When the natural becomes stilted

William Stott (1857-1900) Wild Flower (Gallery Oldham)

My interest in this painting was aroused when it was exhibited in the 2001 Tate Gallery exhibition  "Exposed: The Victorian Nude". At the time the Times Art Critic, Richard Cork, described the painting as, A full-length painting of an adolescent nude girl looking downcast and possibly abused.

Regardless of Richard Cork's perceived age of the model and her state of mind, I see it as a beautiful painting. I am always cautious of a critic's why, when and wherefore of a painting. A number of my models have looked adolescent when in fact they have been well into their twenties, and on a bad day they might look depressed.

My only reservation has been the stilted appearance of the model's waist. I am therefore grateful to Gallery Oldham's Art Collections Assistant, Louisa Krzyz for her correspondence on the subject. She writes:

Stott may have painted the face of this little girl from life but used a lay figure, a jointed wooden mannequin, for the body. This could explain the rather 'wooden' appearance of the torso and arms compared to the face and legs

I feel sure she is correct for on researching other paintings by the artist I have found the same wooden appearance. It is particularly apparent in his painting titled, Venus Born from the Sea Foam shown below. 

 Venus Born from the Sea Foam (Gallery Oldham)

These inaccuracies almost always occur when an artist takes reference from a photograph or mannequin, as against working from the live model. The same red-haired model is featured in a number of his paintings, together with clues that he may have used of a wooden lay figure.

John Kruse's blog post, Victorian Venus - vice or virtue, gives further insight into the work of William Stott. 

Stott, it must be admitted, was a patchy painter. Another classical scene of his, Diana, Twilight and Dawn, which was painted in 1889 has the same strange stiffness and unlifelike poses that his Venus displayed; plus some faulty perspective too. A similar stiff and slightly unnatural pose can be seen in his Nymph of 1886. His Wild Flower of 1881, displayed in his home town of Oldham, by contrast proves he could just about manage a decent nude when he was in the right mood.

Unknown models

 

Undated sketch of an unknown model

Although I try my best to make a note of dates and the name of models, in the process of making one sketch after another of one model after another, I sometimes forget. 

It was only this morning, in correspondence with an art gallery assistant in England, that we were bemoaning the absence of such records. And my models are of no help. After the passage of time, they cannot with certainty identify themselves in my work. Sometimes, a bracelet or necklace gives them a clue, or for me, the paper the sketch was made on. 

But the omittance does not lesson the value of my unknown model's contribution to the creative process.

How little can I get away with

As I've ofttimes said, it's not what you put into a painting, but what you leave out. The model's face and right breast drift into nothing, while a runaway wash embraces her left side. The darks at her head, nipples and pudendum punctuate the figure. To add more would be less.