, , , , , ,

Apparently I’m stuck on bears now. Here’s a rough sketch of what I intend to paint next. Still collecting reference and figuring things out. I like the idea of revisiting the bear as a portrait. It will give me the opportunity to do what I couldn’t do for the Gypsy Bear Painting, since the bears were small-ish. I’m happy that this time, before embarking upon a new painting, I have two other ideas in the works that I can go to if I get bored/annoyed with the current project. I must buy some pretty lace this weekend to make a model for the ruffle-y bodice and lace cuffs on her dress. It’s hard to see them, but there are birds and mice and other rodents lurking within the portrait too. Why––it’ll be a fur and feather paradise!

Speaking of portraits, has everyone seen this cool bit of news? Turns out they found a copy of the Mona Lisa that was painted by a student of Da Vinci’s. Intriguing. Cool to see how the famous painting might look if they dared to restore it. I’m a little perplexed on how the experts came to some of the conclusions they decided on, for they don’t go into detail about it. I’m a little skeptical when they say “this is what the famous model actually looked like.” How do we know that the student got it right and DaVinci got it wrong? Not that I think he’s infallible, mind you. I’m just saying that a statement like that should be backed up if one’s going to make that claim. I guess you can assume that perhaps knowing women, the model may have asked DaVinci to make her less round-faced or something. But that’s just supposition. Anyway, there are comments below the article talking about how expensive red pigment was at the time and there’s no way that DaVinci would have let a student use up his expensive paint. Yada yada. Insert eye roll here. Enjoy the article if you haven’t seen the story already!

Have a great weekend, everyone!