u/pmamtraveller

It is the height of the long siege that began in the autumn of 1627. La Rochelle, the great Protestant stronghold on the Atlantic coast, has held out against the forces of Louis XIII for more than a year. The English have been trying to send relief by sea, and the cardinal, acting as the king’s chief minister and master of the operations, has ordered a massive barrier built across the harbor entrance. Engineers sank ships filled with stone, then raised a long stone and timber dike nearly a mile and a half across the channel, spiked with wooden stakes called chandeliers that would tear the hulls of any vessel daring to approach. The wall turned the open sea into a closed trap. Food ran out inside the city and by October 1628 the defenders were starving, so the place finally surrendered.

Motte places us right on that temporary fortress. The cardinal is alone at the center of the canvas. He is in a red cape of his ecclesiastical rank under an armor. On his left, a handful of his officers and clergy are gathered. One monk in a black robe holds a red hat in his hands, another older man in black is beside him with white hair, and a soldier in helmet is pointing toward the horizon. A bearded fellow in a fur-trimmed cloak can also be seen, all of them close as if they are talking about the ships in the distance. Out on the restless sea a fleet of vessels battle the wind and the blockade.

Henri-Paul Motte began his career not only as a history painter but as a trained architect and decorator, paths that clearly shaped the precision and sense of scale in works like this one. In 1872, while still a young man studying under Charles-Auguste Questel, he and two classmates won the competition to redesign the Temple Neuf in Strasbourg after the Franco-Prussian War. Their plans were later executed by another architect, but the experience left Motte with a deep understanding of structural engineering.

A few years after the Richelieu painting appeared at the 1881 Salon, Motte turned his mind toward spectacle. In 1890 he devised and patented a rotating panorama he called the Cyclorama, which was a mechanical theater that simulated the sensation of traveling by train. Spectators sat in a stationary carriage while painted landscapes unrolled past the windows on a continuous moving belt, with changing light and sound effects that sold the idea of speed and distance. That device was part of the late-nineteenth-century craze for immersive entertainments.

Later in life Motte settled in Bourg-la-Reine, outside Paris, and kept a summer house on the granite coast of Brittany at Trégastel. When he died in 1922 his body was first buried locally and then transferred, according to family wishes, to the small cemetery overlooking the pink rocks and Atlantic water he had loved. For decades the simple granite tomb, marked only with his name, that of his English-born wife Constance, and the phrase “artiste peintre,” received almost no visitors. Only in recent years have local historians rediscovered the grave.

In this piece the Trojans have found an enormous wooden horse left on the shore by the departing Greeks, and they have decided it must be a sacred offering to Pallas Athena. The Latin words painted right on the horse’s flank, PALADI VOTUM, declare it an offering to her. So the whole city has turned out to bring the gift inside the walls.

Somewhere near the center background, Cassandra is being held back. She is the daughter of King Priam, gifted with the power to see what is coming, and she has cried out that this horse carries ruin. No one listens. The people around her treat her as mad, and the procession keeps rolling forward. This was never meant to be a finished work. It is a preparatory sketch, one of a pair that Tiepolo made as he planned larger canvases telling the story of Troy’s fall. The companion piece shows the Greeks building the horse outside the walls.

Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo spent much of his early career working alongside his father Giambattista in the great decorative projects that defined Venetian painting of the mid eighteenth century. Domenico had already proven his independent hand years earlier at the Villa Valmarana near Vicenza, where he decorated the guest house with scenes of peasant life and carnival while his father filled the main rooms with episodes from Homer and Virgil.

After his father’s death in Madrid in 1770, Domenico returned to Venice and continued to explore this more satirical vein for the rest of his life.

In a simple bothy, you see a wooden coffin on trestles, and it is covered by a plaid shawl probably the one that once kept the old shepherd warm. The collie is curled against the side of the coffin. No one else is in the room. The human visitors have gone, leaving the dog as the only living presence beside the body of the man it followed for years, watching the flocks and bringing back the strays.

On a stool nearby you see the shepherd’s spectacles and his closed Bible. His bonnet and walking stick are even on the floor, set aside for good. Landseer painted this in 1837, working from his deep knowledge of dogs and the Highland world he loved, and the picture hangs now in the Victoria and Albert Museum after coming there through the Sheepshanks gift.

When the painting appeared at the Royal Academy in 1837 it was liked, yet it did not become legendary until John Ruskin wrote about it a few years later in the first volume of Modern Painters. Ruskin called it one of the most perfect pictures modern times had seen and then went on to describe exactly why. He pointed to the clear painting of the coffin wood and the folds of the blanket, the way the dog is pressed hard against the side, and the tearful look of the eye that showed no change had come since the last nail was driven home. Those details, he said, were thoughts that lifted the whole scene into the realm of high art. Ruskin’s words travelled widely, and the small canvas suddenly stood for something larger than a sentimental dog piece.

