|
I am among those who think very highly of Nelson Shanks and had the good fortune to see his work and a demonstration in Allentown, PA last fall. I would not argue that he is one of the very best. If you have never seen an original Shanks portrait you have missed a lot. At the risk of being a curmudgeon though, I feel that his painting of Pope Paul II is not among his best. There seems to be a postcard feel to it, much as you would find in family travel photos when the picture is taken far enough away from the historical interest just so we can include as much as possible of the site. There is no suggestion of a congregation, which makes you wonder who is benefiting from his blessing.
The sunlit window looks contrived and I find the light and glow to be distracting. Cover it up and the painting is better. This is almost a "Painting of a Window with a Pope"
Sargent, among others, stressed the need to develop the figure as a whole so that you would recognize the subject even without features. In this case the subject is upright and tending to lean backward when we all know and recognize the Pope as short and stooped.
I hope these comments don't seem mean-spirited and I restate my admiration for the artist's ability. But much of this work poses questions. The fabric around his raised arm really looks more like a scrub rag. Around and below it on either side hangs something that looks intestinal and the resulting negative shape is very bothersome as is the shadowed area separating the latter with the vestment. (Where is all the reflected light coming from?)
I suppose I should stop but have to ask myself why he allowed the staff/crucifix to appear as though it emerges from his sleeve. How do you explain the form/lighting/color intensity of the miter, and unless the reproduction is not good why does the arch above his head exist in a fog?
This attachment may be somewhat better than the original post.
(I think I avoided anything that would require a trip to the confessional.)
|