Vermeer, unedited
 

Of course it's important to see it the way the artist intended it. And of course I'm glad it was carefully researched and lovingly restored and all that.

But I've still gotta say, compositionally speaking, I really prefer the version that was simplified decades after the artist's death.

A lot.

If that's the bus to Hell, save me a seat.

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2021/...upid-painting/

I find the Cupid slightly terrifying!
F.

LOL to both, Julie and Fliss..

Here's a link from your link, Julie:

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2020/...cealed-spaces/

My grandfather had two oil portraits (his parents) and, when he took them for a cleaning, they both had flowers at the bottom, which didn't show before. Dust has a strange and perfect way to settle, it seems. I know this is different.

The link I added is about a painter who 'erases' humans from famous paintings.

Thanks for sharing,
~mignon

The Cupid was a concession to the residual overdone bad taste of the late Renaissance. Totally needless! Vermeer's second thoughts were Best Thoughts. Any point made by the Cupid, however valid, is vastly secondary to the understatement of the pre-"cleaning" version. Vermeer would be properly and exquisitely pissed.

Word-Bird's poetry prompt
A poem in which the ghost of Vermeer expresses his disapproval concerning the removal of the Cupid.

Hola, mignon; I enjoyed that article. I like to think that, in all instances, alien abduction occurred!
F.

Oh, what an interesting link. I quite like both. They just say different things about the girl. Isn't it interesting, how we read things, paintings as palimpsests, the idea of authorial intention. I love it.

Anyway, for my contribution, here are some uncovered paintings, from Hereford, late seventeenth century, vernacular art (but possibly more do-able as wall coverings than eerie cupids). I believe they were hidden under white plaster for a fair while, although I could be wrong.

http://sarah-janecrowson.com/wp-cont...uses-hford.jpg

(apologies for awful snapshots - there are no photos of these on the web I could find to link to so you got mine instead)

I ought to say that artistically I agree with Julie, and I don't care what the scholars think or say. I chose to not accept their verdict. This is often my way with Greek and Roman poems. If, after sufficient thought, I think their arguments, however fine spun, are inconclusive or just wrong, I will disagree. That's me.

I doubt that there is sufficient forensic evidence that Vermeer did not paint over the Cupid himself unless there is secure documentation that someone else did so. If that exists, so much the worse for art.

Show me the money.

Allen, I don't think there's anything unusual about finding Greek and Roman poems a bit bonkers sometimes, lol. I don't have any money for you, just the note that Cupid has always scared me a bit! F.

I read the text accompanying the visuals. And my reaction remains the same. Vermeer ? That cupid is as typical of Vermeer as a VW Beetle is typical of garden bugs. Something is very wrong in claiming that Vermeer meant that cupid to be there, ever!

But if Vermeer meant for it to be painted over, why was it there in the first place? Do you suppose Vermeer did it and changed his mind? If not, what happened? Did one of his apprentices go rogue and paint in the cupid when Vermeer wasn't looking?