The painting’s reach grew further through the engravings that followed. Within a year of the exhibition Benjamin Phelps Gibbon produced a fine print that sold very well, and later versions by other hands kept appearing for decades. Those affordable images found their way into ordinary homes across Britain and beyond. Late in the century animal-protection societies took the picture up as their own. In 1881 the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reproduced it in their magazine Our Dumb Animals and called it eminently appropriate. For them the dog’s grief was evidence that animals have same capacity for sorrow that humans claim for themselves.

A thick fog has wrapped the land, and through this veil you can see a line of monks, their habits disappearing into the gray and fading as they advance. At the head of the group a processional cross can be see, it's the only marker guiding them deeper into the mist. On the right you see a tall Gothic wayside shrine, and it’s a little weathered.

Oehme painted this after his time studying in Italy, yet it is still rooted in the Dresden Romantic circle he knew so well, the influence of Caspar David Friedrich still strong in the way the scene is between what can be seen and what is beyond sight. Contemporaries understood the monks following the cross through the fog as a kind of parable for human life itself, the word for fog in German reading as the reverse of the word for life, the figures moving toward some larger eternity that the mist promises. In German the word for fog is Nebel, and if you read those letters backwards they spell Leben, the word for life. Oehme never needed to explain the idea in words; the painting says it in the way the way the path itself seems to lead beyond what the eye can follow.

Until Oehme was nearly twenty he earned his living as a clerk and assistant to a gate keeper who also collected taxes. He taught himself the beginnings of landscape, working without formal lessons until a local art lover named Johann Gottlob von Quandt noticed those early sketches and brought him to the attention of the Crown Prince of Saxony. The young painter’s first major success, which was a winter scene of monks approaching a cathedral, moved the prince so much that he provided the money for a long study trip to Italy. When Oehme returned in 1825 he carried new skills and friendships, yet the older Dresden atmosphere still remained in him, and three years later he painted this piece.

In this piece Webbe has set down a barn owl on a rough wooden beam. The bird fills most of the narrow upright space. The right wing has brown tones that John Ruskin singled out when the painting hung at the Royal Academy that same year, calling the study thorough and the brown wing excellent.

To the left of the owl’s talons you see a small mouse, the recent catch that tells you the bird has been out hunting and has now returned to its chosen beam. Everything is rendered with the attention that Webbe learned from the Pre-Raphaelite habit of looking hard at the natural world. He had trained earlier in Düsseldorf under the Nazarene painters, then returned to England and settled for a time at the Isle of Wight, where this piece was painted. By the mid-1850s he had taken the new English way of truth to nature to heart, and it is evident here.

You know, one of the things that always draws me back to this painting is the path it took through the hands of two of the most dedicated naturalists in Victorian England. William John Broderip, the lawyer and passionate collector who helped found the Zoological Society of London, seems to have acquired the work soon after Webbe finished it in 1856. Broderip filled his chambers at Gray’s Inn with shells, and specimens, and this white owl, with its freshly caught mouse, would easily be among them. He showed great affection for owls in his own books, so this painting must have felt like a companion to his observations.

After Broderip’s death in 1859 the painting passed, almost certainly as a gift or bequest, to Professor Richard Owen, the great comparative anatomist who was then overseeing the natural history collections at the British Museum. Owen and Broderip were in the same scientific circles, both fellows of the Royal Society, and Owen would have recognised at once the accuracy of Webbe’s rendering of the barn owl. The work stayed within Owen’s family for generations, moving through private rooms until, more than a century and a half later, it surfaced again in a Hampshire attic during a clear-out for a plumber. Jane Cordery, an art teacher, and her partner James Ravenscroft found the dusty board among old clothes and toys; Ravenscroft recalled receiving it years earlier as a gift from his mother, though the connection to Owen’s line had long faded from memory.

This painting can be found in the Royal Academy of Arts in London, it is a piece Landseer gave them as his diploma work when they elected him a full member the following year. A knight in full armour lies on his back where he fell and his sword is near his right hand. Under the knight's body is his horse. The battle has long since moved on or ended, leaving this aftermath under a darkening sky.

And there, at the centre of it all, you see the hound. Landseer had a gift for painting animals so that you feel what they felt at any given moment, and here the hound becomes the centre of the whole painting. It is mourning the man who will not rise again. You sense the years of companionship that led to this moment, the shared roads and the trust that outlasts everything else.

