Neither do I, but that vertical crack looks like you can see the inner edge of it, which makes it look like it's pushed out toward us, as if from the other side. But then you can also see gunpowder around it (I guess that's what that is), so that part looks right. It's just that weird crack that looks wrong to me. Lol, officer Xoic reporting on my forensic findings.
Looks like part of a 1940s pin-up calendar heavily influenced by Jane Russell's appearance in The Outlaw.
I wonder which came first - since the painting and the movie were both made in 1943 Spoiler: The Outlaw poster
There was also a book , probably crime noir, of a very similar name that came out a few years earlier, 41 I think, and a movie (with a different name) based on it in 43.I looked into it a bit yesterday. Those crime paperback covers often did resemble pinups, but with guns and cigarettes and the like. In a little bit I'll dig into my browsing history and grab the links.
Here: A Shot in the Dark is a 1941 American comedy mystery film directed by William C. McGann and starring William Lundigan, Nan Wynn and Ricardo Cortez.[1] It was released by Warner Bros. on April 5, 1941.[2][3][4] The film was based on the short story "No Hard Feelings" by Frederick Nebel in the Black Mask magazine. The movie is also a remake of the Torchy Blane film Smart Blonde (1937). From Wikipedia Here are books with that tile published shortly before the early 40's: Shot in the Dark, a 1932 novel by Gerard Fairlie A Shot in the Dark, a 1952 novel by Richard P. Powell A Shot in the Dark, a 1958 novel by David Garnett From wikipedia I don't remember when the painting was done, but it could have been a paperback cover or a movie poster. Looks more like a book cover though, designed as a wrap-around, so half of it is on the back cover. Xoic sleuthing away. More detective work is needed to find what the painting was done for. This is just as far as I got yesterday.
The only one I had ever heard of was the sequel to the Pink Panther starring Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau
Oops. I guess the 50's aren't before the 40's, are they? I just woke up and apparently haven't completed the process yet.
The quote below reminded me of something Tolstoy wrote: If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art. “Writing and rewriting is the attempt to communicate not just a truth but the ecstasy of a truth. It is not enough for me to convince the reader of my argument; I want them to feel that same private joy that I feel.” ~ Ta-Nehisi Coates
Impressionism (both the painting and the writing) is characterized by the abstract, the subjective, and the rendering of sensory details to relay an “impression.” Impressionism was not greeted with love at the outset: Impression Sunrise, by Claude Monet (1872) The Cradle, by Berthe Morisot (1872)
The Cradle, by Berthe Morisot (1872) [/QUOTE] My mother loved this print, and I have her framed copy of it on the wall of our house. But my father used to tease her about it, saying it looked like an old-fashioned hospital oxygen tent.
Here's another comment about impressionism: "The 19th-century European and American realists were so realistic that their pictures were totally unlike what they were supposed to represent. And the first thing wrong with them was, of course, precisely that they were pictures. In any case, nothing resembles reality less that the photograph. Nothing resembles substance less that its shadow. To convey the meaning of something substantial you have to use not a shadow, but a sign; not the imitation but the image. The image is a new and different reality; and of course, it does not convey an impression of some object, but the mind of the subject -- and that is something else again." Thomas Merton
If I had to guess, from the embroidery at the sleeves, maybe someone of Ruthenian or Carpathian origin.
I'm a pretty independent-minded woman (my husband liked this about me). But I still have romantic notions about any male-female relationship. My husband and I took care of one another, but I know he felt protective of me, too. And if I ever felt a little unsure or down, I know I could find comfort in his arms. What I like about this painting is the way the husband has his arm around his wife. Norman Rockwell - Marriage License (1955)
I've been thinking about my relationship to modern art and Tolstoy's definition. Modern art to me is often mundane and average. There is nothing to feel, nothing to evoke a feeling, in a lot of modern art. To me, a heap of objects put together with duct tape and put up as art, is something like anti-art. It looks like and behaves as one expects and has no surprises or interesting things going on. You can find the same art out and about, especially if you go to a recycling depot. This begs the question, is the lack of feeling and emotion also an emotion or feeling? Did I connect with the artist that made the heap of trash duct-taped together by not feeling anything? I personally do not think so.
I would say no. If it makes you feel nothing at all, it doesn't represent art in your perspective. You brought to my mind nihilism - the absence of meaning. But even nihilist art should make you feel something - as does the art of nihilistic artist Alberto Giacometti. They convey a desolation, a despair, isolation and reduction, and a sense of loss. The Nihilistic Desperation In Alberto Giacometti’s Paintings
I came across this image today in an article entitled "The Fatal Flaw in Fighting Trumpism with Facts." I don't want to discuss modern politics, but wonder why they chose this image to illustrate their article, which was something about using data to counter forms. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. 18th century. From a print by Valentine Green, after the painting by Joseph Wright of Derby. A natural philosopher - a scientist - recreates one of Robert Boyles vacuum pump experiments in which a bird is deprived of air
Perhaps it's the lack of interest that many of the attendees have toward the asphyxiation of the bird.... cruelty not being paid attention to. Or maybe it's the futility of trying to change people's minds even when confronted with contrary evidence. From another thread: "You can't use reason to convince anyone out of an argument that they didn't use reason to get into." Neil deGrasse Tyson.
