Active Now

Flint Ironstag
Discussion » Questions » Arts » Artist's 'revenge' or not?

Artist's 'revenge' or not?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/10/gainsborough-masterpiece-contains-phallic-symbols-work-secret/

Posted - October 10, 2017

Responses


  • 13071
    My browser wont let me go there. ;(
      October 10, 2017 6:44 PM MDT
    1

  • 23577
    Me, too.

      October 10, 2017 7:00 PM MDT
    1

  • 7939
    Sorry guys, it's the site. It presently changes all http links to https. The "s" denotes encryption, which is important if you're transferring sensitive data. Your browser knows that site isn't encrypted and that it shouldn't have an "s" in the link, so it yells at you as a warning not to go there because it appears deceptive. It's no, though. It's the Telegraph. You can copy/paste the link and then just remove the "s" in https and your browser will stop yelling at you, or you can override it.
      October 10, 2017 10:05 PM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    a google search for "gainsborough masterpiece contains phallic symbols" found it easily.

    Usually when https: links fail to load it is because the security certificate has not been updated. https certificates only last someting like 90 days.

    This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at October 11, 2017 4:06 AM MDT
      October 11, 2017 4:05 AM MDT
    0

  • 7939
    In this case, our site makes every link Https, even those that are not. The newspaper doesn't transfer sensitive data- no credit cards, no passwords, etc, so it has no reason to be encrypted. Ergo, they don't use https. It's our site that converted the http link into https, making it seem as if the news site should have been https... 
      October 11, 2017 12:26 PM MDT
    0

  • 2515
    @Just Asking, Thanks for finding the question for me, JA! :-))
      October 11, 2017 3:38 PM MDT
    0

  • 591
    With apologies to all who could not open the link, I have reproduced the article here.


    Mr and Mrs Andrews, by Gainsborough CREDIT: NATIONAL GALLERY
    10 OCTOBER 2017 • 12:59AM

    According to the National Gallery, it is a Gainsborough masterpiece celebrating a marriage, starring a fashionable young couple and an unfinished spot on the bride’s lap for a future child to be painted in.

    That description, according to an art historian, should be swiftly updated, to take in a new theory: the artist was sending up his subjects with a series of rude symbols while hell-bent on revenge.

    James Hamilton, author of a new biography on Gainsborough, said he believed the painting of Mr and Mrs Andrews, owned by the National Gallery, should be immediately reappraised, admitting the true nature of the work was so scandalous they may need to be careful in their wording.

    His new book details his reexamination of the famous painting, recasting it not as a celebration of the union of two landed families, but a bawdy mockery of the Mr and Mrs Andrews he had fallen out with.

    “Certain signs point towards the painter’s revenge,” he said.

    Among the hidden signs Hamilton claims to have identified are two donkeys trapped in a pen, added in the far background to the left of the painting, a “phallic” bag tied to Mr Andrews hip complete with “floppy leather glove” and a doodle of a penis in Mrs Andrews’ lap.

     

             James Hamilton claims Mrs Andrews' lap contain a crude sketch of a penis


    T
    he painting, completed by Gainsborough in Suffolk in 1748, is known to star Robert Andrews and Frances Carter, subjects of a carefully-arranged marriage to unite two large estates in Sudbury.Both families were well known to Gainsborough, with a one-time friendship between the artist and Mr Andrews.

    But far from being a treasured gift, Hamilton said, the painting in fact disappeared: never named, mentioned in biographies or exhibited until centuries later.

    “Something went very wrong," said Hamilton, an author, curator and lecturer. "By now, Gainsborough had every reason to hate the Carters.

    "Gainsborough’s father John, not a very canny businessman, overreached himself.

    "It may be that they forced him towards bankruptcy, with the painting being a way to settle the debt.


    A oddly-shaped bag attached to Mr Andrews' hip is also considered symbolic

    "Gainsborough seems to have thought that he might have some sport with the Andrews."

    The details of the painting, he said, include a phallic drawing which matches a doodle found in the margin of one of Gainsborough's letter.

    "Gainsborough was a randy gentleman living in a randy age," he said. "Sexual innuendo and graffiti were not foreign to him.

    "A painting with such a high finish and express detail as Mr and Mrs Andrews would not have been left in that state [partly unfinished] and delivered without a clear understanding, serious discussion or a fundamental falling out.

    "The portrait such as this with a clear dynastic intent and clear social markers would have been completed unless death or another such disaster had intervened.

     "If there was an understanding that this space was to be filled, it would have been filled.


