The complete works of Peter Paul Rubens
February 18, 2009 8:10 PM Subscribe
I like big portrait sites, and I cannot lie.
Very cool post.
posted by mosk at 8:19 PM on February 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Very cool post.
posted by mosk at 8:19 PM on February 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
I love Rubens' paintings for the same reason I (generally) like TV shows on BBC better than the USA ones - every person you see in them you can really genuinely believe is a person you would meet in the real world; living, breathing, real, as opposed to idealized, perfected characters that only represent real human beings.
posted by yhbc at 8:33 PM on February 18, 2009
posted by yhbc at 8:33 PM on February 18, 2009
First thing I thought of was some combination of Peter, Paul & Mary meets Pee Wee Herman. Scary.
posted by milnak at 9:14 PM on February 18, 2009
posted by milnak at 9:14 PM on February 18, 2009
warning: site contains lots of breasts
And butts. Lots of butts. He liked big butts.
There's just a lot of naked going on there in general.
Ruebens painted the most decadent, most sumptuous, fleshiest flesh ever. Like he wanted you to be able to feel the skin with your eyes. Every person is so alive and voluptuous.
posted by louche mustachio at 10:22 PM on February 18, 2009
And butts. Lots of butts. He liked big butts.
There's just a lot of naked going on there in general.
Ruebens painted the most decadent, most sumptuous, fleshiest flesh ever. Like he wanted you to be able to feel the skin with your eyes. Every person is so alive and voluptuous.
posted by louche mustachio at 10:22 PM on February 18, 2009
Funny and not surprising is that, when sorted by popularity, all the paintings at the top of the list are the ones of nekkid women.
Also agreed: it's amazing how much he captures the "everyday people"-ness of his models.
posted by not_on_display at 11:19 PM on February 18, 2009
Also agreed: it's amazing how much he captures the "everyday people"-ness of his models.
posted by not_on_display at 11:19 PM on February 18, 2009
So does "ruebenesque" mean lots of breasts, big butts or 'everyday people'-ness?
posted by bonefish at 12:43 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by bonefish at 12:43 AM on February 19, 2009
He was actually a pretty interesting guy. Very bright, politically influential, and the closest thing the 17th century gets to a pacifist activist. Very nice link-- good quality images.
I'm not sure how "un-idealized" his women are in 17th century terms. I think that fleshiness like that was a bit more of a desirable sign of opulence and leisure, while a thin person with a good suntan was, well, usually a peasant.
posted by Capybara at 4:18 AM on February 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure how "un-idealized" his women are in 17th century terms. I think that fleshiness like that was a bit more of a desirable sign of opulence and leisure, while a thin person with a good suntan was, well, usually a peasant.
posted by Capybara at 4:18 AM on February 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
What I like about his paintings, moreso than even the weight of the people, is the musculature. The notion that a woman with defined muscles in her arms and legs could be beautiful, or Venus even, is wonderful. It's really sad these days that women so often avoid having muscle tone (especially in the upper body) for fear of looking "manly." A strong and healthy woman is a beautiful woman.
posted by explosion at 4:22 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by explosion at 4:22 AM on February 19, 2009
In terms on musculature, his Raising of the Cross is really fascinating-- brilliant diagonal composition, too. Also in looking for my favorites, I realize it's not really the *complete* works-- he has an Ecce Homo torso that is, well, kinda hot in an odd way, based on some antique centaur (might as well get some male flesh in here as well).
posted by Capybara at 4:52 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by Capybara at 4:52 AM on February 19, 2009
Where's The flight from Blois?
