Yay or Nay? Hannah Loring
Last week we examined a lady with an usual name but a good sense of fashion, Mrs Wilbraham Bootle. The response was an overwhelming "Yay" and a "you must give me the name of her seamstress!" Perhaps Winter 10/11 will mark the return of muffs! It's about time, right? In the meantime let's look at someone who dove into the return of the ruff fad.
John Singleton Copley paints Hannah Loring (1763) in her sage green Van Dyck-inspired ensemble. Yay or Nay?
[Detroit Institute of Arts]
Posts
29 comments:
Welllllll. I can see why she wants to draw attention to her chest.
The dress would be kind of fabulous if that venus fly trap-like thing wasn't on it.
Nay. The ruff makes her neck look short - twice. Once above the ruff and once below. And the rest of the outfit looks awkward.
Nay. Just nay.
It could be a good concept - the colour is great, and the cut has possibilities, but it is poorly fitted, badly proportioned for the sitter, and the accessories are just dire. Especially the neck-ruff. It looks like she has been decapitated.
It could have been great, but that thing on her neck ruins it all. To put it nicely, it emphasizes the roundness of her face and makes her neck look small.
I'm not too keen on the blue ribbon in the front of her dress either.
Nay :/
I am taking exception to her dog collar necklace. Her neck is not small or elegant enough for that hardware. So, nay.
I don't mind the blue accents and I do really like the fabric of the dress, but that color just doesn't play well with lace, as far as I'm concerned.
Her face looks like that of a precocious and fat eleven year old boy, that has been painted onto the original, a la photo shop. The ruff is to stingy that it looks more like a bandage. Overall, a nay.
Nay, she just looks frumpy. On someone else maybe it would all look better but it doesn't even seem to fit well. Some people are not meant to wear ruffs. I do like her bergere though.
I love everything---from the shoulders on down. Um....how can I put this nicely?.......she probably should have worn her hat.
Oh my no. There's nothing good going on here. The ruff, the cut of the dress, it's all hideous. And I agree, her face is that of a fat, nasty little boy. It makes me wonder, did the painter have a grudge against her? Or was this the very best he could do with the material at hand?
I like the colour of her dress, and its smooth design... but: She isn't getting enough bust support from the dress or her stays (that lower curve should not be there), the lace around the top of the bodice looks weird and her mitts confuse me (too close to skin colour - makes her look like the skin on her arm is wrinkling...).
And admittedly, her face doesn't help. Nay, poor lady.
I like the hat, and I would like the dress if it left a liiiiittle more room for her chest. I do not care for the ruff thing. I guess overall I give it a "nay."
its a nay, too much lace the color looks like baby vomit green and the ruff thingy on her neck looks terrible.
Oh no, honey. Just no.
Nay. Nay. A thousand times nay.
She looks as if she about to be strung up with that thing around her neck! And what's with her right hand? Was it terribly malformed that she could not place it lightly on her gown instead of knarled up by her waist? A fashion NO!
The blue bow with that green dress is unfortunate. And it looks as if she has a hole in her right glove - her thumb tip is sticking out. And no glove on the left hand?
Nay dear.
the dress is pretty, I kind of like it, but, forgive my impertinence but she looks like a man, don't you think? I hate the way her neck looks and the useless focus on her breast. Poor girl, to be inmortalized in a painting in such a great fashion disaster..
nay
@viridian: Typical 18th century gloves were fingerless. But not like lacy Civil War/modern Goth fingerless gloves that have one bit for each finger, but rather one thumb part and one for all the other fingers.
See here under "mitts":
http://www.history.org/history/clothing/women/wglossary.cfm
Nay! Looks like she's been beheaded - and I should know!
Nay. Though, I can't blame Mrs. Loring, because the gown was Copley's invention--he painted several other women in the same gown while in Boston (he used 2 or 3 dress styles all together). It was taught to some painters to paint their subjects in 17th century-like apparel because it was thought to be vulgar and tasteless to paint them in modern fashions. I guess the idea being that you were never out of fashion in your painting. Kinda like those black drape things they make you wear for senior portraits.
Poor Mrs. Loring needed something more flattering for her poor homely self. A friend of mine once blogged that she belived she was really a man in drag, but I found information on her that proved she was a woman to my friend--plus I doubt the Bostonians would be down with that.
Seems many of the ladies Copley painted were (ahem) not as lovely as painters are wont to make their subjects: http://b-womeninamericanhistory18.blogspot.com/2009/03/john-singleton-copleys-1763-blue.html
http://b-womeninamericanhistory18.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-painters-more-clients.html
More nays than a herd of horses from me. It looks like her necklace is the only thing holding her head on.
More nays than a herd of horses from me. It looks like her necklace is the only thing holding her head on.
Nay. She looks very uncomfortable in this portrait and the item about her neck is not flattering at all.
Well, her dress is okay but what is going on with the rest of her? She should have worn the hat and that neck thingy is not helping her at all. Poor thing. Nay.
Nay! Nay! Nay! The ruff disrupts the visual flow, makes her neck appear shorter & her face heavier than it likely really was. It's just crops her all wrong. Perhaps on a lady with an elegant neck, but on this lady only draws attention to her flaws, rather than helping to disguise or keep attention away from them. It looks like the ruff has been tied too tight & her head is about to pop like bubble. I don't like the blue ribbon with that particular sage colour & the gloves are far too close to the colour of her skin, it made me think of a tensor bandage.
Nay. Is she trying to make up for the neck ruffel and her lack of looks (sorry, but its true)with a low neck line? Sorry hunny but an emphasized bosom doesnt offset how short your neck looks or how much beauty sleep you didnt get. However the colors an silouette are nice.
The responses to this are absolutely hysterical. I think we can all agree that this is not a case in which the model makes the dress but rather mutilates it instead.
I showed just poor Hannah's face to my roommate and asked her what she thought. Said she, "Is that a man?"
Oh dear.
While the fabric of the dress is sumptuous, it is not well suited to her at all. My grandma used to say that a lady needs to draw attention to the most delicate things about her, and, poor Hannah, her neck is anything but delicate (this coming from a fellow "fat-necker").
She should have worn her hair to distract us from her face, and pulled the focus down to her fabulous bosom with a flashier neckline.
The dress is beautiful and so is the hat, but that collar is just WRONG! She does not have the neck for it - or maybe if she had lowered it a little it would have looked better. Or maybe if she had her hat on. I really want to say yay, but I am afraid that the collar ruins the otherwise lovely look, so I must give poor Hannah a NAY!
I can't decide if I like that gown or not. I think it's the hat...
Post a Comment