For example, when a group of people look at the Mona Lisa, they could all claim that she is looking directly at them, wherever they are, at any angle. This also holds true when you look at a photograph.
2006-09-26 11:49:18 · 5 answers · asked by AsianWallSt 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
Mmmmm that's not always the case. Casper David Friedrich's figures usually tend to have their back to the viewer.
The important point here, whether a subject is looking at the viewer or not, is the imaginary position that the viewer imagines themselves in within the realm of the picture. Sometimes a figurative subject can aid this interplay.
For example, the Mona Lisa. Leonardo wished the viewer to see what theartist had seen when they look at the painting.
The Venus of Urbino by Titian shows a woman looking directly at the spectator whilst letting her hand caress her thigh. This could be a direct challenge to the viewer to come closer to her within the imaginary picture space.
The portraits of the Duke and Duchess of Urbino are profile paintings thus the sitter does not look in the viewer's direction.
Could this be because they wish to show their potency as ducal rulers and therefore do not engage the viewer?
Portraits are never quite as simple as you think.
2006-09-27 05:27:36 · answer #1 · answered by samanthajanecaroline 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is because the portrait is done in two dimensions. If the eyes are looking out of the portrait, the angle you see it from will not have a great effect on its appearance. It would be different with a sculpture.
2006-09-26 12:14:57 · answer #2 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is the clue of portraits!
2006-09-26 11:55:27 · answer #3 · answered by Lady G. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you look straight into the lense then the eyes seem to follow
2006-09-26 15:18:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the artist . Not all are "focused " .
2006-09-26 12:39:18 · answer #5 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