Joseph Baron Ducreux was a French noble, portrait painter, pastelist, miniaturist, and engraver, who was a successful portraitist at the court of Louis XVI of France, and resumed his career at the conclusion of the French Revolution…
He was made a baron and premier peintre de la reine (First Painter to the Queen), and drew the last portrait ever made of Louis XVI before the king's execution…
Both of these portraits are said to have been drawn by Ducreux…
However, only one of these portraits was actually drawn by Ducreux circa 1790…
I’ll give you a few hints as to the one that is:—
First, the smooth and natural transitions in the skin tones of the man on the left show the mastery of light and shadow, demonstrating a high degree of technical skill and attention to detail…
Ducreux, known for his pioneering work in portrait realism, was celebrated for capturing the texture and subtleties of his subject’s skin, hair, and facial expressions…
The individual’s features are portrayed with incredible precision—the folds in his clothing, the glint in his eyes, and the natural posture suggest someone sitting for a live portrait…
These are all hallmarks of a true realist artist, which Ducreux was…
In contrast, the portrait on the right falls far short of these standards…
The face lacks depth and realism, appearing flatter and less dynamic…
The absence of intricate detailing, such as the subtle play of light and the texture of skin, points to a work that’s more stylized and less concerned with true depiction…
In short, the portrait on the right simply pales in comparison to the strikingly life-like realism presented in the left-hand image…
Additionally, firsthand sources describing Louis XIV and Louis XV as having a “swarthy or brown complexion” strongly support the likelihood that the portrait on the left is more accurate…
The dark complexion, along with the careful rendering of skin tone, aligns with contemporary descriptions of Louis XVI’s appearance, validating the idea that this is the more authentic portrayal…
Let’s be real here—if you can’t see that the portrait on the left is the authentic work by Joseph Ducreux, you’re either blind or willfully ignorant…
The level of detail is leagues beyond the flat, lifeless one on the right…
Look at how Ducreux masterfully captures light hitting the skin, those smooth transitions in tone, the texture of the hair…
Look at the finesse in the shading, the subtle transitions in color across the face and neck…
Ducreux’s mastery is clear here—the texture of the skin, the natural contours, and the expression all feel lifelike…
You can see actual depth and dimension…
This is what happens when an artist knows how to capture reality…
Now take a look at the portrait on the right…
Honestly, it’s almost embarrassing by comparison…
Where’s the depth? Where’s the complexity?
The whole thing is flat, lacking texture, almost like someone slapped a few shades together and called it a day…
There’s barely any shading, no intricate facial details, and the skin looks pasty and unnatural…
It’s a lifeless version that lacks the realism you’d expect from Ducreux…
And let’s not forget the primary sources—Louis XVI and others are repeatedly described as having a “swarthy” complexion, “black as ink,” or brown…
This isn’t just random speculation; it’s documented history…
So when you compare these descriptions to the lifelike portrayal on the left, it’s painfully obvious which one is more accurate…
The portrait on the right? It’s an insult to the intelligence of anyone who knows even the basics of art or history…
If you’re still defending that, maybe do yourself a favor and sit this one out…
No comments:
Post a Comment