Talk:Gabriël Metsu

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriël Metsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914131649/http://www.gabrielmetsuexhibition.com/ to http://www.gabrielmetsuexhibition.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

discussion
We are discussing this: Man visiting a lady washing her hands.



Hello, Giano. I have no idea what they are doing. Besides I do not like such explicit sexual explanations. I look at it more practical way. For me some 17th century painters had the idea a painting should have a mystery which is not so easy to solve. Otherwise the owner or his company would get bored too fast. Taksen (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We call it genre painting, but I just found this: The phrase "conversation piece" later acquired a different meaning. It came to refer to objects that were perceived to be interesting enough to spark conversation about them. They provide a stimulus for prop-based conversation openers. Taksen (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The "conversation piece" is a type of intimate group portrait, where the viewer was expected to know at least some of the persons shown, whereas part of the definition of a genre painting is that individuals might be used as models, but who they were was not intended to be meaningful to viewers. I think the Metsu is in the latter group, & there certainly seems to be some sort of sexual tension going on. As is not unusual around this time, whether the couple are married, potential lovers, or whatever, is left unclear. I don't think it is a brothel/prostitute painting. These Dutch works are like early versions of the Victorian problem paintings, which deliberately create a puzzle for the viewer to analyse. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think "A Man Visiting a Woman Washing her Hands" is a literal representation. It is meant to be understood symbolically. Yes, there is a male courter. But no, he is not literally present when hands are being washed. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly wouldn't agree with that! Is he a vision? The dog seems to think he is real. The Metsu I've added is a comparison; here it seems fairly clear to me the pair are married, though the modern analyses I've seen don't mention this possibility. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Giano—you say "Is the hand washing symbolising the woman’s purity, or is the woman hoaxing the man with the maid’s complicity or am I wrong completely?" Neither. Wetness serves to invoke the thought of sex. The painting is symbolic. Being symbolized are the very real relationships between 3 people (and a little dog at the man's feet). Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Johnbod—you have added a painting other than the one we are talking about. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know - "The Metsu I've added is a comparison". Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. You did say that. I didn't notice that in a quick reading. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are only two characters in "The Hunter's Gift". The symbolic interpretation is possible in "A Man Visiting a Woman Washing her Hands" because it contains 3 characters. The two women are virtually inseparable. But the man is quite "separable" from the two-woman unit. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don’t know what to think. I attended a lecture on Dutch Golden Age genre painting just before Christmas, and came to the conclusion the lecturer had the mind of a smutty 14-year-old schoolboy. According to him: fish were positively erotic and the sight of a candlestick or column was beyond pornographic. my painting has a candlestick and a column together! Hand washing was decent so long as no sly looks accompanied it, and a lady sowing while wearing a black dress with some nicely arranged pots behind her was greatly to be admired. However, a servant girl in a colourful dress undoubtedly has the morals of street cat, and were she to gutting or selling fish, then no man was safe from her. I can’t imagine what would have happened had she also a candle to see by. I’m not sure I believe any of it, so thought I’d ask the experts here who are far more reliable. So thank you Taksen, Bus stop and Johnbod.  Giano    (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the actual painting in person. I have never even seen a reproduction of the painting. So I am just judging it based on what I see in the online image which I am seeing for the first time. And I am utterly ignorant of any commentary by art historians about the painting. In fact I never even heard of the artist. But I am just speaking authoritatively because this is a Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