Huh, quite a few from that site are missing at this one. Not "complete" at all, then - sorry for passing along that misinfo. Lots and lots, though.
posted by mediareport at 4:53 AM on February 19, 2009
Huh, quite a few from that site are missing at this one. Not "complete" at all, then - sorry for passing along that misinfo. Lots and lots, though.
posted by mediareport at 4:53 AM on February 19, 2009
Are these the same people that did the George Inness site? What other painters have they .orged?
posted by steef at 5:25 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by steef at 5:25 AM on February 19, 2009
Well, that's odd. It looks like they compile a ton of public domain art, scrape the Wikipedia bio and set up a fairly comprehensive and pretty nicely done searchable visual arts site for each artist. No ads that I can see, and released to the Web under a Creative Commons license.
I keep thinking I should think there's something wrong here, but I can't find what it is. :)
posted by mediareport at 6:19 AM on February 19, 2009
I keep thinking I should think there's something wrong here, but I can't find what it is. :)
posted by mediareport at 6:19 AM on February 19, 2009
In short, a very kind and thoughtful thing to do for the Web. Or am I missing something?
posted by mediareport at 6:20 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by mediareport at 6:20 AM on February 19, 2009
I love love love PPR! Something about the flesh just gets me...
posted by prototype_octavius at 7:44 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by prototype_octavius at 7:44 AM on February 19, 2009
The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus was the major work of Rubens that we studied in western art history. Something about grabbing that piece of red cloth from between her legs, looking like it's about to rip has always been pretty disturbing to me.
Also cankles. Rubens loved the cankles.
posted by fontophilic at 7:59 AM on February 19, 2009
Also cankles. Rubens loved the cankles.
posted by fontophilic at 7:59 AM on February 19, 2009
Not to play the same tune too many times, but yeah - if you call your site "Complete Works" and several searches for notable pieces turn up nothing, you are a damn liar. It's not like opening a tin of Spotted Dick and finding someone's diseased penis, but still pretty disappointing.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:10 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:10 AM on February 19, 2009
Visual. Genius. That is all.
posted by buzzdiggity at 9:13 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by buzzdiggity at 9:13 AM on February 19, 2009
wait wait wait. His Venus in Fur Coat, is that the same one that inspired von Sacher Masoch?
posted by shmegegge at 9:15 AM on February 19, 2009
posted by shmegegge at 9:15 AM on February 19, 2009
What I like about his paintings, moreso than even the weight of the people, is the musculature. The notion that a woman with defined muscles in her arms and legs could be beautifulYour comment made me realize that that's one of the things I like about cheesecake fantasy art (Boris Vallejo, Julie Bell, et al.) — even the clingy slave girl often has some muscles, not to mention the barbarian swordswoman.
posted by hattifattener at 11:01 AM on February 19, 2009
Rubens Baroked the Barok. There is are so much brown and purple in the shadows! Rubens work all dissolves into a mass of swirling, twisting limbs, each more momumental and intertwined than the other.
If you're into that sort of thing
posted by The Whelk at 1:49 PM on February 19, 2009
If you're into that sort of thing
posted by The Whelk at 1:49 PM on February 19, 2009
I got to see some of Rubens' work up close and personal when I lived in Sarasota (Ringling Museum of Art. ) Awesome stuff.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:37 PM on February 19, 2009
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:37 PM on February 19, 2009
The Head of Medusa at this site looks flopped to me, but I'm not sure. (Shouldn't it be looking to the right?)
"Is there an art historian in the house?"
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 7:45 PM on February 19, 2009
"Is there an art historian in the house?"
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 7:45 PM on February 19, 2009
Do remember that most of the art in a workshop like Rubens was one by his students. Rubens would actually HIDE his students, under beds and in closets, when patrons came to see his work. Major figures, yes, by the master, but the filling in and background and cherubs, well, he had other things to do and labor is cheap.
posted by The Whelk at 8:01 PM on February 19, 2009
posted by The Whelk at 8:01 PM on February 19, 2009
A favorite for you sir!
posted by Mastercheddaar at 6:32 AM on February 20, 2009
posted by Mastercheddaar at 6:32 AM on February 20, 2009
« Older Signs. | Chimps will attack your face and genitals Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jabberjaw at 8:19 PM on February 18, 2009 [2 favorites]