James McNeill Whistler, Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl, 1861-63, 1872, oil on canvas, 213 x 107.9 cm (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.) speakers: Dr. Bryan Zygmont and Dr. Beth Harris
I need to go to D.C without kids to revisit all these gems 🤩 This Summer I should work to convince my mom to go with me watch my kid and I’ll enjoy the art alone 🤩 🥰
I adore how Whistler gave the light fabric in 'Arrangement in Flesh Colour and Black' it's creamy pink look and the various colours used, however the main attraction of the piece has got to be the man's white shirt which catches the eye before allowing the viewer to see rest of the painting. It's probably one of my favorite paintings to this day.
This is one of my favorite galleries in the NGA, along with the adjoining hallway gallery which has more paintings by Sargent and Chaim Hassam. I feel so fortunate to live in the DC area. I pop into the NGA and other art museums like the Hirshhorn and Freer Gallery of Art all the time. For lunch breaks, my colleagues and I sometimes walk from our office to the American Art Museum and eat in the Kogod courtyard
Fresh Smarthistory on a Saturday morning, I love it. 😌 The only "Whistler" that I know in art is the painting "Whistler's Mother" from some 90's film I used to watch (can't remember which). It was interesting to hear that this Whistler was only motivated by making something beautiful. There's typically some message or purpose, so my first instinct was that being insufficient or lesser, but Dr. Zygmont says it's elevated for just being beautiful... Whistler continues challenging expectations to this day. I'm sure he'd be pleased to know.
I believe the film you're referencing may be "Bean" from 1997. In the film, "Whistler's Mother" is featured prominently as much of the plot is incited by the portrait's purchase from one museum to another. Chaos ensues, in classic Mr. Bean fashion, but the film includes a heartfelt analysis of the painting itself that art history courses would probably get a kick out of.
It's interesting that not once in this video was the wolf mentioned. It wasn't just a rug she was standing on. It was a recently killed animal, as it has red, presumably blood, around it. How on earth can anyone assess this painting without talking about the wolf, it's staring eyes, the blood. It felt symbolic of something. I thought of Little Red Riding Hood which is ironic because the most red is the wolf's blood. Is it saying something about the female triumphing over the male? I have no idea. I have never seen this painting before.
Point taken though it's worth noting that it is far more likely that the rug is from a bear, rather than a wolf. It is also unlikely it was recently killed. While animal skin rugs may seem barbaric to our 21st century sensibilities, it was fairly common to see the heads of animals still attached on hats, stoles, rugs, etc. in the 19th and well into the 20th centuries.
@@smarthistory-art-history the wolf - and the red below it - is what makes this painting so remarkable and striking. I too am surprised that you speak only of technique and arrangement and ignore the probable symbolism of the woman in all white, with dropped flowers standing on a wolf with red under it and don't even mention the wolf - it is not a bear - and to ignore the only red on the entire WHITE painting strikes me as willfully naive and missing the whole point