I was at a friend’s place in another part of the state over the weekend and saw a postcard on the living room wall with a painting I recognized, but now I can’t remember the title or artist. It showed a young woman with long wavy black hair standing in a white gown. You know the one I mean, right? It’s one of the most famous portraits you always see reproduced from the last quarter of the 19th century, roughly. It seems to me very much in the style of John Singer Sargent, except that I looked all through the John Singer Sargent Virtual Gallery and it wasn’t there. Was it by Whistler? This will be an easy one for arty Dopers; I used to know it, but it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole.
Hmm, I was just going to suggest it might be a Sargent.
Why don’t you just ask your friend?
If you go to allposters.com, click fine art, portraits, women in 19th century portraits, you may find it. The ones I am thinking of are too impressionistic to be Sargent, e.g., the Monet of the woman in white with a parasol, or that one of the woman in white from the side.
It sure does sound like Sargent. Might it be Mrs. Henry White?
Long wavy hair though.
Is it this Whistler? http://artchive.com/artchive/W/whistler/whistler_white_girl.jpg.html
A Gibson Girl, perhaps?
I’m placing a bet on Monet (Woman with umbrella and child or a variant there of) Or perhaps a Manet?
Is it possible it was by John Williams Waterhouse?
Was it one of Winterhalter’s paintings?
It might be just be, because my ex’s mother loved Winterhalter paintings, and for a while I felt like I was seeing them everywhere.
It might just be* me*, I meant to write.
Yes! YES!!! Exactly! Thank you so much.
Guin, thank you so much for the link to Waterhouse because he is my favorite artist from that period.
When one thinks “portraits of society women rendered in rich soft light” one thinks Sargent. The Scrivener and KarlGauss instinctively felt this too. Romantic neoclassicism: Alma-Tadema. Animals and the wild outdoors: Rosa Bonheur. Intimate indoor scenes: Mary Cassatt. Painting the light reflected from objects rather than the objects themselves: Monet. And fullblown Victorian romanticism: Waterhouse.
Whistler is known for his portraits too, but somehow he was only my second guess. Now that I look closely at the White Girl I notice Whistler’s view is much flatter, while Sargent liked plenty of depth. Hope I can tell the two of them apart next time. Well, I sure will, now that I’ve looked at every Sargent known to the internet.
I can’t mention Alma-Tadema without a shout-out to my favorite work of his, Sappho and Alcaeus. Notice how the girl standing next to Sappho is an Archaic Greek kore statue come to life. The girl lounging in the background is shaded in the same ochre hues as statuary, reinforcing this impression for me. The kore rendered in lifelike tones is standing straight and stiff as an Archaic statue, while the naturalistically languid one is colored like a statue. Go figure.
The violets adorning Sappho’s hair allude to lines by Alcaeus:
Ίοπλοκ̓ αγνα μελλιχομειδε Σαπφοι,
θελω τι Fειπην αλλα με κωλυει αιδως.
Pure Sappho of the violet tresses and the gentle smile,
I would fain tell you something, did not shame prevent me.
(tr. by J. M. Edmonds, Lyra Græca)
There is no question in my mind which poem Alcaeus is singing to Sappho in that picture. Look at the expression on her face. Do you think he’ll win the laurel crown?
Anastasaeon, thanks for telling me about Franz Winterhalter, I hadn’t known of him before. I see a definite pattern in the pictures you linked to. Those dresses look very 1860s, am I guessing right? They used “crinolines” (dome-shaped cages made of steel hoops in series) to keep the skirts ballooned out so hugely. With so much material added below, no wonder they felt free to subtract plenty from above. That period’s look is so distinctive as the big-crinoline period neared its end, with the wide off-the-shoulder décolletage. How did the bodice stay up with no visible means of support? Was it attached to the corset somehow?
The White Girl was the one I immediately thought of when I read the thread title, as well…
I looked up Winterhalter in Wikipedia, and found The Empress Eugénie Surrounded by Her Ladies in Waiting. I linked to the large size so you can see the details. It’s a magnificent 1860s-o-rama, if you like those fashions.
This picture clearly shows the difference between great art and merely good art. Those women’s faces are almost entirely devoid of expression. Most of all the empress herself. It looks like their little garden party had just a moment before been zapped by a mind-erasing beam from a UFO, turning their faces blank. Women just do not look like that in real life (unless they’re on drugs).
Clearly, Winterhalter lavished all his artistic power on the fine details of those exquisitely overwrought dresses. The faces are not the faces of women: they are department-store mannequins who are in the picture only to show off the fashions. I guess paintings like this were an important means of communicating the fashions from the top of the social pyramid down to the mid-to-upper levels. This was before Vogue was ever published. This would explain why Winterhalter was a favorite of Queen Victoria: she used him to communicate her fashion sense to her subjects.
You found more info on the guy than I could ever provide - I just remember seeing several reproductions of his work at the ex’s mother’s house. I do like the detail he does on those dresses. On this page - oh, just look at that first painting of Victoria’s dress! And Empress Eugénie, my goodness…
Some of those paintings he comes close to getting some expression in the eyes - close, but not quite. But those dresses… I’ll never forget those dresses.