Talk:The Thinker: Portrait of Louis N. Kenton

Congratulations

.... on an interesting DYK!

"Although the dark passages of Kenton's figure are broadly painted and the contours of the suit blurred to suggest atmosphere, details like his head, watch chain and shoes are depicted with careful attention to their three-dimensional quality. This contrast of technique may have been intended to emphasize the solidly sculptural presence of the head.[7] Furthering this impression is the delicate coloring of Kenton's face, seen against the hard edge of his starched white collar.[4]"

I don't know that the above passage gets at what's going actually on here. The Velazquez, unlike this painting, has the contours of the black clothes clearly defined against the background. There is another crucial difference in that the face of "the Thinker" is turned down, partly shadowed and less arresting because it lacks the contrast of the commanding black eyes in the pale face. The whole left side of Kenton's face (right side as viewed) has become a mid-tone, and therefore closer in tone to the background and less in contrast than the black suit against the background. A sharp edge on the suit would have made the body stand forward more than it does. The blurred edge negates this. Details of the clothing, where they are black against black or against cast shadow, are painting crisply. Apart from the face, the areas that are crisp are not so much those that are detailed as those that are light-reflective. He has painted all the highlights on the shoes, but been careful to keep them much less bright than the collar, so that although they contrast against the black, they don't grab attention. That watch-chain, pocket and cuff are really important in giving dimension to the body, just as the skirting board defines the form of the space. Similarly the glasses carry a plane across the face.

I would drop "to suggest atmosphere" because I don't think that is what it is about. It's about maintaining the most defined contrast in the right area.

Wonderful painting! Thanks for getting it to the front page.

Amandajm (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration of this. As much as possible I've adhered to the sources, if sometimes at the expense of my own observations. The relevant reference for the 'atmosphere' passage is actually footnote 4, from Sewell: The selective specificity becomes all the more striking owing to Eakins's purposeful softening of other contours, especially the potentially crisp, decorative outline of the suit, which has been blurred to create a sense of palpable air within the painting. Most of what you offer is good, though the highlights of black shoes would never be as bright as the plane of a white collar--that's not solely an aesthetic choice. There's more to say about the figure and clothing from the sources I've used, but mostly I just wanted to get something basic down; Goodrich commented on the sense of movement in the pose, as well as the relationship to Velazquez. Nearly all the sources are more effusive than I've let on, and eventually more detail can and will be introduced. Best, JNW (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Publish a paper on it, then I can quote you. "Selective specificity" is good, on paper...... not easy to include in a lecture though, particularly if you have a lisp..... As for the highlights on the shoes, you would notice the comparative value; to many they would simply be streaks of white. Amandajm (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)