For us it is a genre painting as we do not know who is on it, but perhaps the client knew? The client may have ordered not just a painting, but a situation he had experienced, which he would like to remember? They had no camera in those days to store something for eternity. Taksen (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC) The women are familiar too me; they appear in some of his other paintings. Metsu used not only the women he was familiar with, but also a chimney he had painted before. The back ground is rather boring, perhaps Metsu had little time?Taksen (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They may well be his family and friends, so familiar to them. Many DGA genre painters had regular models, or drawings of them. But they are clearly (to me) not intended as "portraits" - the work would have been sold, very likely to someone who did not know them. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems to me that artists infuse faces with a characteristic appearance, resulting in all faces seeming related. I may be exaggerating, but if characters in painting after separate painting bear a similarity of appearance, it could be that the artist unconsciously includes certain characteristics that result in all faces seeming similar, making different models look somewhat the same. Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true, but Vermeer and Jan de Bray are among the DGA artists who regularly used their families as models, just as Italian Renaissance painters used their pupils. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you are saying. Thank you for that. Bus stop (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The painting is extremely well known to me, hence my interest. The maid/servant is giving a very sly/devious/complicit look, it is too obvious to be ignored, so I do believe there is a story going on here. I don’t suppose we shall ever know. My own thought is that the girl is washing her hands to show innocence and purity and the maid is thinking that if the man believes that, then he’s a fool. The dog a symbol of loyalty is very small indeed, and as the scene is in a bedroom, we probably have a deceived husband or lover, or even a client. However, my lecturer talked us through [this painting] and if he is to be believed (I’m not sure he is), it should be X-rated and not shown to children under 18 and impressionable adults as it’s full of vulgarity and sexual symbols which my mind was to innocent to comprehend. Giano   (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a very lovely painting. Your lecturer would no doubt have something to say about the open-mouthed vessel half-hidden by the lady's dress, at roughly the level of her groin. There's probably deliberate ambiguity, but I think the most likely scenario is that the lover, or aspirant lover, is paying a morning call, but has perhaps arrived a little too early, before the lady has quite finished her morning toilet. Whether this is embarassing, or sexy, or both, one doesn't really know at this distance. With English high-society (insert rude word of choice) a century later, entertaining the lover during the toilet was acceptable (as in the Hogarth I've added), but how the more middle-class and earlier Dutch lady felt about it one doesn't know.  Anyway the maid is clearly enjoying the situation vicariously (the failings of housemaids was one of Metsu's big themes, evidently popular with his patrons [oops - actually I was thinking of Nicolaes Maes]), and the lady's expression is, in proper lady-like manner, hard to read, but she doesn't seem too upset. If you know the original, who are the pairs of little figures at the tops of the bedposts, and what are they up to?  As in the other Metsu above (with a statue of Cupid high up) the decoration of the setting often gives pointers to the meaning. My Dutch_Golden_Age_painting gives background, as does toilet service. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The sly sidelong glance of the maid is impossible to ignore, as you say, Giano. But what she's being sly about isn't obvious. My first notion on seeing the picture was that she's glancing complicitly at the man because she has been instrumental (presumably bribed) in getting him admitted to such an intimate scene in a lady's bedroom. "Look at this, wasn't it worth a golden handshake now?" Oh, and I could say much about the phallic threat of the chandelier with its sharp Damocles-sword-type point, but I'd better not. Perhaps your lecturer did. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC).


