Comments for Vivante Drawings http://lucyvivante.net Drawings and their Appeal Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:27:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Leonardo ? by Renatius Barton http://lucyvivante.net/2010/01/17/leonardo/comment-page-1/#comment-2436 Renatius Barton Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:27:38 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=765#comment-2436 Definitely NOT a Leonardo. Definitely NOT a Leonardo.

]]> Comment on Leonardo ? by Giselle http://lucyvivante.net/2010/01/17/leonardo/comment-page-1/#comment-2434 Giselle Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:35:55 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=765#comment-2434 I completely agree with the “PS” post…this drawing is so obviously not even close to Leonardo’s mastery and technique and screams either blatant fraud or mediocre 18th to 19th century artist using widely available older vellum. Perhaps not to deceive at all, but just to emulate the style of earlier Italian works. OR, it’s just a recent forgery on appropriately aged supports with intent to deceive. Please consider and do extensive research into the parties involved in this case, convicted scam artists and a hopelessly pathetic “scholar” on Leonardo lost in a fantasy…OR JUST PROMOTING THE SALE OF HIS BOOK ABOUT THIS LOST DRAWING! The drawing is SO OVERWORKED, stiff, and monotonous that it amazes that anyone could possibly attribute this to any master, let alone the ultimate master Leonardo. It’s an abject insult to him. Look at the nostril alone! SO overdone and overworked in definition and heavy handed dead looking shading. And I agree that the lower eye area (and entire eye, in fact) called the “lower eyelid margin” is far too well outlined and defined to be the work of any master. The entire piece is far too overworked, period. There’s no fluidity to this piece, no life, no mark of genius like Leonardo’s inimitable ease and lively precision. I also agree with the limp, awkward, attempt at left crosshatching. And all of the cross hatching in general…not anywhere close to the fluidity and perfection of a master. And the hair is poorly done, heavily overworked, and absolutely contradictory to Leonardo’s voluptuous flowing strands that amaze in their lively dynamism. This is a very pretty work at first glance, but the more it’s examined, the more overworked and mediocre it is. But it never struck me as even close to Leonardo’s mastery at any time, including first glance. I wouldn’t even buy it if it was claimed to be VERY early work by him in his youth. The genius simply isn’t there…it’s flat, heavy handed, and ultimately boring. And MEDIOCRE in the draftsmanship. I completely agree with the “PS” post…this drawing is so obviously not even close to Leonardo’s mastery and technique and screams either blatant fraud or mediocre 18th to 19th century artist using widely available older vellum. Perhaps not to deceive at all, but just to emulate the style of earlier Italian works. OR, it’s just a recent forgery on appropriately aged supports with intent to deceive.

Please consider and do extensive research into the parties involved in this case, convicted scam artists and a hopelessly pathetic “scholar” on Leonardo lost in a fantasy…OR JUST PROMOTING THE SALE OF HIS BOOK ABOUT THIS LOST DRAWING!

The drawing is SO OVERWORKED, stiff, and monotonous that it amazes that anyone could possibly attribute this to any master, let alone the ultimate master Leonardo. It’s an abject insult to him. Look at the nostril alone! SO overdone and overworked in definition and heavy handed dead looking shading.
And I agree that the lower eye area (and entire eye, in fact) called the “lower eyelid margin” is far too well outlined and defined to be the work of any master. The entire piece is far too overworked, period. There’s no fluidity to this piece, no life, no mark of genius like Leonardo’s inimitable ease and lively precision.
I also agree with the limp, awkward, attempt at left crosshatching. And all of the cross hatching in general…not anywhere close to the fluidity and perfection of a master.
And the hair is poorly done, heavily overworked, and absolutely contradictory to Leonardo’s voluptuous flowing strands that amaze in their lively dynamism.

This is a very pretty work at first glance, but the more it’s examined, the more overworked and mediocre it is. But it never struck me as even close to Leonardo’s mastery at any time, including first glance. I wouldn’t even buy it if it was claimed to be VERY early work by him in his youth. The genius simply isn’t there…it’s flat, heavy handed, and ultimately boring. And MEDIOCRE in the draftsmanship.

