when auctioned in 1876. Vermeer's signature on the painting had been altered, making it look like Maes'. During a restoration the original signature of J. v. Meer was faintly discernible, though this was ascribed to the Utrecht artist Johannes van der Meet.Vermeer is known to have incorporated other artists' ideas, techniques and the poses in which they depict subjects. Some features of Diana share the effects and techniques of Rembrandt. Diana's stout figure is much like those in Rembrandt's work, and Vermeer used thick impasto brushwork following the lines of the folds of her clothing, as Rembrandt did. Also like Rembrandt, Vermeer cast the faces of the group in shadows, which gives a more expressive, moodier cast to the scene. Vermeer's painting is very similar in feeling to Rembrandt's Bathsheba, painted in 1654, a work Vermeer very likely saw firsthand, according to Wheelock. The poses of the woman whose feet is washed and the one doing the washing are similar. It is possible that Rembrandt's former pupil, Carel Fabritius (in Delft from 1650 until his death in late 1654), may have made Vermeer familiar with Rembrandt's work.Doubts about the attribution of the painting remained until about 1901, the year Abraham Bredius and Willem Martin, deputy director of the Mauritshuis, discovered its similarities in coloring and technique with Martha and Mary, which was signed by Vermeer, and in colors with The Procuress, another very early Vermeer work.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Explain the Attribution and relationship to other works of this artwork, Diana and Her Companions.

According to Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., the painting "has no visual precedent". As a depiction of Diana, the painting is notable in part for what it does not depict—neither Actaeon catching sight of Diana and her nymphs bathing nor the actual moment when Callisto's pregnancy is revealed, both popular themes in mannerist painting in the early 17th century. Nor does the artist show Diana's hot temper or her harsh reactions to those episodes. The goddess's ability as a huntress is not signalled by dead game or bows and arrows. Even the dog is depicted as a gentle animal, not like the fast hounds normally seen in paintings of Diana.Nor does the painting use Diana as an allegorical portrait, a tradition for which had developed by the mid-17th century, with identifiable women depicted as the goddess, who was also a symbol of chastity. An example of this tradition is Diana and Her Nymphs, painted by Jacob van Loo in Amsterdam around 1648, about seven or eight years before Vermeer's work. (Vermeer's Diana has frequently been compared to van Loo's. In van Loo's painting, Diana also sits in a forest clearing with a small group of companions, but the mood is very different.The similarities between Vermeer's painting and Rembrandt's style are close enough that the work was  attributed to Rembrandt's student, Nicolaes Maes when auctioned in 1876. Vermeer's signature on the painting had been altered, making it look like Maes'. During a restoration the original signature of J. v. Meer was faintly discernible, though this was ascribed to the Utrecht artist Johannes van der Meet.Vermeer is known to have incorporated other artists' ideas, techniques and the poses in which they depict subjects. Some features of Diana share the effects and techniques of Rembrandt. Diana's stout figure is much like those in Rembrandt's work, and Vermeer used thick impasto brushwork following the lines of the folds of her clothing, as Rembrandt did. Also like Rembrandt, Vermeer cast the faces of the group in shadows, which gives a more expressive, moodier cast to the scene. Vermeer's painting is very similar in feeling to Rembrandt's Bathsheba, painted in 1654, a work Vermeer very likely saw firsthand, according to Wheelock. The poses of the woman whose feet is washed and the one doing the washing are similar. It is possible that Rembrandt's former pupil, Carel Fabritius (in Delft from 1650 until his death in late 1654), may have made Vermeer familiar with Rembrandt's work.Doubts about the attribution of the painting remained until about 1901, the year Abraham Bredius and Willem Martin, deputy director of the Mauritshuis, discovered its similarities in coloring and technique with Martha and Mary, which was signed by Vermeer, and in colors with The Procuress, another very early Vermeer work.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: How does Diana and Her Companions explain its Attribution and relationship to other works?