 * Thank you Bishonen. No, the erotic symbolism of the chandelier escaped even his filthy mind, and mine too. How observant of you to notice it! There’s a flipped antique print of the painting (See left) where the detailing is clearer than the original, although the full extent of the maid’s leer is lost. The top of the bedposts has playful putti, there’s aLso some indistinct activity in the carving of the bedposts. I wonder if the mirror angled to reflect from the bed has any significance? Giano    (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the print the gentleman's "male gaze" seems to focus on either the maid or the mistress, while from the photo of the painting he seems to be looking at the hands being washed. It's a pity the print doesn't give a title - these are often interesting, though mostly made up much later. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Giano, I'm sorry to say your interlocutor Johnbod has been blocked for 24 hours, per this ANI thread. This conversation has thus been disrupted. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Why is it that whenever one begins to think this place is a reasonable, educated and tolerable environment, along comes some person like Sandstein and restores one's original thoughts concerning the future of this site. It really does seem to be is a place for the less academically gifted which, sadly, is rather at odds with the aim of writing an encyclopaedia. Giano    (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have thought some clever person (hints: Rex as the original must be well out of copyright. Every time I upload an image it just seems to result in a barrage of templates and bots, so it’s easier to let people who know what their doing upload them. I wonder if it’s a chamber pot at groin level?? It’s v interesting how much more detail is noticeable int eh print. Giano    (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to post this painting to this thread, even if only temporarily? It is its own unique painting. That which can be said about another painting or print is not necessarily applicable to the painting titled "A Man Visiting a Woman Washing her Hands". Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This place, Excellency, contains a remarkable spectrum of inhabitants. All human life is indeed here – not to mention a varied collection of dinosaurs, fish and inanimates. The result is that one can find both reasonable and unreasonable behaviour; the educated and the ignorant; tolerance and intolerance. Don't despair: some folks will infuriate us; but others will salve our wounds. Take solace in the friends you've found here and avoid those who are vexatious to your spirit. Max Ehrmann surely got it right. Johnbod is now unblocked, so let's get back to our scheduled programming ... --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, Commons has File:Homme visitant une Femme se lavant les mains - Gabriel Metsu.jpg already - rather low-res, but acceptable. Added at top. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a more dramatic depiction of a comparable scene by Metsu, in Washington. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I am shocked and horrified by that painting - that flash of naked ankle. What on earth is going on there? Two women sharing a bedroom, a maid who laughingly admits men! One who lady looks happy to see him the other less so - perhaps because the symbolic candle is rather small?  Giano    (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Giano, I will not engage with your depraved notion of "symbolism". Look instead at the body language of the dog, to flesh out the "anecdotal" scene without any symbolism — I think it's barking at the man, and will bite if he approaches nearer. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
 * No, I think the dog is happy and wagging its tail - which is full of symbolism as dogs have loose morals! I quote "dogs warn us of loose morals in brothel scenes, they remind us of (marital) loyalty in quiet domestic scenes." That is not a quiet domestic scene! it gives me no pleasure to find this depraved art on my page! Giano    (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bishonen - the lap dog is often the last line of defence of the more-or-less respectable Dutch lady in such situations. In this one the man is not so good-looking as in yours, so he might even be her husband. Certainly the other two women don't seem too concerned by the intrusion. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm less sure about an absence of depravity here. The discarded clothing indicates to me that Father Christmas is hiding under the bed! Giano    (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OMG you're right. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Any understanding of symbolism must be symbolism that contributes to a satisfactory understanding of the painting as whole. Can anyone spot the sexual symbolism in this painting? Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, just looks like a nice, well brought up lady smelling a rose to me. Giano    (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)



What becomes clear is that Metsu reused attributes: the women, their silk garment, the dog, the chandelier, the candle stick, the mirror and the chimney, but he did not paint a table cloth, which was probably too much time consuming. I also find the red canopy rather boring. Could it be called an "unfinished painting"? Was he paid by the amount of attributes or by size? The composition or distribution on the "woman composing" is a lot better than on the "woman washing her hands". There more paintings by Metsu, Portrait of the Family Hinlopen and Visit to the nursery by Metsu, where there is not much happening in the upper half. I don't understand why Metsu did not cut at least a third. It would have been more interesting paintings.Taksen (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He may well have charged partly based on painted area, and the number of figures (Gainsborough supposedly charged per sheep), but I think that the very high ceilings in some are an easy way of suggesting wealth and status; very few Dutch houses in the period actually had ceilings that high. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I take Taksen's point about the boring red bed, although, if you look closely, it does have a pattern in all that red. I think Johnbod is right thoughabout the ceiling heights indicating wealth. Another way of displaying wealth was to paint expensive food on the table - lobsters and oysters etc. But then some other "experts" have read sexual connotations into the oysters and probably the lobsters (although that does puzzle me). Another painting I know well is Metsu's Tête-à-Tête (left) - where a boring, dull looking couple (seated by our familiar fireplace) are attributed all manner of activities just because they are enjoying a dish of oysters. I am beginning to think one can find anything one wants in these paintings if one looks hard enough. Giano    (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of having your cake & eating it regarding the depiction of deplorable luxury & vice - just like 20th century Hollywood. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Very true - and sadly none of these food attributes work anyway - at least not in my experience, and dogs in bedrooms always yap to be let out at a crucial moment. Giano    (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)