Venetian Red Notebook: No Rainbow Without the Sun

Posted in Embroidery, Fashion, Fine & Decorative Arts, Painting, Textiles & Design with tags , , , , on July 10, 2009 by Christine Cariati

Queen Elizabeth I Rainbow PortraitIsaac Oliver, Elizabeth I (The Rainbow Portrait) c 1600

In the latest installment of A History of Lace in Seven Portraits for Venetian Red, Liz writes about a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I attributed to George Gower. This got me thinking about my favorite portraits of Elizabeth I, most of them rife with lace (and pearls.) There are so many wonderful ones, but Isaac Oliver’s Rainbow Portrait, which hangs in Hatfield House, stands out. Unlike many of the Elizabeth portraits, the thing that you first notice about this painting is the color. It is quite elegantly monochromatic, all shades of warm russet, umber and gold.

As a protege of the favored court painter, Nicholas Hilliard, Oliver painted a miniature that was a likeness of the aging Queen which could have cost him his career. In 1596 the Privy Council issued orders that all “unseemly portraits” of the Queen be destroyed—thereafter the Queen was pictured only in the so-called “Mask of Youth” and portrayed as untouched by age. Elizabeth I often referred to the sorrows of her aging body, so it wasn’t vanity that prompted this edict, rather a wish to portray the monarch as perpetually potent, ageless—especially critical for maintaining the authority of an unmarried Queen who would never produce a male heir.

Queen Elizabeth serpent
The Rainbow Portrait was painted when Elizabeth was 67 years old. Volumes have been written about this painting, interpretations that expound, variously and with great conviction, on the perceived religious, political, literary and sexual symbolism in the work. On the simplest level, it is a portrayal of Elizabeth as Astraea, the youthful goddess of justice. She is wearing pearls, the symbol of virginity; her bodice is embroidered with English wildflowers to symbolize her youth and virtue. The serpent embroidered on her left sleeve represents wisdom, also alluding to Eden and the need to be ever-vigilant against evil.

Queen Elizabeth rainbowHer mantle is covered with ears and eyes, indicating that the Queen sees and hears all–or, perhaps, that her counselors and servants see all, but that only she speaks. In her right hand she holds a rainbow, symbol of hope, wisdom, faith and peace. The rainbow is oddly colorless—but the explanation seems to be in the Latin inscription on the painting, “Non sine sole iris”—no rainbow without the sun. Queen Elizabeth is the sun, her vibrant red hair and the elaborate rays of her multi-tiered lace collar proclaim that she outshines all by her brilliance, that she is the link to the divine, and that by her wisdom and virtue the people of England will be guided to peace and prosperity.

RainbowPortraitdetail

This portrait, and the hundreds of others done of Elizabeth I during her lifetime  provide an intriguing look into the complex, interrelated worlds of politics and religion in 16th century England and the very interesting role that artists and portraiture played in that era.

A History of Lace in Seven Portraits: Queen Elizabeth I

Posted in Fashion, Lace, Painting, Textiles & Design with tags , , , , , on July 8, 2009 by Liz Hager

This is the third installment in VR series on lace in portraiture. Click Prologue and Beatrice d’Este for previous installments. Or to read all posts at once, search History of Lace on our front page.

Attributed to George Gower, Queen Elizabeth I,
ca. 1588, oil on panel,  105 x136 cms.
(Woburn Abbey)

When she ascended to the throne in 1558, Elizabeth I inherited a relatively backwater island country, bankrupt, torn by religious strife, and perennially threatened by continental powers France & Spain. Over her 45-year reign, she led England’s extraordinary transformation into a 16th-century superpower. By the time of her death (1603), not only was England free of extra-border threats, but the country was well-positioned for virtually limitless colonial expansion. At the heart of this transformation was the British navy.

George Gowers’s portrait of the Queen (one of three copies) was painted to commemorate the defeat in 1588 by the British of the Spanish Armada. The battle was arguably one of the most significant military victories in British history, for it catapulted England to maritime domination, which supported colonial expansion. For centuries afterward, Britain would reap the economic rewards of its far-flung empire.

