It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
3. Is it not curious that there is such a difference in height between the two men? Willem van Ruytenburch hardly comes up the Banning-Cocq’s throat. Surely simple propriety could have equalled out the heights of the two men - Willem looks demeaned by being made a ‘shorty’.
4. The outstretched hand of Banning Cocq does not seem to fit so well into Banning-Cocq arm or sleeve. Is there a reason for this?
5. There is a very demonstrative shadow of Banning Cocq’s hand on Willem’s belly. Is this a deliberate provocation of a sexual nature?
6. The . of the lance held by Willem van Ruytenburch seems to be a flagrant genital substitute - complete with dominant penis and a suggestion of testicles - could this really be so accidental?
7. Banning-Cocq limply holds a glove by the finger with exaggerated distasteful nonchalance in his right hand. The held glove is a right hand glove. Since his right hand is already gloved - and his left-hand very extravagantly ungloved - this held glove cannot be his. Who¹s is it? And what is it doing here? What is going on?
8. The musketeer loading the musket is ostensibly doing it the wrong way around - an image of incompetence? Or has Rembrandt been admonished for making Dutch military secret too public for the Spanish?
10. There is a man in the centre of the painting making an ambiguous gesture - is he avoiding the firing, helping it, aiming it to shoot?
12. And this brightly-lit girl has a companion with a hidden face - what are both these girls doing? Running away? Running to? Just running?
13. There is someone else running away - the powder boy on the left - is he a messenger of some sort - a whistle blower, a sneak? A witness eager to tell what he has seen?
14. There is a one-eyed man at the very back of the crowd in the centre peering over everyone’s shoulder - is it a Rembrandt self-portrait? Rembrandt, it is said, after more than a few people have scrupulously studied his 57 self-portraits, had a lazy eye, an astigmation in his left eye, his sinister eye, but this is his right eye - right for left - because Rembrandt had to paint his self-portrait in a mirror.
15. The only figures looking significantly directly ‘at the camera’ at us, are Jacob de Roy in the black hat centre right - and Rembrandt - could this be significant? Are these two people the only two ‘in the know’?
16. The composition of the painting centres strongly on the two central figures, Banning-Cocq, Willem van Ruytenburch, and the man in the middle of them, Jongkind. The pointing hands, the gestures, the compositional lines - are they more than just compositional - are they accusational? And if a little of the painting is removed, cut off from the left hand side of the painting - these characters become even more central. And a little of the left hand side of the painting was cut off. In 1715. The painting stayed under Banning-Cocq control. Did they cut off this portion for merely practical considerations, or is there a more important reason?
18. There are exactly 13 pikes in the picture - thirteen was an unlucky number in the mid-17th century - accidental?
But, according to Hugo Conti, a self-taught Argentinian historian who leads a mysterious group called "The Mirror of The Sacred Scriptures and Paintings," the writings conceal much more -- a key to secret images.
"It is easy to find invisible images in Leonardo's paintings. Many of his characters seem to be staring into space. In reality, they are indicating where one must place the mirror to visualize the images," Conti told Discovery News.
When applied to Da Vinci's painting "Saint Anne, the Virgin and Child," on display at London's National Gallery, a mirror reveals a figure which some cynical observers say looks like the Star Wars character Darth Vader. !
Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
So is this that got you going to the more morbid of train of thoughts E23, a sort of hell no doubt.
But it's another person I am not familiar with, this Walter Sickert sorry never heard of him.
You now he could of just been another crappy painter that's why the pictures are so morbid, or you could be right. I't is not a far stretch to think off, some things are only complicated because we don't make ourselves look at them, or want to look at them, but when looked at with open eyes things are just glaringly obvious, It's all a question of does anybody really want to know about such things.
Nah, and I'm not in a morbid mood, exactly.
In August 1968 the Spanish government imprisoned a man on the island of Ibiza for creating a long series of sketches and paintings — beautiful, intensely lyrical works that Art Experts had universally proclaimed as masterpieces.
The imprisonment of this Maker of Masterpieces did not represent censorship in the ordinary erotic or religious sense. Nobody even accused the artist of Political Incorrectness. He got jugged for a technical matter — namely, that he had signed the wrong name to his works… or several wrong names, in fact. Names like Picasso and Van Gogh and Modigliani and Matisse, for instance. Not that anybody knew then, or knows now, what name the man should have signed.
Our works in stone, in paint, in print are spared, some of them for a few decades, or a millennium or two, but everything must finally fall in war or wear away into the ultimate and universal ash. The triumphs and the frauds, the treasures and the fakes.
A fact of life. We’re going to die.
"Be of good heart,” cry the dead artists out of the living past. Our songs will all be silenced – but what of it?
Go on singing.
Maybe a man’s name doesn’t matter all that much.
I hope you don't have a mouthful of Scotch: