Monday, February 11, 2013

Joseph and Potiphar's Wife


Master of the Joseph Sequence (ca. 1500)
.


Lucas van Leyden (1512)
.


Pieter Coecke van Aelst (ca. 1540)
.


Master of the School of Fontainebleau (1556)
.


.


.


.


Christiaen van Couwenbergh (1626)
.


.


Guido Reni (1631)
.


Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (1648)
.


Guercino (1649)
.


.


Carlo Cignani (1680)
.


Lazzaro Baldi (attributed, 1703)
.


Jean-Baptiste Nattier (1711)
.


Domenico Morelli (ca. 1850)
.


Antonio Maria Esquivel (1854)
.


.


Marc Chagall (1931)
.
'She accused Joseph of attempting to rape her after she failed to seduce him'
.


8 comments:

  1. The other way around, as usual:
    the story is handed down by men, all paintings are greated by male artists, horny, eager to accuse women for their own lust. As usual, as usual

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The other way round, but not as usual - in fact the bible is full of virtuous women and lusty men. So it's quite a modern story, still relevant for discussion.
      By the way, not all the paintings are created by men. Artemisia Gentileschi is a woman, daughter of Orazio. She will be the topic of my next contribution. Interesting to see how a woman represents biblical scenes.

      Delete
  2. Hey, what is going on here? The Nattier painting is the Baldi painting traced, flopped, and repainted. Go ahead...try it in Photoshop. There's virtually a 1:1 correlation not only between the figures, but also the beds, the drapery, the backgrounds. Did Nattier use one of those Magic Artist gadgets they used to sell in comic books?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you noticed and you're right, it must be mirror images, different colours. I've also read your blog about it. Time for some research.
      Both images are in commons.wikimedia. The Nattier painting is said to be 74 x 92 cm and belongs to the Hermitage. The other painting (61 x 74 cm) has been attributed to Lazzaro Baldi, but a location is not given, only a source: http://www.dorotheum.com/. No further information can be found here. This makes it rather suspect.
      And what about the differences in the pattern of the tilings? The mystery remains...

      Delete
    2. As I wrote in Smurfswacker's blog, painters from the 17th century onwards, began using what is known as a dark camera or camera obscura (look it up in wikipedia). You could get an image projected directly over your canvas through a contraption of lenses, though the image would be reversed or flipped over, and upside down. The proof of this contraption existing comes for how realistic paintings suddenly became from the mid-sixteenth century onwards (especially with those Dutch masters Van Eyck, Vermeer, etc; also look at Murillo's painting here and see how he "perfectly" captured the pattern on the carpet and the bed covers; think you can do that by simply staring at it?). Many art critics/historians doubt this theory, mainly because they aren't artists themselves, but the paintings Smurfswacker pointed out are a perfect example that a camera obscura was put into use. For further proof of a dark camera being used, look up Van Eyck's Arnolfini painting. He even painted his own reflexion on a concave mirror at the back of the room. As any artist can attest, you can't see such small details by simply looking at your models in front of you.

      Delete
    3. Thanks a lot for this plausible explanation

      Delete