The Great Art Debate

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

He obviously felt a powerful overwhelming need to put holes where holes didn't exist.

It could be the angle of sight - both gaps being between two Needles.

This is also possible...

I disagree. There are three rocks at the Needles, none with holes. The nearer two might be perspective, but there is at least one hole that is pure imagination.

I would say one at most.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

He obviously felt a powerful overwhelming need to put holes where holes didn't exist.

It could be the angle of sight - both gaps being between two Needles.

This is also possible...

I disagree. There are three rocks at the Needles, none with holes. The nearer two might be perspective, but there is at least one hole that is pure imagination.

I would say one at most.

Fair enough. There is one hole which is imaginary. It is imaginary though, and these are English sea rocks, so I think Mr JMW Turner has a fundamental feeling that sea rocks, in order to conform to his artistic moires, require a hole or two. This in turn validates the 'reseach' that I did, and makes me feel more confident than I was that I am correct.

I've decided I like this art detective business. Feed me.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

A clear picture of 'the hole' at the Needles.

Painting a mythical scene that doesn't have to be anywhere is one thing, but I really can't get my head around why he would paint a specific place, put that place name in the title of the painting, and then put a big hole in a rock that isn't really there.

Now, I know that geological formations usually take shape a hell of a lot slower than this, but is it possible that the first rock detached from the coastline was actually connected by a bridge of rock in Turner's day?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The answer to that PB is No. Emphatically not.
The Needles are well documented. There was a fourth called Lot's wife which was more needle shaped than the others and the shape of which gave its name to the group. It collapsed in a storm in 17hundred and something leaving three rocks. If they'd been connected by a bridge I think the numbers of rocks and the connection itself would have been mentioned in the reports.
And there are quite a number of paintings/drawings/engravings of the Needles which show the group pretty much as it is now in Turner's day.

I think (and can agree with him) it's just a gut feeling that sea rocks need a hole to give them more aesthetic appeal.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think (and can agree with him) it's just a gut feeling that sea rocks need a hole to give them more aesthetic appeal.

Yep, I think we have now bottomed this out. Many thanks for being possibly even sadder than I am.

My Caprese friend wanted to speculate about the link between Polyphemus and Capri on the Facebook page he runs for Capri and its culture and history. I told him to hold fire before publishing my theory because I wanted to look into it first.

Goodness knows how I can summarise this conversation for him!

[TANGODANCER]

All needles have holes or they'd just be spikes.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think (and can agree with him) it's just a gut feeling that sea rocks need a hole to give them more aesthetic appeal.

Yep, I think we have now bottomed this out. Many thanks for being possibly even sadder than I am.

My Caprese friend wanted to speculate about the link between Polyphemus and Capri on the Facebook page he runs for Capri and its culture and history. I told him to hold fire before publishing my theory because I wanted to look into it first.

Goodness knows how I can summarise this conversation for him!

Lie to him. Tell him Turner painted the Fariglioni rocks as the subject matter for Polyphemus.

[TANGODANCER]

My Caprese friend wanted to speculate about the link between Polyphemus and Capri on the Facebook page he runs for Capri and its culture and history. I told him to hold fire before publishing my theory because I wanted to look into it first.
Goodness knows how I can summarise this conversation for him!

He can still post it as a possibility/specualtion/theory, without stating it as a fact. Makes a good talking point.

[Bruce Rioja]

Could we have that brown one in fecking Jumbovision please, Pencilbiter?

I can't quite see it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Could we have that brown one in fecking Jumbovision please, Pencilbiter?

I can't quite see it.

Big or small, it doesn't look the least bit like the Needles to me - then, now or Julius Caesar's time. The headland leading up slopes all the wrong way and there are only two, not three.

[TANGODANCER]

Could we have that brown one in fecking Jumbovision please, Pencilbiter?

I can't quite see it.

Better?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Could we have that brown one in fecking Jumbovision please, Pencilbiter?

I can't quite see it.

Big or small, it doesn't look the least bit like the Needles to me - then, now or Julius Caesar's time. The headland leading up slopes all the wrong way and there are only two, not three.