According to Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., the painting "has no visual precedent". As a depiction of Diana, the painting is notable in part for what it does not depict—neither Actaeon catching sight of Diana and her nymphs bathing nor the actual moment when Callisto's pregnancy is revealed, both popular themes in mannerist painting in the early 17th century. Nor does the artist show Diana's hot temper or her harsh reactions to those episodes. The goddess's ability as a huntress is not signalled by dead game or bows and arrows. Even the dog is depicted as a gentle animal, not like the fast hounds normally seen in paintings of Diana.Nor does the painting use Diana as an allegorical portrait, a tradition for which had developed by the mid-17th century, with identifiable women depicted as the goddess, who was also a symbol of chastity. An example of this tradition is Diana and Her Nymphs, painted by Jacob van Loo in Amsterdam around 1648, about seven or eight years before Vermeer's work. (Vermeer's Diana has frequently been compared to van Loo's. In van Loo's painting, Diana also sits in a forest clearing with a small group of companions, but the mood is very different.The similarities between Vermeer's painting and Rembrandt's style are close enough that the work was  attributed to Rembrandt's student, Nicolaes Maes when auctioned in 1876. Vermeer's signature on the painting had been altered, making it look like Maes'. During a restoration the original signature of J. v. Meer was faintly discernible, though this was ascribed to the Utrecht artist Johannes van der Meet.Vermeer is known to have incorporated other artists' ideas, techniques and the poses in which they depict subjects. Some features of Diana share the effects and techniques of Rembrandt. Diana's stout figure is much like those in Rembrandt's work, and Vermeer used thick impasto brushwork following the lines of the folds of her clothing, as Rembrandt did. Also like Rembrandt, Vermeer cast the faces of the group in shadows, which gives a more expressive, moodier cast to the scene. Vermeer's painting is very similar in feeling to Rembrandt's Bathsheba, painted in 1654, a work Vermeer very likely saw firsthand, according to Wheelock. The poses of the woman whose feet is washed and the one doing the washing are similar. It is possible that Rembrandt's former pupil, Carel Fabritius (in Delft from 1650 until his death in late 1654), may have made Vermeer familiar with Rembrandt's work.Doubts about the attribution of the painting remained until about 1901, the year Abraham Bredius and Willem Martin, deputy director of the Mauritshuis, discovered its similarities in coloring and technique with Martha and Mary, which was signed by Vermeer, and in colors with The Procuress, another very early Vermeer work.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: In Diana and Her Companions, how is the Attribution and relationship to other works discussed?

According to Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., the painting "has no visual precedent". As a depiction of Diana, the painting is notable in part for what it does not depict—neither Actaeon catching sight of Diana and her nymphs bathing nor the actual moment when Callisto's pregnancy is revealed, both popular themes in mannerist painting in the early 17th century. Nor does the artist show Diana's hot temper or her harsh reactions to those episodes. The goddess's ability as a huntress is not signalled by dead game or bows and arrows. Even the dog is depicted as a gentle animal, not like the fast hounds normally seen in paintings of Diana.Nor does the painting use Diana as an allegorical portrait, a tradition for which had developed by the mid-17th century, with identifiable women depicted as the goddess, who was also a symbol of chastity. An example of this tradition is Diana and Her Nymphs, painted by Jacob van Loo in Amsterdam around 1648, about seven or eight years before Vermeer's work. (Vermeer's Diana has frequently been compared to van Loo's. In van Loo's painting, Diana also sits in a forest clearing with a small group of companions, but the mood is very different.The similarities between Vermeer's painting and Rembrandt's style are close enough that the work was  attributed to Rembrandt's student, Nicolaes Maes when auctioned in 1876. Vermeer's signature on the painting had been altered, making it look like Maes'. During a restoration the original signature of J. v. Meer was faintly discernible, though this was ascribed to the Utrecht artist Johannes van der Meet.Vermeer is known to have incorporated other artists' ideas, techniques and the poses in which they depict subjects. Some features of Diana share the effects and techniques of Rembrandt. Diana's stout figure is much like those in Rembrandt's work, and Vermeer used thick impasto brushwork following the lines of the folds of her clothing, as Rembrandt did. Also like Rembrandt, Vermeer cast the faces of the group in shadows, which gives a more expressive, moodier cast to the scene. Vermeer's painting is very similar in feeling to Rembrandt's Bathsheba, painted in 1654, a work Vermeer very likely saw firsthand, according to Wheelock. The poses of the woman whose feet is washed and the one doing the washing are similar. It is possible that Rembrandt's former pupil, Carel Fabritius (in Delft from 1650 until his death in late 1654), may have made Vermeer familiar with Rembrandt's work.Doubts about the attribution of the painting remained until about 1901, the year Abraham Bredius and Willem Martin, deputy director of the Mauritshuis, discovered its similarities in coloring and technique with Martha and Mary, which was signed by Vermeer, and in colors with The Procuress, another very early Vermeer work.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Focus on Diana and Her Companions and explain the Critical commentary.

