Marvellous! I'm falling in love with these videos!! I was curious why there was no comment regarding the horse's severely undersized head compared with its obviously overly-muscularized and almost dwarf-like body. Certainly, Van Dyck had ample models to get the horse proportionately accurate, but the horse's body is too short for its own height, its neck is decidedly too large for the disturbingly small head. I'm not trying to be overly critical, just clear about what I'm asking. Was it some sort of symbolism, such as an English form of Mannerism? It does remind me of Michelangelo's David with his extraordinarily large hands, but that, as I understand it, was done because the sculpture was supposed to be viewed from some 30 feet below.
Thank you so much, Ms Chiswell, for providing such pleasure in being led so competently through a wonderful appreciation of such a magnificent painting!
I just happened to run across this video and I absolutely loved it. First, it's hard to imagine the size of a painting until you see a human being next to it. When you see a print in a book it's hard to imagine the scale. Second, I love the explanation of the history of the artist and the painting. I can't wait to watch any other videos in this series.
That was lovely--thank you. I found it especially interesting that the portrait of the executed king was preserved and cherished for so long. And yes, there's no way that horse's head is a realistic size. Even in an over-developed, muscular horse like this one the head would be at least a third larger. There has to be some reason for the artistic tradition of putting Lilliputian heads on Brobdingnagian horses.
Fascinating talk, good to see this gloriously restored painting returned to public view. I've always wondered, is that an anatomically accurate representation of a horse? It looks disproportionate (head too small or neck too thick) to me...
I was thinking the same, and also thinking if perhaps there is such a breed that looks like that, 'cause I believe I've seen something similar in other old paintings.....
They were painted to be viewed from below, while hanging way up in the palaces walls. Look at Velazquez equestrians, they have the same features. I learned that at the Prado.
The part about Van Dyck painting the king in the English countryside “instead of under a triumphal arch with swags of drapery” seems very odd considering Van Dyck had already painted Charles in exactly that setting about five years previously, in the painting still in the Royal Collection, something Ms Chiswell must know very well. Why would he repeat it?
Wonderful talk. I must say that I very much like the new frame. It more closely aligns to the framing of the time. Very different from the highly decorative gold frame that was previously used. Bravo!
Very very good presentation! I thought I was just going to watch a couple of minutes but watched the whole thing. Smoky voice helped yes, but it was a very good reading of the painting! Many good details.
If the horse really had legs like that it wouldn't be able to walk without breking them and the head is ridiculously out of proportion, great painting none the less.
Really lovely video, nicely written, and the presenter has a great voice. Really appreciate the dignity that is given to the presentation.. not too much..not too little. Is there any video about the Veronese paintings (4 of them) in one of the polygonal rooms? I really like those. Thanks
Horses frothing at the mouth are not always indicative of wild beasts! Horses 'foaming' indicate a well trained horse who is responsive to the bit. Is the length of this bit (not quite realistic, just visit your local London museums) meant to represent something? It is twice as long as the real life bits of the period, so must have been painted that way to indicate something important? A huge proportion of that painting is the horse, and you barely give it screen time. Why is it so oddly out of proportion? The head is tiny. Horses tend to have lager rather than smaller heads. Iberian horses such as this, traditionally have convex profiles. None of that shows up in this painting. Do we then presume the small head is indicative of something? Perhaps it was just trendy to paint small horse heads in this period? Was the colour symbolic, or was it his favourite horse? Why is the horse so fat? Is this symbolic of a good governor, or just overfed and verging on foundering as many of the Iberian horses are today with fatty lumps in odd places? This certainly brings up more questions than you have answered, thanks for reminding me of this painting.
This painting despite its "grandeur" is very flawed. The horses head is small compared to its neck and body . This is a case were propaganda and exaggeration clash with reality.
Whenever I see this work I’m always struck by how out of proportion King Charles’ steed is when comparing the body to the head and legs, perhaps a reflection of how Charles wanted to be regarded.
Honestly; King Charlie One, didn't necessarily need to sit on a Horse, for this Masterpiece. I know from looking at it. Two things. The horse couldn't hold a pose, and photography wasn't invented by this time.
I am curious about the horse which seems so disproportioned. The neck and breast look over sized which makes the head look puny and the forelegs spindly at least in contrast.
Honestly, I would assume a more practical purpose to making the horse’s head small - the smaller horse head makes Charles I look larger. And therefore more manly, commanding, and kingly. If the horse’s head were scaled correctly, Charles I would look more like a weenie. Look at his figure out of context-thin and balletic. Btw-I’m not an art historian, just an observer of weenies and the strategies they and their acolytes employ to hide that
The head of the horse is TOO SMALL for the body , I am a figure realist that creates sculptures and paintings of real horses of ALL types . It is a mannered style over reality
Kings and nobles had armour made specifically to fit them, like a tailored suit. In fact it's very important that armour fits well or you just end up rattling around inside it, and it doesn't work properly in deflecting blows, while armour that *does* fit properly is really quite comfortable. Armour made for Charles I is on display at the Tower of London, and shows his slight stature.
In fact, any good horseman would recognise the tension in the horse's pose and the wariness in its expression. This is not a beast that is easy with the hand that guides it.
What was my first reaction to this famous painting? Answer: if this picture is anything to go by, Van Dyck was a lousy painter of horses. Virtually everything about it is wrong. Tiny head and huge neck being the most obvious anatomical mistakes. Yet no one mention of this in the talk. Strange.
The head of the horse is out of proportion to the rest of the body. It is too small and easily noted at first glance even by people who know next to nothing about the animals.
I always saw this as Van Dyke’s great failure. The horse is, quite simply, ridiculous. The King, with those straightened legs, make him appear like he has never ridden a horse.