Artistic Licence my dear fellow.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Could we have that brown one in fecking Jumbovision please, Pencilbiter?

I can't quite see it.

Big or small, it doesn't look the least bit like the Needles to me - then, now or Julius Caesar's time. The headland leading up slopes all the wrong way and there are only two, not three.

I agree.

Some commentary here: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-pub ... s-r1131783#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bruce Rioja]

Could we have that brown one in fecking Jumbovision please, Pencilbiter?

I can't quite see it.

Big or small, it doesn't look the least bit like the Needles to me - then, now or Julius Caesar's time. The headland leading up slopes all the wrong way and there are only two, not three.

I see three though with the left-hand one being set against the land mass.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Could we have that brown one in fecking Jumbovision please, Pencilbiter?

I can't quite see it.

Big or small, it doesn't look the least bit like the Needles to me - then, now or Julius Caesar's time. The headland leading up slopes all the wrong way and there are only two, not three.

I agree.

Some commentary here: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-pub ... s-r1131783#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, PB. Let's see. He called it Moonlight at Sea. It is "thought to be the Needles" (by whom we are not told), but a lot of evidence would indicate it is elsewhere. It may not be artistic license, Spotty, it may have been misidentified as the Needles.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Could we have that brown one in fecking Jumbovision please, Pencilbiter?

I can't quite see it.

Big or small, it doesn't look the least bit like the Needles to me - then, now or Julius Caesar's time. The headland leading up slopes all the wrong way and there are only two, not three.

I agree.

Some commentary here: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-pub ... s-r1131783#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, PB. Let's see. He called it Moonlight at Sea. It is "thought to be the Needles" (by whom we are not told), but a lot of evidence would indicate it is elsewhere. It may not be artistic license, Spotty, it may have been misidentified as the Needles.

It is not the only painting/drawing he did of the Needles. There are a few, and not a single one looks even similar to any of the others apart from the oil sketch he did in 1827 which looks very similar to the rocks he painted in Polyphemus (which obviously were not named as the Needles). There is documentary evidence from the notebooks of John Nash that the oil sketch was done a few days after he and Turner had picnicked out at the Needles.
The Fisherman at Sea painting was widely regarded as being of the Needles and the RA commentary at its hanging stated it was a scene as imagined at the Needles, and the above painting (even if not of them) is entitled at the Needles. But, yes I believe that artistic licence is at work here, because even if that particular painting has been 'misplaced' the only other sea stack within miles of there also looks nothing like the rocks in the painting. So I stick with my contention. I beleive Turner had a vivid imagination and used the actuality before his eyes just to give form to the imaginary landscapes in his head. Look at the wave forms in the painting Fishermen at Sea - he did not have a camera, what he did was to experience being out on a boat and then recreate an ideal sea on canvas - he did the same with the rocks, they are just idealised forms very very loosely based on the rock formations he observed. He was not trying to 'photograph' the landscape, he was trying to capture the play of light and the emotions caused by being at sea.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

To add. If Turner had the coastline in Moonlight at Sea going the same way as the coastline goes in reality, that is up and outward to the left, then when viewing the painting your eye would be lead out and away from the central subjects (the boats on the moonlit water). The compositon would not work. The placement of the moon dead centre of the picture almost forces Turner into adopting the 'downward' fall of the landward side of the rocks. Photoshop it yourself to see what I mean, if the land formations follow the natural angles the painting's composition falls apart.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

He definitely found something compositionally satisfying abut having a land mass and an arch to the left of a picture....



http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/tur ... res-n01989" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/tur ... der-n03381" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/tur ... ull-tw1052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mrkint]

Things like that on the left (or right) are used to stop your eye from wandering off the canvas. Well, that's how it works in mags anyway.

[TANGODANCER]

Here's a question for art buffs: Is this painting in any of the galleries, ie, have you seen it? Title is Slave Shipand a Turner, of course. Awful topic but I've always had a fascination with sailing ships. Interesting thing about this is the ship is a French Xebec ( I made a model of one some time back) and I'm wondering where Turner would have seen one? These vessels operated all over the mediterranean so it's interesting. Any views?