As someone who spends more time looking at the backgrounds of these paintings than the people, I find this fascinating. hyperallergic.com/58661/abandone…—
nick (@vossbrink) October 16, 2012
@vossbrink One has to ask the obvious: why?—
Janet Norris (@JanetNorris) October 16, 2012
@vossbrink I painted OOTH as commissions twice! I kinda cheated on the floor detail, who looks at backgrounds? :) dingdongnation.com/paintings-and-…—
Leslie Straw (@lastraw) October 16, 2012
I was not expecting this tweet to get retweeted. That it generated unsolicited questions about my point of view was an even bigger surprise.
But yes, with “old masters” paintings often time the subjects don’t interest me nearly as much as the backgrounds. Yes, I can appreciate the beauty and vitality of the way people and gestures are rendered. It’s not difficult to compare the grace and movement in the Botticelli Annunciation with the Fra Angelico’s more realistic rendition.* I’m much more fascinated by the settings—in this case the view out the window in the Botticelli and the architectural space in the Fra Angelico.
*In this case, as pretty as the Botticelli is, I much prefer the seriousness of the angel conveying the news to Mary that she’s been knocked up. And I love that Mary looks as if she already has morning sickness.
Do most people notice the river, castle, and bridge on the background? Or that there’s an empty room behind Mary? Probably not. But those are all there on purpose. The details have been chose for a reason and it’s a lot of fun to think about. When the background include city details, you can also start to see depictions and documentation of architecture and technology which most people just miss.
I do this with photography too. Backgrounds and settings are documents of the past and tell us different things than what the image is ostensibly about.
Hyperallergic’s post is a textbook example of how to do animated GIFs well.
2 thoughts on “Looking at backgrounds”