> The only point here is that the paintings of the lutenists of the
> Renaissance, and other modern classical times, must be posed rather than
> live play - or else the painters had perfect memories for their subjects.
> Who is to say whether the musician was playing a run, or a chord, or just
> tuning the instrument? (There is one in that wonderful series of lutenist
> paintings on someone's website recommended here where the lady is obviously
> tuning, as her ear is pressed to the body of the instrument).
> A still photograph is a fixed piece of time, and real to that extent. A
> painting is in some ways more expressive as the artist may have interpreted
> the movements by taking time to observe them, but then again he may have
> merely taken a pose. And we can never know except by comparing the body of
> the work.
Actually, I have to agree with Jon on this issue. What an artist finds
visually justified for the purposes of his design is rarely (or never even)
iconographically accurate. Beauty usually lies in ever-so-slightly
distorting the reality, and often not slightly.
RT
______________
Roman M. Turovsky
http://turovsky.org
http://polyhymnion.org
