I think I’ve mentioned before that I love going to art
exhibitions and London is of course the ideal place for that. Each year the large galleries put on some
lovely and varied shows and last week I was lucky enough to see two of them –
Pieter Paul Rubens (“Rubens and his Legacy”) at the Royal Academy and John Singer Sargent (“Portraits of Artists andFriends”) at the National Portrait
Gallery.
Picture courtesy of Wikimedia Commons |
Rubens, a brilliant painter who lived between 1577 –
1640, was a master of portraiture and taught Anthony Van Dyck (my personal
favourite, who I think actually surpassed his master). He also excelled at landscapes, religious
paintings and mythological depictions, using colour and sensuality in a way that many
artists have tried to copy since. Mostly though he is associated with the word “rubenesque”, ie he depicted
naked women with lots of curves they were not ashamed to show off. He apparently specialised in painting white
skin, using techniques that made it look almost translucent. The viewer can sometimes see the veins and
it’s as though you feel the warmth of the soft flesh of these attractively
plump ladies. Very clever, although
personally I preferred his formal portraits where the sitters were clothed
(albeit still with a lot of bosom on show!).
However, it’s not the fact that he painted naked ladies,
but the shape of the women that most people find fascinating as it’s so
different to the current ideals and fashions.
This was a time when plump, rounded shoulders and breasts were the
preference and with the rest of their bodies covered up, everything else must
have seemed irrelevant. No obsessions with "abs" here, no worries about cellulite. That sounds
rather liberating, but no doubt the ladies back then had other concerns – were they
round enough, were their eyes the right shape and size, their mouths small and perfect,
their hair curly and luxurious ...?
Every age has its own restrictions and we are ever slaves to fashion.
Picture courtesy of Wikimedia Commons |
John Singer Sargent’s paintings couldn’t have been more
different, although there are definitely similarities as well. He lived between 1856 – 1925 and in his
compositions are found cool, elegant Victorian, Edwardian and early 20th
century ladies, still covered up by long dresses, but with a much slimmer silhouette
and painfully small waists. There are
still creamy, bare shoulders and arms, but not as round. The preferred skin tone is translucent
white, as before, the busts on display often impressive.
To me though, these ladies have more character somehow, staring
defiantly at the viewer. No large limpid
eyes here, more the knowing looks of someone who knows she is attractive. Or is that just my perception, because they
are closer to our own ideals? They
certainly seemed a lot more vibrant, although that could be simply because
Sargent was a genius. (Some of his
paintings look so real I expected the sitters to step out of their frames and
talk to me any second).
When writing historical fiction it’s often difficult to
depict a heroine who is of her time and yet appeals to a modern audience. We can do it by getting into their mindset and
not let them act contrary to the rules and customs of the time, even though we
might add a bit more feistiness and wilfulness than would perhaps have been
the norm. And there’s always the tropes
of “she was educated by her father because he didn’t have a son” or “she was
allowed to sit in on her brother’s lessons with his tutor” to account for her
being cleverer than the average lady at the time. But what about their looks?
I have to admit that I’m in the middle of a story set
during the English Civil War (ie. 1640s, so just after Rubens’ lifetime), but I
don’t want my heroine to look like Rubens’ perfect woman. Instead she’s slim, lithe and with the sort of curves
we prefer now. Is this wrong of me? I don’t know, but I’m sure there must have
been women of all shapes and sizes, then as now, and those who worked hard for
a living (and life was hard for the
majority of them) wouldn’t have had a chance to get plump. That was for the idle aristocratic ladies
whose idea of exercise was to take a slow amble round their magnificent gardens
or perhaps play a game of bowls, not exactly taxing. My heroine, on the other hand, is a lot more
active, so I’m sticking with my original description of her. Though perhaps I’ll add some more lustre to
her skin and make her eyes bigger, mouth a perfect cupid’s bow … :-)
What do you think?
Christina x
http://christinacourtenay.com/
2 comments:
I agree with you about Sargent's portraits - I love them - but I have to say that, although I love Rubens' landscapes, I don't care for his depiction of women which tends to be too voyeuristic for me. I can see exactly why men rave about them - all that luminescent flesh - but have you noticed how ravaged the men look in his Fete Champetre paintings? And there are so few of them - men I mean - compared with the number of fleshy women lolling about displaying their charms.
The message seems to be, if you're a man, 'Don't worry about being past your sell by date - there are all these deliciously fleshy women just waiting for you. Take your pick.'
I rather agree with you about Van Dyck - I certainly prefer his women with their large seductive eyes which look as though they don't miss a thing.
Good luck with your Civil War book, Christina. It sounds great. I hope Prince Rupert makes a guest appearance!
Thank you, Elizabeth - Prince Rupert may be mentioned :-)
I agree about the men in Rubens' paintings, they were obviously a man's daydreams/fantasies.
In the exhibition there is a portrait by Van Dyck hanging next to a very similar one by Rubens and that confirmed it for me - definitely prefer Van Dyck! Glad you do too :-) xx
Post a Comment