Shoes!

Miss Jekyll's Gardening Boots, 1920
William Nicholson
Oil on wood, 595 x 673 x 57 mm
Tate , London

Gertrude Jekyll (her brother was a friend of Robert Lewis Stevenson and may have borrowed the Jekyll name for his famous story) was a well known garden designer and according to the Tate blurb, was particularly difficult. Nicholson is said to have painted her boots while waiting for her to show up for a sitting.

"Nicholson enjoyed finding the revelation of character in clothing"

While I am not particularly prone to still-lifes, (which Nicholson is known for) I am attracted to pictures of shoes. I am surprised that I am sharing this painting before one of my most favorite paintings of shoes, but all in good time. I enjoyed my art classes when I was younger and one of my favorite drawings which I don't think I will ever forget was one of my favorite pairs of shoes (actually I only drew the one shoe). It was my "blooker"(I can't find anything referring to this term, only info on blooks which are apparently books that stem from blogs).


Essentially a preppy oxford (made by Eastland, I didn't like the "fake" ones, I had the brown ones at the top.) it was popular to make knot rings out of the shoelaces (though I folded them over and tucked them in the sides). I obviously digress, but my attachment to the shoes and to that drawing (it was okay) might give a little insight as to my attachment to artistic images of shoes. I agree with Nicholson's assessment of character and clothing and he has achieved that with this worn pair of boots. Shoes take on the shape of their wearer as well as their life and work, they are an excellent inanimate source of artistic interest.

Poppies and Daisies

Red Poppies and Daisies
Vincent van Gogh (links to a nice audiovisual bio and info)
oil on canvas
65.0 x 50.0 cm.
1890
private collection


As is usual, my Friday is a little wonky. Always have trouble getting things done, so I apologize for the lateness of the art today. Today is simple yet gorgeous (weather and art!) this is currently the image on my desktop. It took me awhile to find the details of this image (ie location, date, size). I eventually did at a website dedicated to van Gogh (supposedly endorsed by the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam), it has eons of digital images organized by the period of time and place in which they were created, very limited on subjects to search. Before this, Unfortunately I couldn't find the image anywhere that is not selling a print of it, which is pretty awful for all kinds of reasons including the insane commercialization of "pretty" pictures. It's as if an original never existed. It is fascinating to do an image search for something you've seen in person (and know the colors and hues etc.) and see the unending array of bad reproductions out there. To check out more flower paintings and more... (so prolific he was, creating 840 paintings and 1000 drawings in just 10 years) see here... There isn't a shortage of van Gogh paintings in public collections, I suggest the next time you come across one, spend some time with it. It took me some years to really begin to understand and appreciate his work, and the application of paint is simply marvelous and something I took on in my own work back in college - to no equivalent measure but I enjoy it just the same.

It's an interesting bit about digital images, many assume they are better (and they are getting better) but because of the quick and easy way of being able to create them, originally with art, not enough attention was paid to color detail. A reason why there are still many an art prof out there who wants to hold onto his slides because some of them (those that are well made and not excruciatingly old) actually provide a better surrogate image then some of those born digital. I digress... enjoy van Gogh's flowers as I always do and more van Gogh will be in your future (as one of my all time favorite paintings is a van Gogh, care to guess what it is?)