17th century Chart showing route of Armada (British Library).

The Battle

The conflict pitted Catholic Spain—its preeminent force backed by considerable New World gold and silver—against Protestant England, a country with little wealth, few friends, and scant defenses. In the fall of 1588, the 124-boat Armada arrived in the English Channel. . . only to suffer humiliating defeat.  The heavy Spanish galleons were thwarted by stormy Channel weather and outmaneuvered by the more nimble British fleet under the command of Sir Francis Drake. Attempting to retreat, the Armada found its direct route to Spain blocked by the British, and the ships were forced to sail around the perilous north coast of Scotland. Storms wrecked a good number of vessels; the remaining few straggled home. The message of British naval supremacy was clear.

The Queen

Elizabeth was an intelligent and pragmatic woman, keenly aware that she was as much a symbol as an individual. By 1588 the epithet “Virgin Queen” would have been in common use, although her power was in no way diminished. Further, Elizabeth was adept at deploying her images in service of propaganda, always cognizant that she must overcome perceptions of weakness represented by a female monarch without heirs.

Gower presents her as Eliza Triumphans, an iconic pose that reinforces Elizabeth as the savior of her country at the height of her political powers. The Queen is in her mid 50s—aging, yet still vital and commanding. The painting is larger than life-size, meant to impress. Further, the Queen is surrounded by symbols of her power, including a luxurious costume studded with hundreds of jewels. She rests her hand on a globe in a gesture that symbolizes her monarchical reach. Her fingers hover over the Americas; the first English child was born at the English settlement in Virginia, just before the portrait was painted.

After 1560, Elizabeth was rarely depicted without her cache of jewels. As opulent accoutrements, they signaled the affluence and separateness of Elizabeth, the Monarch, as well deflected attention from the deteriorating physical condition of Elizabeth, the individual. Pearls, said to be her favorite jewel, symbolize virginity. As a display of her purity, virtuousness, and even agelessness, the pearls would have reminded her subjects that she was “married” to them.

The extravagant and delicate white lace collar also refers to her virginity, curiously (or perhaps deliberately) mimicking the ornamental gold halos of 14th century Madonnas.

Pattern for Reticella Lace from pattern book of Cesare Vecellio, 1591

Reticella Lace, from Pattern Book of Cesare Vecellio, publishing 1591.

The Lace

True lace is generally thought to have originated in the 15th century, although its birthplace—Flanders or Italy—is still disputed. Lace-making skills may have been brought to Britain by Protestant refugees, fleeing the continent in the latter half of the 16th century.

The ruff, a Spanish style, was introduced to Tudor England by Katherine of Aragon. Elizabeth may not have been the first to add lace to the ruff, but certainly she pushed the fashion to dizzying heights. In order to wear her collars higher and stiffer than her subjects, Elizabeth consumed endless yards of cut-work, purle (lace knitting), needlework and bone lace, all of which required elaborate stays and starching to hold the many embedded jewels and other ornamentation properly.

QEI-Armada-unknown-1588-89

Elizabethean portraiture provides excellent documentation of the evolution of the ruff—from a tight pleated collar of lace, newly fashionable in the 1560s, through the enlarged and unfolding style of the 1570s and 80s, to the extravagant grandeur depicted in the Rainbow Portrait (1600).

Reticella cloth, late 19th century.

The lace of the Armada collar was most certainly needlework lace, as Elizabeth was known to have preferred the Italian styles. Its gossamer quality and repeating geometric design (with lovely end wheels) suggests a reticella, an early form of true lace said to have originated in the Ionian islands. As 17th century portraits report, reticella was hugely popular among European nobility,  and made only to a limited extent in England. Elizabeth would have liked its scarcity.

