It is certainly the strength of a timeless work like the Lacemaker that one
can look at it from many views. If I have managed to find some 'Arts and
Crafts' in the Art, well, that's a point never investigated before, and I'm
proud of the contribution. Plus it is a valuable record of the equipment of
the time (afterall, I'm even interested in the chairs that lacemakers sit
on). I do not believe the impact would be the same if she were sewing on
that cushion. It is part of the mystery of the painting that she is doing
something that virtually no one today understands. There are plenty of Dutch
paintings of sewers, and none of them have risen to the level that this
lacemaker has.
I strongly disagree with the characterization of the model - this was
probably Vermeer's daughter, and the family lived under the patronage of the
middle class. His few buyers often dug him out of deep debt. In fact he
probably had only one real patron, Pieter Van Ruijven, and without that
support, it would have gone very badly for him. He married well, and
eventually moved into his mother-in-law's place with his 10 surviving
children. Imagine Elizabeth or Maria sitting for her father for 2 years with
that painful hairstyle. She may or may not have been a lacemaker, but her
concentration certainly shows that she is trying. What I see when I look at
this painting is someone trying to look rich, and treating lacemaking as a a
little bit of a painful hobby. But who knows? She could have made the collar
she is wearing.
Art is for everyone, and no one knows what one person will see. The
distinguished critics can bring their learned opinions. But lacemakers have
something to say too. All you have to do is look.
Laurie
http://lacenews.net
Laurie Waters wrote:
I just published an announcement of the Lacemaker exhibition on LaceNews,
along with some extensive comments. Art historians rarely know anything
about lacemaking, and so like to expound on the color and delicacy of the
work. Take another look, from a lacemaker's perspective.
http://tinyurl.com/42b6qhl.
I had contemplated posting on this topic (using Jean's account as she is
still in Australia) but had decided against it as it always seemed to me
that Vermeer's masterpiece had almost nothing to do with lace - you can't
actually see the lace, and for the purposes of the picture the girl could
just have well been engaged in, say, embroidery.
Anyway, looking at Vermeer from the point of view of art appreciation or
criticism, there is an article on the exhibition in this weekend's Financial
Times by the excellent art critic Jackie Wullschlager. If you can still
obtain a copy, I suggest you do so (the international edition almost
certainly carries the same reviews). Otherwise you could try downloading the
FT's iPhone, iPad or android app - you need to register, but get ten
articles a month free. It's on that at the moment.
David (in autumnal Glasgow)
PS
Anyway, I think the focus on the peripherals of lacemaking in the LaceNews
critique is misplaced. It would seem to me that the attraction of this
painting to contemporary lacemakers (who might not be familiar with any
other of Vermeer's works) is the lacemaker herself. This is not a peasant
sitting outside her cottage working for a ptitance, but a member of "the
middle class elite running the newly powerful independant Dutch state" (to
quote JW).
-
To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line:
unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to
arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site:
http://community.webshots.com/user/arachne2003
