A Classical Study in Oils
- Thread starter Scimitar
- Start date
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
It's a bit strange though, that the artist could get the woman's body so beautifully in proportion, but anybody can see that those wings would hardly be big enough to fly a pigeon. And the angels, or whatever they are, would need tail-feathers as well for any sort of control in their flying.
Or was this an early depiction of experiments in genetic engineering, when they tried to make wise kids by mixing human and Owl DNA, but they got the wrong bits of the DNA. The kids seem happy enough in their ignorance, but she looks a bit disappointed with the results. I think she's debating with herself whether to try again with something else maybe fox DNA to make them sly so that they can grow up to be bankers. Wasn't there another painting later that showed kids with bushy tails running round round their mum?
Or was this an early depiction of experiments in genetic engineering, when they tried to make wise kids by mixing human and Owl DNA, but they got the wrong bits of the DNA. The kids seem happy enough in their ignorance, but she looks a bit disappointed with the results. I think she's debating with herself whether to try again with something else maybe fox DNA to make them sly so that they can grow up to be bankers. Wasn't there another painting later that showed kids with bushy tails running round round their mum?
Last edited by a moderator:
The winged babies are generally called cherubs, a form of angel.
I suppose the wing size is due to having no knowledge of flight dynamics in those early times, though the largest European bumble bee Bombus Pratorum shown on my wildlife website is very misleading in that respect, huge body with very small wings.
.
I suppose the wing size is due to having no knowledge of flight dynamics in those early times, though the largest European bumble bee Bombus Pratorum shown on my wildlife website is very misleading in that respect, huge body with very small wings.
.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
Yes, I knew I'd seen it somewhere. No wonder that Peacocks running scared. The one on the left has already got the chicken. The dog looks a bit jealous too:
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Cyclezee
Guest
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
When did they invent platic bubble pipes?Artistic licence guys, can't you just enjoy it for what is..........a beautiful painting
Well spotted. A search shows earliest paintings/illustrations of bubble pipes date at 1733 and more recently in 1886. Bubble rings are very much more recent though, calling into question the description "Old Masters" mentioned by the OP. Probably a recent painting imitating the classical style, hence some of the very high quality.
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
Artists put their own interpretation into a painting. Titian's painting of 1520 again shows cherubs with small wings.......does it really matter that they might not be anatomically correct for flight lolArtistic licence guys, can't you just enjoy it for what is..........a beautiful painting
C
Cyclezee
Guest
I assume you meant plastic d8veh, they could quite conceivably have been carved from ivory or carbon fibre?
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
I agree, billion times better than a Cow split in half, framed, and given the tag as art. Damian Hirst Butcher or Artist ?Artistic licence guys, can't you just enjoy it for what is..........a beautiful painting
Last edited:
Referring back to the original painting at the beginning of the thread, why has everyone avoided asking the obvious question? The aerodynamics of cherub wings has been discussed. The bubbles in the picture are clearly seen to be drifting from left to right. This is clearly an indoor scene, so what exactly is the source of the airstream moving the bubbles?
Precisely! It's why the cherubs are parting her cheeks, clearly an intended pun by the artist, who as I've remarked earlier is a modern artist producing this recent painting in the classical style.