Portraits of Two Women

I was visiting my parents last week in Ohio and we visited the Columbus Museum of Art. On the flight to Ohio, I was reading The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt, in which the painting of the same name by Carel Fabritius is featured. I had art on my mind before I got to the museum.

We stopped in the European art gallery and right next to each other were two paintings of women.  Looking at these paintings, I wondered how much of these portraits were embellished. I would not accuse the artists of misrepresenting these women, but they are artists and as such have the right to make choices.  How much did they create?

Christian Bruce, Countess of Devonshire by Anthony van Dyck, 1635
http://www.columbusmuseum.org/blog/collection/christian-bruce-countess-of-devonshire/

How much did van Dyck change this woman's neckline? Her face is blotchy and her neck is lumpy. Were red splotches common at the time? Was the Countess happy with this picture, or did she want her money back?  It looks like the estate doesn't have the picture anymore as it is in Ohio, so maybe her ancestors didn't really like it all that much. Did Van Dyck embellish other things? No doubt the woman had pearls, but did she have as many and were they so perfectly round, large and luminous?  Were her dress and the curtains so silky? Just curious.

Varvara Ivanovna Ladomirsky by Elisabeth Louise Vigee Lebrun, 1800
http://www.columbusmuseum.org/blog/collection/varvara-ivanovna-ladomirsky/

Putting the Countess next to Varvara is cruel. Sure, the Countess was showing off her wealth. But the round, red cheeked middle aged woman has be next to the fresh young girl? I feel bad for the Countess, even if she lived nearly 400 years ago. Little did she know this would be her fate, placed next to the portrait of timeless youth and beauty, and then chatted up by some blogger in Seattle centuries later. This juxtaposition is like a mother walking around town with her teenage daughter.  The mother rots as the daughter ripens. This is so not fair. Nevertheless, I have to ask, was Varvara this pretty in real life? Did Lebrun cover up pox marks or scars? Was van Dyck uber-realistic, where Lebrun might have made the truth more than it should be?

I suppose it doesn't matter. Unless Varvara was 47 years old when this portrait was painted, youth wins beauty. Age wins wisdom. Or so I pray. But I also know that Varvara, if she were blessed with good health, might have had her portrait painted when she reached the same age as the Countess. Did Varvara age well? (Who am I kidding?  She probably looked great.)

I find comfort in knowing the Countess was once young, too. Here she stands tall and proud in a life size painting. Maybe she wouldn't care where her picture hangs or who she is next to.