Landseer painted this when he was still in his late twenties, already known for the way he could give dogs and horses the remarkable depth of feeling. It belongs to a group of works from those years in which he returned again and again to the attachment between a man and his animal companion. Some have linked the scene to the old Border ballad of Chevy Chase, the bloody clash that grew out of a hunting party mistaken for an invading force, a story Sir Walter Scott had brought back into the public ear. Others think of the real story of Charles Gough, who fell on Helvellyn in 1805 and whose dog stayed beside the body for weeks until it was found. Landseer may have drawn inspiration from both, or from the Romantic air of the time that loved these tales of loyalty. Either way, the finished canvas was very impactful.

Landseer showed his gift for animals almost from the moment he could hold a pencil. His father, an engraver who believed ordinary schooling did more harm than good to a young artist, sent the boy out into the fields around Marylebone when Edwin was only five or six so he could sketch the sheep, goats and donkeys grazing there. By the age of eleven he had already won the silver palette of the Society of Arts for his animal drawings, and at thirteen he was exhibiting at the Royal Academy. The older painter Benjamin Robert Haydon took an interest in the teenager and urged him to dissect a lion carcass so he would understand the muscle and bone beneath the skin. Landseer spent long hours among the wild beasts at Exeter Exchange and the Tower menagerie, learning the living forms. That early discipline remained with him all his life and gave his later paintings their startling accuracy.

In this painting an old god has decided that nothing and no one will take what is his. Rubens painted it between 1636 and 1638 for King Philip IV of Spain, one piece in a whole series of mythological scenes meant for the walls of the Torre de la Parada. The story comes straight from the old myths, the ones Ovid tells in the Fasti, where Saturn, the Roman name for the Greek Titan Cronus, learns from an oracle that one of his own sons will overthrow him the same way he once overthrew his father. So every time Rhea gives birth to a boy, Saturn takes the infant and swallows him whole.

Saturn is nearly life-size, and in his right hand he holds the a scythe, a tool that points to him being the god of harvests and of time itself. His left hand holds a small boy, and Saturn’s mouth is already closed around the soft flesh of the chest. You can almost feel the pressure of those teeth, the sudden resistance of the child. Above them, in the dark sky, you see three stars shining. The middle one is brighter, the two smaller ones are on either side. Rubens was aware of Galileo’s observations from a few decades earlier, the ones that made the planet Saturn look as if it had two companion stars instead of the rings we know today. So Rubens placed them there.

Look closely and you can still see the small adjustments Rubens made while the paint was wet: a slight shift in the curve of the right arm, a repositioning of the left heel. These visible pentimenti reveal an artist who trusted his eye and his brush completely in his later years. He no longer needed to define every muscle; instead he suggested the force of the body through strokes and deliberate distortions.

Trelis, the Spanish painter born in Alcoy in the Alicante region, spent years honing a realist hand, first with landscapes and later with portraits of people from cultures he met on his travels. Eventually he shifted toward something larger and darker, and this piece is the result.

High in the center of the canvas you see a skeletal figure covered in white robes. The figure seems to be playing the violin and everything else in the painting is answering to that music. There are monks in their habits, soldiers in dented armor, and a circle of bright red figures dancing right at the base of the white radiance. You can even see sparks and embers float through the darkness.

The entire painting feels like the old Christian Requiem Mass, the long prayer for the dead that begins with the plea for eternal rest and moves through judgment, mercy, and the hope of light. Trelis lets the music become the presence of death, which is the force that gathers every kind of human life. The white figure is almost the only pure brightness; everything else is in browns, reds, and grays, so your eye keeps returning to that violin and death.

Ignacio Trelis spent his early years immersed in the disciplined traditions of classical European painting. He trained at the Spanish Academy in Rome where the emphasis on precise draftsmanship and color from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries shaped his eye. Further studies across several academies on the continent refined his handling of oil paint until he worked closely under the Spanish master Paco Barrachina who taught him the layering of glazes and the modeling of human anatomy. Those years produced a young artist already capable of rendering landscapes earning him exhibitions throughout Spain and even his own gallery space in Valencia where collectors sought out the effects he achieved on canvas and panel.

Carus was a doctor, a naturalist, and a painter who had known Goethe himself, he was really obsessed with the Faust story. He wrote letters about it, painted earlier scenes from it, and late in life moved to large charcoal drawings. This piece belongs to that final group, now kept in the Kupferstich-Kabinett in Dresden.

The room is high and narrow, Faust is seated with his back to us. Carus knew Goethe’s opening scene by heart: the scholar who has studied philosophy, law, medicine, and theology, only to feel that he still knows nothing, who opens the window and longs to walk in the moonlight, yet remains trapped among his worm-eaten volumes. In this painting that longing very evident.

