Maxfield Parrish
lyn
Maxfield Parrish that used Southwestern landscapes as subject matter,
especially pictures of the grand canyon. Can anyone send me to the right
place? Thanks, Lyn
13 Ghosts
His daughter was a pretty good landscape painter,
you know. Durned if I can remember her name.
Some of them are quite good. What was her name?
She might still be around, too. I dunno.
Annnnyway, she painted in the Southwest. I remember
one, a little scene of Taos, looking down on the town,
the mountain in the background (a scene done by lotsa
painters out there) that was especially nice.
And I saw an abstracty sort of thing once,
blocks of color, didn't like it much at all, surely
not her best work or what she is know for.
Let's see, he died in 1966 and I happen to know
that you could buy her stuff out in New Mexico
in the 1960's. Perhaps he went out for a visit
and they did a little painting together.
Seems like a likely explanation for such a
Maxfield Parrish painting.
No charge,
13 Ghosts
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
A2Gumbo
that can probably help in your research.
Ashley
>Help folks! I am trying to locate information about paintings done by
>Maxfield Parrish that used Southwestern landscapes as subject matter,
>especially pictures of the grand canyon. Can anyone send me to the right
>place? Thanks, Lyn
It is a glorious achievement to master one's own temper.
"The Essential Book of Victorian Etiquette" by Thomas Hill, 1890
13 Ghosts
The painter daughter's name was Jean.
Jean Parrish, born 1920.
I do not know of any published biographical
info on her, but if there were it would surely
include copious references to her more
famous Dad. And you might get the angle
you are looking for that way.
You might try perusing the many books
published in the past few decades on
the subject of women artists. One of
them might have a bio. But it might not
be extensive enough to do the trick.
And have you read up on Maxfield Parrish himself?
That might be the easiest, most direct route.
Just ask your librarian to get you a biography
or two and read them. You might well find a paragraph
or two describing a painting trip in the West.
Something like that.
Charleen Bunjiovianna
>
>And have you read up on Maxfield Parrish himself?
>That might be the easiest, most direct route.
>Just ask your librarian to get you a biography
>or two and read them. You might well find a paragraph
>or two describing a painting trip in the West.
I think our erstwhile original poster may be disillusioned eventually,
though truthfully it's hard to tell exactly what she's looking for. It
sounds almost as though she has a print of _The Canyon_ and if that
is the case, I hate to disappoint but the original was done in
Parrish's own studio. A photograph was made of one of his usual models,
not Susan Lewin, maybe Kitty Owen?, stepping down a stair, then he added
all the rocks and greenery afterwards. Coy Ludwig's Parrish book has more
on this.
I haven't seen all his later landscape paintings (which were nowhere near
as popular as his "girls on rocks") but I don't recall a painting of the
Grand Canyon.
As an aside: I was at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco yesterday and drew
my friend's mother into Maxfield's (the bar) to see the Pied Piper mural.
"Oh," she said, sounding disappointed, "It doesn't look like a Parrish."
Charleen
13 Ghosts
Hi, Charleen,
I have always had a problem with artists who paint from
photographs. I know a lot of them do it, but it just bugs me.
Seems like it is cheating, somehow.
Maybe this is wrong headed. I don't know.
What makes art Art? Surely it is within the realm
of the possible to make Art from the subject matter
one finds in a photo. Art must reside in the mind
of the artist and not in the subject matter.
But it still bugs me.
Charleen Bunjiovianna
I'm certainly no art expert; any number of people can attest to that. :-)
But I think if you're trying to draw the human body or, as Parrish did many
times, draw it in such a way that it's androgynous but still recognizably
human, you need to have something to go by.
Portraitists have their subjects sit for them. I'm not sure how this is
different from using a photo as a jumping-off point.
One advantage of using photographs or live models is that you can play with
the composition, move elements around until you get the effect you want.
Parrish's most famous work, _Daybreak_, originally had three figures in it,
not two. Most people notice the vivid colors in _Daybreak_ and the
light-dappled trees, but the composition of the figures and pillars is
key...and is so "right" that you don't even see it.
http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/mpday.jpg
Charleen
13 Ghosts
I used to see Parrish prints everywhere for very little dough.
Funny, I was always going to get one and never got around to
it. Too bad I didn't know what was to come. I could have made
a mint.
Mike Wilcox
There was a good article on his method of painting in last month's
'Magazine Antiques' 13, it's well worth a read.
--
Mike Wilcox
C1Wave
it was May or June.