1900-1984
You know those little free libraries that have popped up all over the place? Well, that's where I found this book. I decided to take it home when I saw how beautifully the paintings had been reproduced (although I'd never heard of the artist).
Neel qualifies as a character, which in my mind is good. Her self-portrait, a part of which appears on the cover, was drawn when she was 80 years old. She portrayed herself sitting on an arm chair holding paintbrush and rag but wearing only her glasses. Yep, nude. Not gorgeous, but realistic.
On page 13, we learn that, Like much of Neel's work over the course of five decades, the painting is happy to look wrong. . . . Neel's genius as a portraitist lay in her ability to excavate the character beneath the surface.
Then, on page 30, we read that in her paintings the female body is more real than imaginary; it is something that is lived in rather than something to be worshipped or desired. In Neel's painting of herself, as in her paintings of others, she portrays a unique body, the body a person acquires through a combination of genes, age, and experience.
One woman claimed that she had rejected the idea of modeling for Neel, explaining that she didn't want to come out looking like Dracula's daughter.
I'm glad to know a little about this artist, but I can't say that I'd want any of these paintings on my wall. The image of Andy Warhol portrays a soul in pain, and several of the other paintings captured the essence of a personality, but do I see what the artist intended?