Wider Connections

National Portrait Gallery—117 portraits of Queen Elizabeth I

Roy Strong—The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth

Elizabeth Brydges (Lady in Waiting to QE1) 1589 portrait.  Note the outer scallops of lace in the shape of Royal Crown.

British Library—Defeat of the Armada

Reticella history

In Memorium: Pina Bausch (1940-2009)

Posted in Fine & Decorative Arts, Music & Dance with tags , , on July 7, 2009 by Christine Cariati

PinaBausch

Pina Bausch died on June 30th in Wuppertal, Germany at the age of 68. I had not planned to comment on Venetian Red, but since a week has passed and she is still very much in my thoughts I wanted to acknowledge her passing. Many years ago, when I first saw her Tanztheater Wuppertal at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, I had read about her work, but was completely unprepared for the enormous impact the performance would have on me. After that evening, I knew that I would see her work wherever and whenever possible.

PinaNelkenPina Bausch, Nelken

When we entered the theater at BAM that first night to see Palermo, Palermo, the entire proscenium opening was filled with a solid wall of cinder block—in fact, we wondered how the dancers could possibly perform on the sliver of stage that remained in front of the wall. At curtain time, the wall began to move and shake and soon crashed backwards on to the stage, leaving the entire theater filled with clouds of dust and the stage completely littered with huge chunks of cement and debris. Then the dancers emerged (the women, as they often were in Bausch’s work, in 4-inch heels) and the astonishing piece unfolded amid the ruins.

PinaTenChiPina Bausch, Ten Chi

Pina Bausch created an entirely new form of dance that she called tanztheater—the dancers ran, walked, threw themselves from great heights, spoke, sang, fought and yelled, usually while navigating a stage covered with dirt, flowers, rubble or water. The dramas they enacted were hilarious, tragic, sexual, reflective and spiritual–often all at once. It’s impossible to describe the impact of these all-encompassing performances when seen in person—their astonishing beauty and emotional impact—but glimpses can be seen in this video and the many others on YouTube.

At the time of her death, Wim Wenders was filming Pina, a 3-D dance film of her work. He has temporarily suspended production, and I ardently hope that he and her dance troupe can find their way to complete the film.

Bausch is often quoted as saying she was “not interested in how people move but in what moves them.” While acknowledging her dancers’ technique, she said “I look for something else. The possibility of making them feel what each gesture means internally. Everything must come from the heart, must be lived.”

PinaBausch

Dark Day Picks

Posted in Bay Area Art Scene, Contemporary Art, Furniture, Mixed Media, Painting, Photography with tags , , , on July 6, 2009 by Liz Hager

Museum of Craft + Design—Matt Kahn: Artist & Educator, through July 12.  Matt Kahn has been teaching design at Stanford University for 55 years.  People like IDEO founder David Kelley and textile artist Jean Ray Laury consider Kahn their mentor.

University of California, Berkeley Art Museum—Human/Nature: Artists Respond to a Changing Planet, through Sept. 27.  Eight artists travelled to eight UNESCO world heritage sites to respond to the questions of whether art can inspire conservation and vice versa.

Ben Aronson, Passing Taxis, 2008-9

Jenkins Johnson Gallery, 464 Sutter Street, SF—Summertime, through August 29. The exhibit runs simultaneously in New York and San Francisco and showcases the work of Nicholas Africano, Ben Aronson, Edward Burtynsky, Michael Eastman, Gerald Förster, Scott Fraser, Julia Fullerton-Batten, Lynn Goldsmith, Wes Hempel, Rene Lynch, Joel Meyerowitz, John Nava, Julian Opie, Yigal Ozeri, Sheila Pree Bright, Scott Prior, Chris Raecker, Kay Ruane, Francesca Sundsten, Nancy Switzer, Robert Van Vranken, Hiroshi Watanabe, Z.Z. Wei, Janice Urnstein Weissman, Don Williams, Sherrie Wolf, Michael Workman, William Wylie, and JeongMee Yoon. Not all artists in both locations.

deCAMPed: Will SF Say Goodbye to the Fisher Collection?