]]> Comment on Leonardo ? by ps http://lucyvivante.net/2010/01/17/leonardo/comment-page-1/#comment-2433 ps Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:42:08 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=765#comment-2433 The absolute lack of vitality and energy in this very static (but beautiful) work immediatley made me say no way, no how, absolutley not by Leonardo's lively, unique , and incomparably masterful hand. The left cross hatching looks forced, choppy, and uneven and Leonardo's cross hatching is so precise it looks like he measured the spaces in between each incredibly straight but fluid line! There's just no fluidity or effortlessness in this piece and it looks tooo contrived. Also, the lower eyelid is far too well defined (as are other elements) and it looks like nothing similar to any other eye he's done that I've seen in any drawing, sketch, or painting. My gut reaction upon first sight was that it's either a fabulous contemporary fake or a true late Renaissance to 18th century piece but definitely NOT by Leonardo. Looks more Germanic to me. Where's the PROVENANCE? Odd how it's lacking and never mentioned. A very beautiful work but just far too static and lifeless for any relation to Leonardo. The absolute lack of vitality and energy in this very static (but beautiful) work immediatley made me say no way, no how, absolutley not by Leonardo’s lively, unique , and incomparably masterful hand.
The left cross hatching looks forced, choppy, and uneven and Leonardo’s cross hatching is so precise it looks like he measured the spaces in between each incredibly straight but fluid line! There’s just no fluidity or effortlessness in this piece and it looks tooo contrived.
Also, the lower eyelid is far too well defined (as are other elements) and it looks like nothing similar to any other eye he’s done that I’ve seen in any drawing, sketch, or painting.
My gut reaction upon first sight was that it’s either a fabulous contemporary fake or a true late Renaissance to 18th century piece but definitely NOT by Leonardo. Looks more Germanic to me.
Where’s the PROVENANCE? Odd how it’s lacking and never mentioned.
A very beautiful work but just far too static and lifeless for any relation to Leonardo.

]]> Comment on Goose Quill Pens by Agustín Amenabar http://lucyvivante.net/2010/04/08/goose-quill-pens/comment-page-1/#comment-2417 Agustín Amenabar Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:49:09 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=864#comment-2417 Hello! Loved the article, I'm researching quill pens, specifically to understand the ones shown in Honore Daumier's drawings, specially the cut quill and why one would do that. The fountains are also very particular thing. Well written article. Agustín Hello!
Loved the article, I’m researching quill pens, specifically to understand the ones shown in Honore Daumier’s drawings, specially the cut quill and why one would do that.
The fountains are also very particular thing.
Well written article.
Agustín

]]> Comment on Viewing Tilt by Bill MacDonald http://lucyvivante.net/2012/01/09/viewing-tilt/comment-page-1/#comment-2406 Bill MacDonald Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:45:30 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=1552#comment-2406 I'm not sure about tilt, but I've always felt that most galleries and museums hang drawings (and paintings) too high. If the artwork isn't at eye-level, there is certainly a problem with glare, as well as artificially-induced foreshortening, for the viewer. I’m not sure about tilt, but I’ve always felt that most galleries and museums hang drawings (and paintings) too high. If the artwork isn’t at eye-level, there is certainly a problem with glare, as well as artificially-induced foreshortening, for the viewer.

]]> Comment on Color Notes by Jeannine Cook http://lucyvivante.net/2011/12/11/color-notes/comment-page-1/#comment-2379 Jeannine Cook Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:02:30 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=1510#comment-2379 Wonderful to see someone so perfectionist as Ingres doing what most of us do in our haste to catch some effect of light or movement of clouds! How clever of you to find such a drawing - thank you. Wonderful to see someone so perfectionist as Ingres doing what most of us do in our haste to catch some effect of light or movement of clouds! How clever of you to find such a drawing – thank you.