As a young medical student in Leipzig, Carus first encountered the drama in literary evenings, and decades later, after the 1829 premiere in Dresden, he poured his reflections into a set of letters published in 1835. In those pages he treated Faust as an emblem of the human soul, a collective psyche moving through stages of unconscious striving toward what he called its highest divine fulfillment. The scholar who sits alone in this piece, is the same restless spirit Carus described, one whose conscious knowledge keeps falling short while deeper forces continue to pull him forward.

Carus trained as a doctor of medicine and philosophy by the age of twenty-two, he rose to become professor of obstetrics in Dresden, court physician to the Saxon kings, and a researcher who first described the circulation of blood in insects and contributed the concept of the vertebrate archetype that later fed into evolutionary thinking. At the same time he was teaching himself to paint under the guidance of Caspar David Friedrich, exchanging letters and specimens with Goethe for nearly a decade, and writing treatises that placed the unconscious at the center of mental life long before such ideas were common. He believed the key to conscious experience was in the depths of the unconscious, and he saw Faust’s journey as the clearest artistic demonstration of that principle.

This painting shows Ulysses return home after twenty long years of war and wandering, and the only one who knows him is the dog he left behind as a young pup. Ulysses stands there on what was once his own palace terrace, looking out over the sea. He is barefoot, and in a ragged tunic with a rough bag of animal skin. No one is meant to know who he is. Not even the people who once knew him best. But the dog does.

Argus is stretched out on the pavement near the marble columns. His body is wasted, ribs showing clearly through the thin coat, and weak from years of neglect while the household fell apart without its master. Homer tells us he had been left on a dung heap outside the gates, covered in ticks, too old and forgotten to hunt the way he once did when the young men of Ithaca took him out after goats and deer. Yet his eyes look up at the man standing near him with a recognition that needs no words.

In the story Argus dies moments later, having held on through two decades of waiting until the one person who mattered walked past him again. Rivière shows the exact second of that meeting. Briton Rivière approached the painting of animals with a seriousness that went far beyond surface observation, and that commitment shaped every detail of the old dog here.

From childhood he spent hours at the London Zoological Gardens sketching whatever creatures he could see, and later he arranged to work in the dissecting rooms there whenever an animal died so he could study the precise structure of muscle, bone, and joint beneath the skin. He once kept the body of a fine lioness in his own studio for extended study, and he freely admitted that wild animals could never be made to hold a pose the way a human model would. Instead he built up countless small studies of movement and form over months or years until the creature existed fully in his mind. With dogs he insisted that affection was essential, saying you could never paint one properly unless you were genuinely fond of it.

At first glance, you see an image of a skull, that gives the whole composition a tactile, almost three-dimensional quality. However, upon closer inspection, the viewer discovers a hidden scene: a couple, in theatrical costumes, seated together in what appears to be a bar. This dual imagery (skull and lovers) is seamlessly blended, allowing the viewer to toggle between the two, a testament to Dalí’s early mastery of perception and visual trickery. The painting’s optical illusion is often described as clever and modern for its time, posessing an ability to surprise and engage.

Created in 1920, it is part of Dalí’s formative period, as evidenced by its inclusion in lists of his early works. At 16, Dalí was already experimenting with concepts of reality and perception, a precursor to the surrealist movement he would later champion. The painting reflects the artistic climate of the early 20th century, where artists began challenging traditional representations and exploring psychological depth. Dalí’s youth at the time of creation adds to the painting’s intrigue, showcasing a precocious talent that would evolve into the eccentric, dreamlike works for which he is famous. This early work is a bridge between his initial explorations and the more overtly surreal pieces of the 1930s, such as The Persistence of Memory.

The painting’s use of dual imagery opens it up to many different ways of understanding. One key idea is that it explores the connection between love and death. The skull in the scene, a classic reminder of mortality, suggests that death is inevitable. Meanwhile, the couple’s intimate moment highlights the beauty and fleeting nature of love. The title, L’Amour de Pierrot, refers to Pierrot, a character from commedia dell’arte who’s often linked with unrequited love and sadness. This hints that there might be a quiet sadness or sense of fate woven into the couple’s interaction, aligning with the skull’s presence. Still, all of these interpretations remain open-ended, inviting each viewer to bring their own feelings and stories when looking at the painting.

For this painting there is the artist himself, palette and brush still in his hands as if he has only just paused. His head is turned a little, and his eyes are looking past us or through us. Behind him, is a skeleton, leaning in close over his left shoulder. The skeleton has a violin and draws the bow across its single remaining string.