Posted in Bay Area Art Scene, Fine & Decorative Arts with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 4, 2009 by Liz Hager

(Previous VR posts on this subject can be found at A Day at CAMP: Thoughts on the Fisher Collection and The Evolving Uses of the Presidio: CAMP Update.)

John Chamberlain

John Chamberlain sculpture of crushed sheet metal/car parts in the Gap, Inc. lobby.

In a not unsurprising move, Donald Fisher officially announced Wednesday that he would withdraw his proposal to build a museum (CAMP) for his contemporary art collection on the Parade Grounds of the Presidio’s Main Post, making the prospects for keeping the collection in San Francisco seem ever more remote. Options are still available. Perhaps Fisher and SFMOMA will work out a suitable arrangement. Fisher could seriously consider the other Presidio site, the Commissary (currently home to the Sports Basement), which was mentioned early on by the Trust as its preferred alternative site.  A worst-case scenario might force Don Fisher to decide whether he would rather give up some curatorial control to MOMA in return for real estate in a prestigious downtown location or maintain absolute curatorial control in a more remote (and less prestigious) location. On the other hand he might just get a best offer from any number of other cities—Houston, Chicago, Miami, Boston.

The nearly two-year vetting process has pitted steadfastly competing interests against one another. Preservationists and neighborhood groups squared off against Fisher’s largesse, egotism and stubborn pride. And, as is often the case, the process of this rancorous bickering over often parochial interests nearly drowned out advocates for the public good—the greater economic, social, and psychic good of maintaining a broad and deep cultural collection in our city.

Finally, on Wednesday Donald Fisher signaled that he’d had enough, commenting: “Doris and I will take some time to consider the future of our collection and other possible locations for a museum, which could include other sites within the Presidio and elsewhere.”

For a lot of reasons, many consider the MOMA scenario to be the most sensible alternative. But the Commissary site (off Mason Street) at the Presidio is not a bad option. A contemporary art museum presents a vast improvement to the eyesore that currently occupies the site (temporarily in use by the Sports Basement).  Built in 1989, the Commissary is not protected as an historical structure. The plans for renovating Doyle Drive (construction begins in 2011) include an underground tunnel at the southern edge of the site that will camouflage traffic from the field below. Further, the tunnel’s grassy mound will slope gently towards the site, creating the feeling of a park. The restored (and protected) Crissy Field with its marshlands and beach, not to mention the wild frothy waters of the Bay and emblematic Golden Gate Bridge beyond, would be an impressive sight indeed from the second-story window of a new building . . .

One thing is for sure: if the Fishers’ ambitious and high-quality collection ultimately lands elsewhere, the real losers will be not only be the impersonal “city of San Francisco,” but the very personal you and I. The city will perhaps loose the incremental tourist revenue that comes with a world-class museum, nothing to scoff at.  You and I on the other hand will miss out on an huge chunk of American culture (there are over 1,000 pieces in the collection), as well as the incalculable joy of exercising our imaginations, while contemplating works by Agnes Martin, Frank Stella, Roy Lichtenstein, Philip Guston, Richard Long, David HockneyElizabeth Murray, Ellsworth Kelly, Brice Marden, Sean Scully, Chuck Close, William Kentridge (visitors to the recent MOMA exhibit will remember that the Fishers own many Kentridge’s pieces), Jeff Wall, Bill Viola, and Sigmar Polke, among many others.

Now is a time like no other for the public to stand up for the public good. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s MOMA or the Commissary—both are fine options—just as long as the collection stays here. Letters to the Fisher, the MOMA or Presidio Boards, the Chronicle could help influence the decision. We can’t afford not to.  Otherwise, the final words might best be the refrain from Joni Mitchell: “Don’t it always got to go that you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone?”