]]> Comment on Two Drawings by Phoebe Weil http://lucyvivante.net/2011/04/01/two-drawings/comment-page-1/#comment-2297 Phoebe Weil Tue, 04 Oct 2011 04:22:42 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=1174#comment-2297 Hi Lucy! Greatly enjoy your website reading from time to time..Specially interested in "carta azurra" which, if I remember correctly, Orfeo Boselli refers to as "turchina" which he says is handy because it supplies the "mezze tinte" in a drawing. The large cartoon that Annibale made for the Farnese ceiling is on this paper which under magnification shows the blue fibers probably from indigo-dyed cloth added to the paper pulp mixture to make it blue. it tends to fade. Claude Lorrain used it a great deal. It is useful with iron gall ink because the ink when new and black produces washes that thin out to a blueish tone. When the ink turns brown over time the brown ink over the blue paper produces an unpleasant effect. Fabriano which was the prime paper produced in Italy supplied this paper comparatively cheaply hence its popularity. Hi Lucy! Greatly enjoy your website reading from time to time..Specially interested in “carta azurra” which, if I remember correctly, Orfeo Boselli refers to as “turchina” which he says is handy because it supplies the “mezze tinte” in a drawing. The large cartoon that Annibale made for the Farnese ceiling is on this paper which under magnification shows the blue fibers probably from indigo-dyed cloth added to the paper pulp mixture to make it blue. it tends to fade. Claude Lorrain used it a great deal. It is useful with iron gall ink because the ink when new and black produces washes that thin out to a blueish tone. When the ink turns brown over time the brown ink over the blue paper produces an unpleasant effect. Fabriano which was the prime paper produced in Italy supplied this paper comparatively cheaply hence its popularity.

]]> Comment on Lugt Online | Free Access by dominique http://lucyvivante.net/2010/03/29/lugt-online-free-access/comment-page-1/#comment-1841 dominique Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:56:05 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=851#comment-1841 necesitaria poder identificar en un dibujo la marca de coleccion MZ, otros datos b 3053 ba necesitaria poder identificar en un dibujo la marca de coleccion MZ, otros datos b 3053 ba

]]> Comment on A Conversation with Alessandro Kokocinski about Eric Hebborn by Mauro Mioni http://lucyvivante.net/2010/06/22/a-conversation-with-alessandro-kokocinski-about-eric-hebborn/comment-page-1/#comment-1761 Mauro Mioni Mon, 23 May 2011 18:35:24 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=929#comment-1761 A Roman, living abroad since 1964, I was introduced to Hebborn's Drawn to Trouble, by another Roman exile, the Russian-born restorer Aleksey Tivetsky. I frankly delighted in Hebborn's prose and was fascinated by the writer. As from time to time I travel to Rome to visit with my aged mother and a brother, I had hoped to meet Hebborn on my next trip. Clearly, after close to half century living abroad, I have become far removed from Roman events, as I was not aware Hebborn had been murdered not 300 meters from a small apartment I have near Piazza di S. Maria in Trastevere. Aside from ethical considerations, which in any case only exist in one's most private sensibilities, the man must have been immensely fascinating. I am profoundly sorry for the loss. A Roman, living abroad since 1964, I was introduced to Hebborn’s Drawn to Trouble, by another Roman exile, the Russian-born restorer Aleksey Tivetsky. I frankly delighted in Hebborn’s prose and was fascinated by the writer. As from time to time I travel to Rome to visit with my aged mother and a brother, I had hoped to meet Hebborn on my next trip. Clearly, after close to half century living abroad, I have become far removed from Roman events, as I was not aware Hebborn had been murdered not 300 meters from a small apartment I have near Piazza di S. Maria in Trastevere. Aside from ethical considerations, which in any case only exist in one’s most private sensibilities, the man must have been immensely fascinating. I am profoundly sorry for the loss.

]]> Comment on Silhouetted and Silhouettes by Online Journal: ‘Vivante Drawings’ « Enfilade http://lucyvivante.net/2010/08/22/silhouetted-and-silhouettes/comment-page-1/#comment-1589 Online Journal: ‘Vivante Drawings’ « Enfilade Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:04:35 +0000 http://lucyvivante.net/?p=1008#comment-1589 [...] from the Renaissance to the eighteenth century, see “Silhouetted and Silhouettes,” from 22 August 2010: Anonymous, "Profile Bust of Dr. Gerard Van Sweiten," Black paper silhouette mounted on [...] [...] from the Renaissance to the eighteenth century, see “Silhouetted and Silhouettes,” from 22 August 2010: Anonymous, "Profile Bust of Dr. Gerard Van Sweiten," Black paper silhouette mounted on [...]

]]>