Answer
So what was it?
I started studying this painting (briefly, as I was studying about 600 others too) a few years ago working at the museum.
It has a few weird quirks.
1) It’s on slate. A stone. Wait for 2011 St. Louis, the resulting show if it goes on as scheduled should be awesome. For the moment, go look at this one on lapis lazuli. All that blue is stone.
1a) Okay, the triple portrait is on slate that looks painted over with a dark paint…this seems to be a bit different from the others we found which left the stone untouched.
2) It’s a triple portrait, all in profile.
3) And finally, yes, those are men.
Why there is a triple portrait of men dressed as women is unclear (to me, I’ve done minimal research on this thing). I guessed they were perhaps actors. The label at the museum said they were perhaps boyfriends of King Francois II.
I am assuming the museum has looked into this more than I have, although our museum has plenty of things not well-examined so who knows.
If they are actors, this would explain the dressings up but not necessarily the portraits. If they are boyfriends, then why the dressings up? Or the portraits?
Indeed, I have many questions.
Regardless, it’s an awesome painting and totally worth getting pissed off at some creep who made me link arms with NB and wiggle through a hula hoop in Milwaukee.
We normally do that shit in private.
Posted by Melissa on July 12th, 2007 under Boyfriendlies, Histoire d'Art
July 12th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Again, I’m not really sure it’s fair to say they are dressed as women. The only thing that looks like specifically female dress of that period to me is the hair. But what do I know?
They could have been both actors and boyfriends. Speaking of such, did you ever see the movie Stage Beauty (set in 17th C. England, but still)? I thought it was fairly wonderful and highly recommend it.
Love that lapis background. That’s spectacular, especially for the mythic subject matter.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Sara, it’s definitely the hair that catches me. But yes, who knows? It sparks many many questions and I feel nothing in my brain is a certain answer.
You know what I love about the lapis painting, beyond the lapis even? It’s that the artist used a crack in the stone. It starts at the end of the sword and follows through the sky and then acts as a barrier between Andromeda and the dragon.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:08 am
perhaps actors of the time? They played both male and female roles….
July 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I thought they were women because of the hair and all of the jewels and stuff. And women wore those sorts of collars at some point too.
The “boyfriends of the King” sounds very interesting. I’m pulling for that, simply cause I love a juicy story. heehee.
Oh and can’t wait to see the slate exhibit you told Steph and I about awhile back when we met up. Am drolling at the thought… :-)
July 15th, 2007 at 8:26 am
So, do you think there might be another painting underneath the triple portrait? Could that be why the whole slate is painted black?
July 15th, 2007 at 10:34 am
No idea, Sara! I’ve only been able to see it for a bit in the gallery. I doubt it, but who knows. It could also have been for a multitude of mundane reasons, the artist liked it, was used to covering the “canvas”, reducing glare or shine, etc. etc. A lot of what we saw with artists working on stone was the experimentation.