Painters Online Logo

Login/register

Studio

Oddities in Art

Welcome to the forum.

Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.

Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.

Hang on Studio Wall
Author
Message
My Profile pic16

Lewis Cooper

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 6319
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 2578
Posted
Just a small observation regarding some of the oddities in art, that I find fascinating. Tom Small has posted a sketch he made from a character in Caravaggio's 'Supper at Emmaus.' The subject's right hand is seriously out of proportion, it's much bigger than his left hand which is much closer to us with his arm stretched out as it is. Odd. (I'm sure you all knew this famous oddity...but thought it worth a mention). Tom's sketch is spot on, this is all down to Caravaggio. A recent art documentary suggested there's evidence to suggest that the artist used an early form of 'camera obscura' in some of his work. It consisted of thick curtains, sunlight, and mirrors. In order to work, Caravaggio would have been painting in near darkness...which is how this oddity may have occurred. I tried to add a link to the pic, but nothing happened...must be me.

Keith Orange

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 240
Posted
It's mentioned in the book by David Hockney called Secret Knowledge. In it he suggested painters in the middle ages and after may have used lenses, particularly camera obscura, to paint. Here's what he says about Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus and the inconsistencies in the hand sizes of people portrayed in the painting: "These may be deliberate artistic decisions, or may be a consequence of movements of lens and canvas when refocusing because of depth-of-field problems......... interesting to note that Caravaggio covers the patterned tablecloth with white one, eliminating the problem of matching the pattern when refocusing" https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/michelangelo-merisi-da-caravaggio-the-supper-at-emmaus

Edited
by keora

Front page

Alan Green

  • Forum Expert
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 557
Posted
Not just Caravaggio - in Raphael's "Dream of Scipio", Virtue's right foot is placed where she would surely topple over backwards at a rate of knots. One of the problems in painting over a number of sessions, maybe?

Kevin Keeley

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 34
Posted
There is also a so-far unquoted aspect of the content of works of art. What was the artist trying to tell the viewer? In past times works of art, especially those in churches, including stained glass, were intended as methods of teaching a particular topic. It is well documented that even the wealthy classes did not always have the benefit of education as we know it and therefore a work of art often contained a powerful message transcending the technicalities of the artwork. Have you seen the Carravaggio's in the Cathedral museum in Valetta, Malta? No, I don't [always] get the message and have to have it explained. Sketcher - Kevin Keeley
michael

Michael Edwards

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 3863
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 1556
Posted
Or the extra leg in Breugel's 'The Peasants Wedding'. Wish I had three legs - wouldn't it help with balance!!
My Profile pic16

Lewis Cooper

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 6319
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 2578
Posted
Yes, there are plenty of oddities around...I just mentioned this one because Tom Small did an excellent sketch of it. I didn't know the Rapheal one...I'll have a squint at that. One of my favourite painters (Manet) has a few 'mistakes' tagged to him...some are just artistic decisions.
With Sarah, Phil, Ellen, Rose the dentist, and the granddaughter whose name I forget.

Robert Jones, Napa

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 24835
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 8655
Posted
The Caravaggio anomaly works in the context of the painting, but it's certainly interesting to ask (though you won't get a decisive answer) if it was an artistic decision, the result of a camera lucida, or just Caravaggio knocking off a painting in a hurry to meet a commission deadline and getting it a bit wrong. The Hockney thesis may be right - he's made it fit the circumstances very convincingly. But then, that was what he intended to do - first form a theory, then subject the evidence to it; and if the two match, bingo. But the theory might still be wrong in point of fact. Short of someone inventing time-travel, we'll never know. I think it unlikely that Caravaggio would have made a mistake in perspective, however pressed for time he might have been - because as well as being a very naughty boy, he was also a very clever lad. More likely that he used perspective to make a point/increase impact/enhance a gesture - which he, being a genius, could get away with. Hard luck on the rest of us, though....
My Profile pic16

Lewis Cooper

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 6319
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 2578
Posted
Yes, we'll never know the 'why's and wherefores' in something like this. In fact, I love all this stuff, it makes the artists more human, and the painting more interesting. A touch of the 'enigmas' never does anything harm.

Keith Orange

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 240
Posted
There's two version of the Super at Emmaus - one in London, the other in Milan, which I've seen. The latter painting doesn't have the out of proportion hands that you can see in the man on the right of the London painting. The Milan painting has an old woman painted in the background although it doesn't seem to help the composition.