The painting has an "overwhelming sense of solemnity more associated with Christian than with mythological traditions", according to Wheelock. The work may combine the Christian symbolism of foot-washing as purification with the allusions to chastity and purity invoked by Diana's modest dress and the white cloth and brass basin at her feet. The companion holding her own foot strongly resembles the ancient Spinario statue, a figure in a nearly identical pose, who is removing a thorn from the bottom of his foot. The thorn is a Christian symbol of the grief and trials of Jesus or of the suffering in this world.Foot washing is also a Christian symbol of humility and the nearness of death, and "the dignity with which Diana's companion performs her service recalls mary Magdalene washing Christ's feet with her tears", according to Wheelock (Christ also kneeled before his disciples and washed their feet at the Last Supper). Selena Cant believes Vermeer's contemporaries would have immediately drawn the association of foot-washing with the idea of Jesus washing feet. "[T]his maidservant steals the scene", according to Cant, who points out the "unusual brown-bronze bodice" worn by the servant.According to Wheelock, the painting "has [...] no obvious literary source". As a depiction of Diana, the painting is notable in part for what it does not depict—neither Actaeon catching sight of Diana and her nymphs bathing nor the actual moment when Callisto's pregnancy is revealed, both popular themes in mannerist painting in the early 17th century. Nor does the artist show Diana's hot temper or her harsh reactions to those episodes. The goddess's ability as a huntress is not signalled by dead game or bows and arrows. Even the dog is depicted as a gentle animal, not like the fast hounds normally seen in paintings of Diana.Ovid's Metamorphoses mentions that just before discovering Callisto's pregnancy, Diana washed her feet and then she and her attendants disrobed. Walter Liedtke points out that the nymph standing somewhat apart from the group, with her hands clenched in front of her abdomen, perhaps in contrast with the nymph showing devotion and fidelity by washing feet, may be Callisto. This scene would then illustrate part of that myth narrative, Liedtke asserts, although Wheelock states that the episode seems unrelated to the mood of the painting.The painting, according to Liedtke, "shows the artist already addressing his usual theme, women in private moments, and the complications of desire" as well as "the ability to sympathetically describe the private lives of women," and, while not as "profound" as Rembrandt's Bathsheba, Vermeer's work is "remarkable for its tenderness and sincerity", Liedtke believes. He notes that the painting shows the artist's aptitude for learning from the example of other artists and for observing light and color.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: Explain the Critical commentary of this artwork, Diana and Her Companions.