    Two donkeys trapped in a pen represented Gainsborough's thoughts on the couple, Hamilton suggested

    “If there had been serious discussion about its content, that discussion would have been resolved.

    "The only reason left is a fundamental falling out. Given Gainsborough’s volatility, we have a final curt argument as the most likely reason for the lack of finish.

    "It was never given a title, it was never engraved, and was put away out of the public gaze until the 20th century when all involved were long dead and whatever controversy there was forgotten."

    The painting was eventually bought by the National Gallery in the 1960s. The gallery currently describes Mr and Mrs Andrews as "the masterpiece of Gainsborough's early years".

    "The landscape evokes Robert Andrews's estate, to which his marriage added property," it states. "The painting of Mrs Andrews's lap is unfinished. The space may have been reserved for a child for Mrs Andrews to hold."

    Asked if he believed the gallery should update the citation, Hamilton said: “Yes. Although how they would word it, I don’t know.”



      October 10, 2017 10:09 PM MDT
    0

  • 7939
    I don't know. I suck at interpretation. I remember sitting in my high school English class, and my teacher asking us why the author of a book used green or something, and I was like, "I don't know. Maybe he liked green." And, the teacher scolded me and told me it was supposed to be jealousy or something stupid, and I replied, "Really? Were you there? Have you spoken to this author who lived hundreds of years before you? Did he tell people that's why he did it? Because, if not, you need to stop assigning meaning to his work that he didn't give it." I failed. lol

    Ironically, I'm a writer now, and people assign different meaning to my projects than I do. And, I'm friends with an artist who gets frustrated at his own shows because people never ask him what a painting means- they just decide for themselves and talk about what they think it means, in his presence, without ever asking him. lol 

    I don't see any phallic symbols in the painting. To say the one on the guy's hip is one... maybe... but that's really a stretch. And, if the artist was pissed at the family, I find it doubtful he'd give the guy a big one. :o *shrugs* I' inclined to say no, unless there's evidence otherwise. As far as the donkeys go... maybe there really were donkeys in the background when he painted them. So far, it just feels like the so-called "expert" is fishing, but I'm no expert. 
      October 10, 2017 10:22 PM MDT
    0

  • 591
    I am inclined to see it as you do, I feel that if there was any revenge aspect, then it is to be seen in their happy faces Gainsborough did not see them through 'rose tinted' glasses.
    Your first paragraph reminds me of creationists asking how we know about the "big bang' "how do you know, were you there"? Yet they are perfectly happy with Adam and Eve and 'god did it', without even seeing the irony of their own question.
      October 10, 2017 11:13 PM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    The interpretation of the donkeys is quite a reach, I see nothing phallic about them.

    The penis doodle under the ladys left knee is actually there, but looks like an amateurish drawing added later.

    The belt-bag is not all that phallic, it looks more like a natural  copy of the clothing back then. Take a square of cloth, sew it into a tube, Tie the tube at the end, and voila: you have a little bag that is shaped like a penis. A proper tailor would of course have done a better job, but in those days young girls were supposed to sew (however reluctantly and amateurishly) I guees it is a love-gift from the lady.

    This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at October 11, 2017 4:25 AM MDT
      October 11, 2017 4:19 AM MDT
    0

  • 591
    'I guess it is a love gift from the lady.' I wonder what she had in her mind as she made it?

      October 11, 2017 3:49 PM MDT
    0

  • 2515
    First, let me thank Just Asking for finding this question for me. I have been having problems with this site all day, so I’m not going back to her answer. I hope it’s ok. 
    Answer for this question:
    1. In doing criticisms for a painting, you have to look at it’s history, because time also changes the interpretation of a painting. 
    2. This painting is named “Mr. and Mrs. Andrews”, by Gainsborough, painted in 1748.
    3. In 1927, the painting was the darling of the critics and art historians.
    4. In 1949, it was also praised by Kenneth Clark, a British art historian.
    5. It ran into harsh criticism in 1972, with John Berger, author of book called “Ways of Seeing”. 
    6. Also with other geographer critics of landscape in it. They said, “It is a symptom of the capitalist property...”
    7. The additional information you have about symbolism is just his opinion about what it means, however, Andrew Graham Dixon (British art historian) says it was one of the master pieces of erotic paintings. 
    8. I am certain that as time goes by, its meaning will change. One thing for sure, Gainsborough is still a master of portraiture. This post was edited by Marguerite, the Beloved at October 11, 2017 3:38 PM MDT
      October 11, 2017 3:35 PM MDT
    1