Wider Connections

Donald Fisher—CAMP

Presidio Board; Presidio Trust contact

MOMA Board contact

Letters to the Editor, Chronicle

Kenneth Baker visits the collection (video)

Venetian Red Notebook: The Flowering of the Ottoman Empire

Posted in Fine & Decorative Arts, Textiles & Design with tags , , on July 3, 2009 by Christine Cariati

OttomanTulipLinen cover with silk embroidery, 18th Century
The Textile Museum, Washington, D.C.

For nearly 500 years, from 1453-1922, the Imperial City of Istanbul was the seat of power of the Ottoman Empire. The bazaars of this cosmopolitan city were filled with heaps of dazzling embroidered textiles. These stunning fabrics, inspired by the famous gardens of Istanbul, brought the beauty of nature indoors. These textiles played an important role in every aspect of daily life—they were used for decoration, clothing, and as part of ritual observances. In addition to the beauty they provided, the production of these fabrics played a large role in the economy of the Ottoman Empire.

Here is a small sampling of  lush florals, woven in silk, all from the collection of  The Smithsonian’s Textile Museum. Not only are these patterns inventive and beautiful, they are filled with life and movement—though stylized, these embroidered flowers have all the energy and vitality of the gardens that inspired them.

Ottoman2Linen cover with silk embroidery, 17th century

Ottoman3Cover fragment, linen with silk embroidery, 17th century

Ottoman4Cover, linen with silk embroidery, 17th century

Ottoman5Cover fragment, linen with silk embroidery, 17th century

Ottoman6Cover fragment, linen with silk embroidery, 18th century

Ottoman7Bohca,(wrapping cloth), linen with silk embroidery, 18th century

Florine Stettheimer: Occasionally A Human Being Saw My Light

Posted in Fine & Decorative Arts, Opera, Painting with tags , , , , , on July 1, 2009 by Christine Cariati

FSphoto
Florine Stettheimer, c 1917-20
Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library

It is often said that Florine Stettheimer, an early-Modernist painter of extreme originality and wit, lived a charmed life. Born to a wealthy German-Jewish family in New York in 1871, she was one of five children. Early on, her father left the family; she and her siblings grew up mostly in Europe. Stettheimer returned to New York in the early 1890s to study at the Art Student’s League, after which she returned to Europe, where she traveled extensively and studied art in Paris and Munich. In 1914, on the eve of World War I, she returned to New York with her mother and two sisters—Carrie and Ettie—and the family settled into an apartment in Alwyn Court on West 58th Street, near Carnegie Hall. There, Stettheimer and her sisters established a legendary salon that was frequented by many of the most important creative people of the time—among them, Marcel Duchamp, Carl Van Vechten, Gaston Lachaise, Sherwood Anderson, Edie Nedelman, Virgil Thompson, Edgar Varese, Georgia O’Keeffe, Alfred Steiglitz and the art critic Henry McBride.

FSsoireeFlorine Stettheimer, Soiree, 1917-1919
Beinecke Library, Yale University

In 1916 the Knoedler Gallery in New York mounted a show of Stettheimer’s work which was a critical and financial disaster. This disappointment, while keenly felt, fortunately pushed Stettheimer to leave behind her tentative, somewhat derivative post-Impressionist style and move on to what was to become her mature work. However, after this disappointment, she mostly showed her work in small group shows or privately at her studio, rarely showing her paintings publicly and refusing to put any of her work up for sale. Before her death in 1944 at the age of 73, Stettheimer asked that her family destroy all of her paintings—fortunately, they did not. In 1946, two years after her death, and at the suggestion of one of her closest friends, Marcel Duchamp, a retrospective of her work was mounted at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. The show was curated by another friend, art critic Henry McBride. Although critics of the time acknowledged her as as a very important Modernist painter of the early 20th century, and she had the respect and admiration of many of her peers, her paintings then disappeared from view until 1995, when they were exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art. This show, Florine Stettheimer: Manhattan Fantastica, included early work, her most fully-realized post-1915 pieces as well as her theater and costume designs, dolls and collages.