The painting has an "overwhelming sense of solemnity more associated with Christian than with mythological traditions", according to Wheelock. The work may combine the Christian symbolism of foot-washing as purification with the allusions to chastity and purity invoked by Diana's modest dress and the white cloth and brass basin at her feet. The companion holding her own foot strongly resembles the ancient Spinario statue, a figure in a nearly identical pose, who is removing a thorn from the bottom of his foot. The thorn is a Christian symbol of the grief and trials of Jesus or of the suffering in this world.Foot washing is also a Christian symbol of humility and the nearness of death, and "the dignity with which Diana's companion performs her service recalls mary Magdalene washing Christ's feet with her tears", according to Wheelock (Christ also kneeled before his disciples and washed their feet at the Last Supper). Selena Cant believes Vermeer's contemporaries would have immediately drawn the association of foot-washing with the idea of Jesus washing feet. "[T]his maidservant steals the scene", according to Cant, who points out the "unusual brown-bronze bodice" worn by the servant.According to Wheelock, the painting "has [...] no obvious literary source". As a depiction of Diana, the painting is notable in part for what it does not depict—neither Actaeon catching sight of Diana and her nymphs bathing nor the actual moment when Callisto's pregnancy is revealed, both popular themes in mannerist painting in the early 17th century. Nor does the artist show Diana's hot temper or her harsh reactions to those episodes. The goddess's ability as a huntress is not signalled by dead game or bows and arrows. Even the dog is depicted as a gentle animal, not like the fast hounds normally seen in paintings of Diana.Ovid's Metamorphoses mentions that just before discovering Callisto's pregnancy, Diana washed her feet and then she and her attendants disrobed. Walter Liedtke points out that the nymph standing somewhat apart from the group, with her hands clenched in front of her abdomen, perhaps in contrast with the nymph showing devotion and fidelity by washing feet, may be Callisto. This scene would then illustrate part of that myth narrative, Liedtke asserts, although Wheelock states that the episode seems unrelated to the mood of the painting.The painting, according to Liedtke, "shows the artist already addressing his usual theme, women in private moments, and the complications of desire" as well as "the ability to sympathetically describe the private lives of women," and, while not as "profound" as Rembrandt's Bathsheba, Vermeer's work is "remarkable for its tenderness and sincerity", Liedtke believes. He notes that the painting shows the artist's aptitude for learning from the example of other artists and for observing light and color.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg


Diana and Her Companions

Prompt: How does Diana and Her Companions explain its Critical commentary?

The painting has an "overwhelming sense of solemnity more associated with Christian than with mythological traditions", according to Wheelock. The work may combine the Christian symbolism of foot-washing as purification with the allusions to chastity and purity invoked by Diana's modest dress and the white cloth and brass basin at her feet. The companion holding her own foot strongly resembles the ancient Spinario statue, a figure in a nearly identical pose, who is removing a thorn from the bottom of his foot. The thorn is a Christian symbol of the grief and trials of Jesus or of the suffering in this world.Foot washing is also a Christian symbol of humility and the nearness of death, and "the dignity with which Diana's companion performs her service recalls mary Magdalene washing Christ's feet with her tears", according to Wheelock (Christ also kneeled before his disciples and washed their feet at the Last Supper). Selena Cant believes Vermeer's contemporaries would have immediately drawn the association of foot-washing with the idea of Jesus washing feet. "[T]his maidservant steals the scene", according to Cant, who points out the "unusual brown-bronze bodice" worn by the servant.According to Wheelock, the painting "has [...] no obvious literary source". As a depiction of Diana, the painting is notable in part for what it does not depict—neither Actaeon catching sight of Diana and her nymphs bathing nor the actual moment when Callisto's pregnancy is revealed, both popular themes in mannerist painting in the early 17th century. Nor does the artist show Diana's hot temper or her harsh reactions to those episodes. The goddess's ability as a huntress is not signalled by dead game or bows and arrows. Even the dog is depicted as a gentle animal, not like the fast hounds normally seen in paintings of Diana.Ovid's Metamorphoses mentions that just before discovering Callisto's pregnancy, Diana washed her feet and then she and her attendants disrobed. Walter Liedtke points out that the nymph standing somewhat apart from the group, with her hands clenched in front of her abdomen, perhaps in contrast with the nymph showing devotion and fidelity by washing feet, may be Callisto. This scene would then illustrate part of that myth narrative, Liedtke asserts, although Wheelock states that the episode seems unrelated to the mood of the painting.The painting, according to Liedtke, "shows the artist already addressing his usual theme, women in private moments, and the complications of desire" as well as "the ability to sympathetically describe the private lives of women," and, while not as "profound" as Rembrandt's Bathsheba, Vermeer's work is "remarkable for its tenderness and sincerity", Liedtke believes. He notes that the painting shows the artist's aptitude for learning from the example of other artists and for observing light and color.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer)

File:Vermeer - Diana en haar gezelschap (19th version with a blue sky).jpg

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 016.jpg

File:The Capitoline Spinario-Musei Capitolini.jpg