Skip to main content

Eleanor Fortescue Brickdale, 'The Pale Complexion of True Love', 1899

 


In The Pale Complexion of Love, Eleanor Fortescue Brickdale draws on the words of Shakespeare to construct one of her first major oil paintings, exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1899. Two seated noble figures are presented to a viewer, in what is anything but an amicable relationship - the man leans forward to gather the folds of the woman's dress close to him, as she sits as far away as possible, holding his gift of a necklace close to her face for inspection, and offering a displeasing look in response. Fortescue Brickdale has successfully constructed two unique characters, whilst using vivid Pre-Raphaelite colours at the beginning of her career, to make her name on the RA stage and earn herself commissions and further patronage. 

The quote is in fact taken from Shakespeare's As You Like It, despite the frame recording it as being from A Midsummer Night's Dream. Fortescue Brickdale seems to reference the Shakespearean text more fully in her painting than the frame implies - 'The Pale Complexion of True Love/And the Red Glow of Scorn and Proud Disdain' - in both the woman's expression and her rich red gown, spilling out around her feet and emphasised by the grasping hands of her companion, pulling it towards him. Ironically, it is the only connecting factor between these two characters, and perhaps it suggests that this is a materialistic connection alone - the desperate hands of the nobleman, alongside the pathetic attempt at a gift of a necklace which clearly has made little difference to the relationship, judging by the woman's scornful features. Fortescue Brickdale has meticulously constructed the female figure's gown, suggesting texture and thickness both by the folds and the weight of the sleeves hanging down from her lifted, delicate hands. Meanwhile, her uptight headdress, seemingly constricting her ability to move her head, is like a necklace itself, the folds of white cloth wrapping around her long neck, perhaps signalling her entrapment. The small circle of her facial features and her elongated hands are the only parts of skin showing, consumed by her red dress and elaborate headpiece. She is a moment of violent red in an otherwise limited palette of autumnal colours, which in contrast, her male counterpart is almost subsumed by. 

As mentioned, the work was exhibited at the RA, and later at the Walker Art Gallery, where it was labelled 'Dicksee and Co', in a reference to another (male) Pre-Rapahelite artist. It highlights the lack of recognition Fortescue Brickdale received at the time - until it was sold at Christie's in the early 1990s, the work had virtually not been displayed since its debut at the RA, and only reappeared in 1997 in an exhibition in Manchester. Despite this, Fortescue Brickdale displayed an oil at the RA every year until 1908, and the press did eventually acknowledge her heightened use of colour, competent illustrating of literary sources from Shakespeare to popular Romantic narratives at the time, and her ability to evoke the Medieval. Before she started to delve deeper into the medium of watercolour, these oils at the start of the artist's career are some of her best pieces, staunchly indebted to Pre-Raphaelitism in their use of colour, realistic background detail and intriguing characters: the work in question here might be seen as close to Holman Hunt's Valentine Rescuing Sylvia, for example. Most importantly, however, is Fortescue Brickdale's development not of the femme fatale, which often appeared in Pre-Raphaelite depictions, but the beautiful lady without mercy, or sans merci, evident in the dissatisfied gaze of the female protagonist. Through her heavy eyelids, pursed lips, tight facial features and slightly raised eyebrows, it is clear to a viewer that this nobleman opposite the female figure is facing a losing battle; in fact, he seems to have already lost. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mark Rothko, 'Light Red over Black', 1957

  My eye is not drawn to the painting itself but the title of the painting, 'Light Red Over Black'. We would automatically think that the black is on top of a red background, but Rothko has flipped this around, subverting the title just like he subverting the meaning of what it was to be an artist and what Art actually was. During this time, art was going through rapid changes, with abstract expressionism coming into full force (Rothko, Pollock). But Rothko showed that all this change was for the good, even if for him, it was short lived.  The colour red in this painting is searing and the black struggles to fully cover this velvety border, especially at the bottom of the canvas. Unlike the black squares which have a hazy quality to their edges, the red is clear and impregnable. It is hard to figure out what this represents - the Tate has suggested a window perhaps, but if it is a window then what are we looking out into? Perhaps it is night, or perhaps the viewer is catching ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Egon Schiele, 'Dead Mother', 1910

  My eye is drawn to the hand. Those long, bony fingers are so characteristic of Schiele but here they are particularly skeletal and deathly – the veins seem to have been injected with poison. And they are a warning right in the foreground of the painting that keeps the viewer at bay as an outsider to this incredibly intimate relationship between mother and child, and sets the tone of death and mortality which hangs over the whole image. The mother cradles her child in a womb-like shroud, alluding to childbirth and the death of the mother explained in the title. She seems desperate to feel that bodily connection with her child, highlighted by the emphasis on her craned neck as she tries to connect to the baby. There is a clear link between the mother’s bent neck and the child’s bent neck, again emphasising their longing to be with each other. However, the darkness around the child is almost like ropes, with flecks of white in the painting making it look as though the darkness is wo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Artemisia Gentileschi, 'Jael and Sisera', c.1620

  My eye firstly notices the hand wielding the hammer above the unsuspecting man's head. Gentileschi is depicting a new and particularly horrible kind of weapon here instead of the huge sword she gave Judith to slice Holofernes' head off in 1620. The tent peg seems all the more violent, especially as the viewer is looking at the split second before the deed has been committed. Moreover, the gaze of the women (Jael) is focused and calm, making the piece seem unnerving. This is not a moment of hesitation but a snapshot of action - the woman has made up her mind and will commit to this murder. The viewer can only imagine how Gentileschi would have depicted the bloody aftermath, in her usual violent and tenebristic way. The fact that the artist has signed her name in the tomb-like stone above the man is significant - she is signing his life away in this painting, sending him swiftly to the grave.  The body of the man (Sisera) is also interestingly depicted. He lies in a rather eff...
Post a Comment
Read more