FSpicnicFlorine Stettheimer, Picnic at Bedford Hills, 1918
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia

Stettheimer’s paintings are deeply personal—her main subject matter was her family and friends and the rather dreamy world of pleasure they inhabited. In her dazzling and eccentric paintings, with their bold color and openly feminine sensibility, Stettheimer created a unique synthesis of things she studied and loved—one catches glimpses of medieval portraiture, Persian miniatures, Brueghel, early Renaissance painting, Velasquez, children’s art, theater design, Matisse, Surrealism, Symbolism, folk art, fashion illustration, decorative art and interior design. She combines high/low elements in vivid constructions that depict scenes in a non-sequential, dream-like way—she played with perspective and her people and objects often float languidly through a complex universe of multiple narratives that have an allegorical quality. Her use of color was extraordinary, very American, and a complete break with the naturalistic earth tones of European painting. She favored deep reds, blacks, vivid pinks, vibrant blues and deep yellows, often in contrast to strong whites or soft pastels. Her portraits of family and friends in sitting rooms, salons, and summer houses; at picnics, luncheons and soirees—emphasized and immortalized their individual talents and interests. A good example of this is her portrait, below, of the writer Carl Van Vechten, who sits in the center of the painting, surrounded by his cats, books, typewriter and myriad artifacts from his life and work.

FScvvFlorine Stettheimer, Portrait of Carl Van Vechten, 1922
Beinecke Library, Yale University

And this portrait of her sister Effie, in which Henry McBride described her as looking “…wide-eyed, for the mystery of life…as happy a blend of her worldliness and spirituality as any psychiatrist could ask for.”

FSesxmastree.jpgScan10010Florine Stettheimer, Portrait of My Sister, Ettie Stettheimer, 1923
Columbia University

While Stettheimer made the decision to only show her work privately during her lifetime, she also suffered from the neglect and was resentful of the lack of recognition. Like many women artists, Stettheimer’s personal life has long overshadowed her art. Her work has been vilified as being too feminine, although, as Barbara Bloemink points out, in the prologue to her excellent book, The Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer, “it is difficult to imagine anyone criticizing a work of art as being too masculine.” There was also another obstacle to recognition by the art establishment–she made them uncomfortable. The art world is very inhospitable to independent artists whose work is idiosyncratic and who are neither part of any school nor followers of any group. In his 1996 article on Stettheimer in Art in America, Trevor Winkfield writes: “You can paint anything in New York, runs a well-known truism, as long as three other people are doing the same thing.”

FSheat2Florine Stettheimer, Heat, 1919
The Brooklyn Museum

Stettheimer also had an abiding interest in costume and set design. When she lived in Paris, she fell in love with Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, which inspired her to write a story for a ballet, Orphee des Quat’z-Arts, in 1912. The ballet was never produced, but Stettheimer designed costumes and built some model sets—the Museum of Modern Art has 44 of the sketches (see below) in their collection, but not on view. In 1934, Stettheimer designed sets and costumes for the Gertrude Stein/Virgil Thomson opera, Four Saints in Three Acts. Very avant-garde for the day, she fashioned the sets from tinsel, cellophane and lace, apparently to great effect when lit to her specifications.

Orphee des Quat'z-ArtsFlorine Stettheimer, Euridice and Her Snake, Two Tango Dancers and St. Francis
design for Orphee des Quat’z Arts, 1912
Gouache, watercolor, metallic paint and pencil on paper

In 1935, Stettheimer’s mother died, and Florine surprised everyone by moving into her studio in the Beaux Arts Building at 8 West 40th Street—living by herself, for the first time, at the age of sixty-four. The success and acclaim garnered from Four Saints, and her newly found independence, increased her self-confidence and spurred her on to a new phase of her work in which she re-worked old themes with a new sense of clarity and purpose.

FSfamilyportrait2Florine Stettheimer, Family Portrait Number 2, 1933
Museum of Modern Art, New York

Her last painting, unfinished at her death, The Cathedrals of Art, is a multi-narrative work, somewhat reminiscent of the structure of early Renaissance painting, that satirizes the power-brokering and competitiveness of the New York art world. The art critic Hilton Kramer later described it as “comic opera…the whole scene is one of shameless hustling and posturing. It is a prophetic as well as a delightful painting.”

