-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
"A compendium of witches"
- Thread starter malins
- Start date
And here are the next witches
The first is a picture by the English painter John William Waterhouse
The first is a picture by the English painter John William Waterhouse
Darkprincess69
High Priestess of Slaanesh
Yes you are right - it's called "The Magic Circle" and was painted in 1886. There are actually at least three known versions of this painting in existence. The one posted here is of the larger version which measures 183cm x 127cm (so nearly life-size) which is in the Tate Gallery in London.
This is the smaller version, which measures 88cm x 60cm and is currently in a private collection somewhere;
The third known version is an early study for the work which is also held in a private collection;
malins
Stumbling Seeker
@Brujita-CrucificadiTa are you sure you’re not a witch because you are conjuring up some superb imagery! That 4th image in particular, the juxtaposition of manacled wrists and fancy white dress conjures in me a wonderful idea of her complete vulnerability.
Keep sharing, here and in the other thread, you have great taste and producing imagery I mostly haven’t seen and appreciate
And to me that “hidden face” is clear as daylight!
Darkprincess69
High Priestess of Slaanesh
Interesting video, but I'm not totally convinced. Sure if you stand far enough away, you can see the vague features of a face, where the witch's head and the cave to the right form the eyes and the cauldron becomes the mouth, but most of the "investigation" presented here aeems to amount to little more than supposition and guesswork. Our brains are predisposed to identify faces from the moment we're born, and thus t's very easy to see faces in all sort of things (such as all those examples of people seeing Jesus on a slice of bread, or in cloud formations etc, not to mention the infamous "face on mars" which simply turns out to be the effects of light and shadow on the landscape...
Yes other artists have put faces in their paintings, but the example cited here with the face in the bubble is clearly a deliberate artistic choice rather than some sort of secret hidden artifact, and in fact it forms a key part of the overall composition, which is why the woman has a slightly startled expression and why her plaits are at such a strange angle (she sees the face in the bubble and immediately jerks backwards in shock, causing her plaits to hang momentarily at this angle, similar to the effect you could achieve photographically with a fast shutter speed)
Also, when it comes to the interpretation of the "face", we can ask the question is it the face of Jesus, or that of Waterhouse himself. My own feeling of course is that "there is no face" - much like the spoon in The Matrix, it is put there by our minds rather than actually existing in the first place, but if we concede that there is actually a face there, then it's unlikely to be Jesus, as Waterhouse did not paint religious images, rather turning his attention to mystical and mythological subject matter. Also, I'm not aware of any contemporary accounts suggesting that he may have been sufficiently narcissistic to actually put himself in one of his works.
So I remain unconvinced, but as with all such things, it's a fascinating idea, and Waterhouse has always been my favourite artist from the Victorian era, and I own large (roughly 80cm x 60cm) prints of two of his most famous paintings ("Hylas & The Nymphs", and "The Lady Of Shalott". I also have a smaller (approx. A3 size) print of "Miranda - The Tempest")
Also, as a final point (not just regarding this video, but also the much wider discussion of Waterhouse, he was not technically a pre-raphaelite, despite being labelled as such by many commentators. He was born at around the time that the true pre-raphaelites were producing their best work, but he was definitely from the next generation, though of course he and many of his contemporaries more or less copied and expanded upon the pre-raphaelite style which is the source of this common misconception, but he was not actually a part of the genuine pre-raphaelite movement.
(Yes I know that's a nitpick, but it's worth mentioning I think)
Brujita-CrucificadiTa
Executioner
Well, yes, you caught me, I'm a little witch, but a white magician, I'm not dangerous, please don't hurt me, or at least not at the stake. I am very happy that you enjoyed the images of my small collection, witches fascinate me! <3
Oh alright, since you ask so nicely, just some friendly torture under the question before being manacled at the stake for your purification by fire will suffice!
Brujita-CrucificadiTa
Executioner
Oh no please!, not with fire, I'm good, torture me in another way, I won't resist.Oh alright, since you ask so nicely, just some friendly torture under the question before being manacled at the stake for your purification by fire will suffice!
Not even with such a tiny little fire?
M
montycrusto
Guest
I used to go by bus to the Tate Gallery with my granny, it was one of our top favourites.
Last edited by a moderator:
Roberta
Senator
Loving #10
Darkprincess69
High Priestess of Slaanesh
I love that one as well - she's so cute
Migoz2
Senator
The first part of your name is a little bit of a giveaway!
young witch
Do we have a sale of witch supplies at the mall today
Do we have a sale of witch supplies at the mall today
Migoz2
Senator
Smoking a joint?young witch
Don't all young modern witches do that? Toadstools are so old school.
Darkprincess69
High Priestess of Slaanesh
Yeah but weed doesn't really seem like the kind of substance that will expand the mind enough to channel magical forces. I would have thought shrooms or lsd would be more likely to do the job
Of course not, I forgot to mention that of course she had a porion of magic mushrooms beforehand.Yeah but weed doesn't really seem like the kind of substance that will expand the mind enough to channel magical forces. I would have thought shrooms or lsd would be more likely to do the job