Talk:Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus)

Talbot
Where does this come from? (Ok I see a 19th century tradition). "She is likely either Anne or Margaret Talbot, both of whom were Duchess of Burgundy. It is known that the sitter's parents married between 1444-45, suggesting her age to be between 10–20. She had travelled to Bruges to attend a wedding". Neither of these was Duchess, but Margaret of York was, & she was married in Bruges in a famously lavish wedding in 1468. Anne or Margaret Talbot sound like the daughters of John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury (dead by then), who fit the dates, though dad was a Lancastrian in the War of the Roses & the new Duchess the sister of the Yorkist king. But I think the war had died down at that point, so perhaps they were all pals.

The influence betwwen Campin & van der Weyden is the other way round - both were dead by this point.

I'll change these if that's ok. I saw the portrait in April - a very saucy young lady, but nothing like the presence of the Washington van der Weyden. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Squinty?
Doesn't much of the effect of the portrait come from the eyes not quite being aligned, a trick quite often found in EN portraits? Here it is pretty pronounced with the "lazy" eye on the right sliding off to look over your shoulder? I'm dubious about Kemperdink's "The rendering of the background marks a major innovation in portraiture" - just from the NG London, here is another Christus of 1446 (another serious squinter) and a Bouts of 1462, never mind the Arnolfini Portrait. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these, the "lazy" eye aspect is certainly pronounced and needs to be examined in the article. I am having difficulty finding sources for this in the online liabaries, I think I will have to splash out on actual books. You have given good tips for expansion above. The two images on either side here are fantastic each in their own way; I think I have found the period that grabs me the most. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Christus rather overdoes it in the London portrait, but the girl is just right. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re you comments on identity above - the sources are contradictory; I suppose that goes with specualation. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Petrus Christus - Portrait of a Young Woman - Google Art Project.jpg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Petrus Christus - Portrait of a Young Woman - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 1, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-08-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

She sits in a narrow triangular space?
Triangular? It looks more like a rectangular space. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

right angle joining an inverted triangle formed by her dress, and the horizontal lines of her neck
"The image is divided by the right angle joining an inverted triangle formed by her dress, and the horizontal lines of her neck, face and headdress." What does this mean? I can't see any horizontal lines in her neck, her face or her headdress. The idea that a right angle joins a triangle doesn't fit with anything I know about geometry. And how does a right angle divide the image? I am so tempted to delete this nonsense, but presumably some art historian has written it. A reference would be nice. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. The horizontal lines of her neck are instead created by her shirt or blouse which is at a straight right angle. The headdress contains absolutely zero horizontal lines.  The only horizontal line on her face, I suppose, would be a straight line drawn across her eyebrows.  I think this description would be just fine if this were removed:  "horizontal lines of her neck, face and headdress".  Either remove or describe in better detail for clarification.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I have changed the description to reflect concerns described by myself and editor Rjm at sleepers.

--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The meaning of that part of the article is now much clearer. Well done. (I do wonder, however, whether it constitutes OR) Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)