FScathedralsFlorine Stettheimer, Cathedrals of Art, 1943-44
Metropolitan Museum of Art

Stettheimer was a dedicated, accomplished artist who was full of contradictions–she wanted to both avoid the critical spotlight and achieve recognition for her work. In her paintings and poetry she created and re-created the narrative of her life. In her imagery, narratives collide and split, time is erased and reordered. Perhaps this poem, published privately and posthumously in Crystal Flowers, 1949, gives us a glimpse into her elusive persona:

Occasionally
A human being
Saw my light
Rushed in
Got singed
Got scared
Rushed out
Called fire
Or it happened
That he tried
To subdue it
Or it happened
That he tried to extinguish it
Never did a friend
Enjoy it
The way it was.
So I learned to
Turn it low
Turn it out
When I meet a
stranger—
Out of courtesy
I turn on a soft
Pink light
Which is found
modest
Even charming.
it is protection
Against wear
and tears…
And when
I am rid of
The Always-to-be-
Stranger
I turn on my light
And become
myself.

FSnudeFlorine Stettheimer, Portrait of Myself, 1923
Collection, Columbia University, New York

Dark Day Picks

Posted in Bay Area Art Scene, Painting, Photography with tags , , on June 29, 2009 by Liz Hager

On Mondays Venetian Red celebrates the day of the week when galleries and museums are closed. Every Monday we highlight a few current exhibitions, new installations, or art world tidbits. Get a jump on a week filled with art.

Legion of Honor—John Baldessari: A Print Retrospective from the Collections of Jordan D. Schnitzer. July 11—Nov. 8.

Room for Painting Room for Paper, 49 Geary Street—Rachael Jablo, Under a Circus Sky. July 2—August 1.

Aurobora Press, 370 Brannan , SFSummer Off South Park, revolving show of gallery artists, including Richmond Burton (above), David Ireland, Wes Mills, Laurie Reid and others. Through August 31.


The History of Lace in Seven Portraits: Beatrice d’Este

Posted in Lace, Painting, Textiles & Design with tags , , , , on June 27, 2009 by Liz Hager

This is the second installment in VR series on lace in portraiture. Other installments include: Prologue, Elizabeth I. For all installments, search History of Lace on our front page.

Leonardo da Vinci or Ambrogio de Predis, Beatrice d’Este, ca. 1490

Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan, Italy

Our history begins with Beatrice d’Este, despite the fact that in this portrait she wears no lace. Although lace is explicitly mentioned in documents as early as the 13th century, the first detailed portraits of figures wearing lace generally don’t appear until the 16th century, when lace was widely fashionable among the nobility and growing merchant classes.

It is somewhat curious that Beatrice wears no lace in this portrait. Lace, which could require as many as ten hours of concentrated work to produce a single square inch, was available and highly-coveted. Indeed, an Este family inventory dating from 1493 lists, among a vast array of jewels and personal property, ricamo a reticellapunti and lavoro ad ossa (bone lace), all common laces of the period.

And yet, the portrait is emblematic of its time. Completed at the dawn of the Renaissance (commonly set at 1492), the painting hints at the transformation of the world to come, during which great power and wealth would be accumulated by families in a position to profit from the re-emerging trade along Silk Route. And those families would impress the world with their unapologetic and ostentatious display of wealth, the legacy of which has reached us in the form of various “masterpieces.”

Beatrice was a member of the Este-Sforza family, which joined by marriage two of the oldest reigning and already powerful houses in Italy. The house of Este, which held court in Ferrara, traced its lineage to the 11th century Dukes of Saxony and Bavaria. Beatrice’s father, Ercole I ruled the Ferrara commune for 34 years, catapulting the city-state (and the Estes with it) to an unmatched level of economic prosperity and cultural prominence. The family was renowned for its love of letters and patronage of the arts.

