Not long ago I wrote a post speculating what French empress Josephine might have looked like, based on evidence from paintings and sculptures. Josephine lived before photography, so we have no evidence from that source.
Let's look at the matter of painted likenesses from another perspective. In an occasional series of posts, I'll present both photos and paintings (along with drawings where paintings are scarce) and we can have fun comparing them. I won't be giving out points for accuracy, however. That's because post-Daguerre artists have more freedom to interpret their subjects than might have been the case in the days where portraits were intended as documentation.
My first subject is Lady Ottoline Morrell, a colorful character, as this Wikipedia link indicates. There are a fair number of photos of Ottoline, but virtually no portraits by artists. A Google search turned up only three -- two of which (by Lamb and John) were done by artists who also were among her lovers.
The pictorial evidence suggests that Ottoline was hardly a "flash" female. But she had gobs of aristocratic family connections and might well have had a compelling personality; the link above mentions Bertrand Russell as one of those lovers, so she clearly was able to distract him from philosophy and mathematics.
Lamb's drawing was made when she was nearly 40 and strikes me as being being affectionate and perhaps a bit flattering. The paintings depict her in her late 40s and seem not at all flattering. Perhaps some day I'll get around to reading a biography of John where I might find out whether the portrait was painted before, during or after his fling with Ottoline.
2 comments:
She looks like a Hapsburg, no?
Also in that photo of 1911 she looks seriously unhappy; maybe it's just the angle, full face instead of extreme oblique angle but it also leaves one with an impression of a visage nearly ravaged. Must have been a hectic 10 years. Now I am curious to look into her life. I was serious in my previous comment (which I hope I didn't spell wrong). Maybe it's just me but if she were swaddled in ermine and silk brocade, tremendously bewigged, standing with one leg slightly in front of the other, showing pristine high heels with bows so huge just walking without treading upon them involves a steep learning curve, and otherwise surrounded by kingly accoutrements and symbols, she could be mistaken for a Charles or Phillip, unless I'm delusional. Well it wouldn't be the first time I've had a little fun being hopelessly lost. That one portrait makes her look more like something that sleeps in a ruinous castle by day and only comes out at night, leaving a trail of victims, murdered by a pitiless barrage of criticism. I doubt that affair ended gently.
By the way, I enjoyed the little portrait gallery of the visually fascinating Suzy Solidor. The camera really loves some people and she was certainly one. I feel like there are less differences in all those portraits(apart from recognisable styles of particular artists; Tamara de Lempicka for instance is unmistakeable, ever) than in the few portraits of Ottoline, who could be an entirely different woman in each. Maybe that was part of her personal attraction which clearly must have been prodigious, but not especially durable. I'm assuming the who's who of historically important male personages we're serial affairs and didn't all stick around like an intellectually challenging dude harem.
Post a Comment