By comparison, the Sforza (”force”) dynasty were young upstarts. At the time of this portrait, the Sforzas controlled another rising city-state, the Duchy of Milan. (Although this would not be for long, as the French ousted Beatrice’s husband Ludvico Sforza, the Duke of Milan, in 1498, and this led to centuries of skirmishes between various European factions for control of Milan.)

The houses of Este and Sforza had always been on friendly terms. Since Ludvico was one of the most powerful princes in Italy, he might have been expected to eventually woo the Este daughters. His first choice for a wife was Beatrice’s older sister, Isabella. Ercole I readily saw in the alliance an opportunity to ally Ferrara with powerful Milan as a safeguard against the rival Papal State and Venice. Unfortunately, Isabella was already spoken for. So Ercole proffered up his younger daughter (then under 10 years old). The two were subsequently married in the winter 1490 when Beatrice was 16.

The true attribution of Beatrice’s portrait is still in doubt. Ludvico Sforza was a true Renaissance man, accomplished as a warrior, businessman, and a patron of the arts, who over time commissioned both Ambrogio de Predis and Leonardo.  De Predis was already employed in the Sforza court when Ludvico first invited Leonardo to Milan in 1483 to design an equestrian statue of his father, Duke Francesco Sforza. (Though the Leonardo model was never cast, a “replica” prances today outside the Ippodromo in Milan.)  The Duke had his doubts throughout the duration of the project, but it must have ended well, because Leonardo stayed on at court, helping the couple with all manner of additional projects, including the marriage celebration. Unfortunately, no documentation of a portrait by Leonardo of either the Duke or his wife exists. Further complicating matters, de Predis was known to have assisted Leonardo with many of his Milanese commissions.

Whoever the artist, by following the portraiture convention established by painters of the Quattrocentro, he has magnificently captured the beauty and essential character of the young women referred to as “la più zentil donna in Italia” (”the sweetest lady in Italy”). Bedecked for the portrait in the adornment afforded to her by her birthright and marriage—silk, velvet, pearls and embroidery (brocade) crafted of spun gold threads—in profile she is the model of noble serenity that comes with enormous wealth.

Wider Connections

Cristoforo Romano: bust of Beatrice d’Este

Fashion: Beatrice d’Este’s tomb

Ambrogio de Precis only signed and dated work: Maximilian I

Niccolò Machiavelli—The Prince

Sir Kenneth Clark: Leonardo da Vinci

Venetian Red Notebook: God Is In The Details

Posted in Fine & Decorative Arts, Painting, Textiles & Design with tags , , , , , on June 26, 2009 by Christine Cariati

A septet of paintings and tapestries spanning the 15th-20th centuries. All very different in mood and intent, yet each filled with exquisite, finely-patterned detail.

KlimtGustav Klimt, Die Tanzerin (The Dancer)
Oil on canvas, c 1916-18
Courtesy: Neue Galerie

bonnardnudePierre Bonnard, Nude in the Bath and Small Dog, 1941-6
Courtesy: Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh

tapunicornLa Dame a La Licorne, Le Toucher (detail)
Tapestry, wool & silk, end of 15th century
Courtesy: Reunion des musees nationeaux, Paris

jpgWilliam Blake, Beatrice Addressing Dante from the Car, 1824-7
Pen and watercolor
Courtesy: the Tate Gallery, London

TangkaParamasukha—Chakrasamvara (detail) Tangka, Gouache on cotton
Tibet, late 15th-early 16th century
Courtesy: Robert Hatfield Ellsworth Private Collection  Photo: Kaz Tsuruta

TapbirdsThe Hunt of the Unicorn, Flemish, c 1500
Detail, Fourth tapestry in the series, The Unicorn Defends Himself
The Cloisters, Metropolitan Museum of Art

vuillardEdouard Vuillard, Mother and Sister of the Artist, c 1893
Courtesy: The Museum of Modern Art