Böcklin painted this in Munich, in the early years of his time there, during a time when he had faced a lifetime of losses. His first fiancée had died before they could marry. He had nearly died of typhus himself, and of the many children born to him and his wife, several had already been buried by the time he set this canvas on the easel. Death was not an abstract idea for him. Some stories say the figure of Death was added later, after a friend looked at an unfinished self-portrait and asked what Böcklin seemed to be hearing. Whether or not that is true, the finished work feels like a conversation that has been going on for a long time

The composition itself goes way back. In the Alte Pinakothek in Munich hung a portrait of Sir Brian Tuke, then thought to be by Holbein, in which Death was pointing at an hourglass. Böcklin knew the Totentanz traditions of his native Basel and the woodcuts of Holbein that showed Death dancing through every rank of society. Here he takes that old influence and turns it into something more personal. The single string left on the violin has been interpreted as the last thread of life, or as the low tone that remains when everything else has snapped.

When the painting was shown at the Munich Kunstverein that same year it helped secure Böcklin’s place among the artists of the city. Later it would have a lasting effect on people in unexpected ways. Alma Mahler said her husband was under its spell when he wrote the scherzo of his Fourth Symphony, and he had the violinist play on a deliberately mistuned instrument so the sound would carry something of that thin, insistent note. Other painters answered it in their own self-portraits: Hans Thoma a few years later, Lovis Corinth in 1896 with a skeleton beside him.

Want more? Get my weekly newsletter with detailed artist stories and research.
https://buymeacoffee.com/pmamtraveller

A young man leans back into a shared bench, his eyes almost closed as he sends a long stream of cigarette smoke drifting upward. His body is settled against the cushions, with one arm on the woman’s hip. Beside him is a woman with hair held into a high bun. She leans forward toward the small table, one hand holding a knife while the other a piece of fruit to her mouth. On the tablecloth you see the remains of their meal.

The title refers to the Parisian street toughs of the Belle Époque, those young men from neighborhoods like Belleville and Montmartre who earned the nickname for their fierce, lawless reputation. They dressed in tight jackets, spoke their own slang, and lived by petty crime and night-time schemes. Legrand, who spent years capturing the city’s cabarets, and edge-of-society characters, shows one of them here in a moment after supper, the danger of the streets set aside for a moment.

Louis Legrand started out as a bank clerk in Dijon, sketching in the evenings at the local art school until he won a prize that sent him packing for Paris in 1884. There he apprenticed himself to the Belgian printmaker Félicien Rops. From Rops he learned the secrets of aquatint and drypoint, techniques that let him create soft veils of tone over razor-sharp lines. Within a few years Legrand was contributing drawings to the weekly Courrier Français, and two of those satirical images landed him in court on obscenity charges. Acquitted at first, he lost on appeal and spent a short stretch in Sainte-Pélagie prison rather than pay the fine. That brush with the law pushed him away from pure satire and deeper into the living rooms, and late-night cafés of the city.

This piece came straight out of that long apprenticeship in observation. Shown at the Salon of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts, it was bought the following year by the Moscow industrialist Ivan Morozov for fifteen hundred francs. Morozov’s collection would later seed the Pushkin Museum, so the drawing crossed half a continent and survived revolutions to reach us.

Want more? Get my weekly newsletter with detailed artist stories and research.
https://buymeacoffee.com/pmamtraveller

An aging painter is propped on a simple bed, his body turned away from us. With the last strength left in him he is sketching the face of Christ. You can almost see the charcoal or whatever tool he is using to draw. Beside the bed, on one side is a monk in dark robes kneeling in prayer and on the other is a young altar boy, dressed in a white alb, holding the swinging censer. The boy’s face is turned toward the wall, watching the dying man draw.

Laukota painted this when she was still a young woman from Prague, working in the realist manner, inspired by the Spanish masters she admired. The canvas itself is large, nearly six feet across. On the back she names the boy as Murillo, the Spanish painter who once served as an altar boy and later filled churches with images of the divine. Whether the scene is meant as a true moment from Murillo’s childhood or an invention, the feeling is the same which is a master painter spending his final strength to leave one more likeness of Christ, while the next generation of artists and the Church both witness.

Hermine Laukota came from a comfortable Prague family where her father’s work as a dentist and surgeon and her mother’s ties to the well known Riedel glassmaking line gave her the freedom to travel and study in ways few women of her generation could manage. Early in her career she sometimes sent paintings to the Krasoumná jednota exhibitions under the name Jan Textor, a decision that let her work enter the public eye without the judgment that a woman’s signature might have invited in those years. Later she returned to Prague and opened her own school, the Deutsche Kunstübungsstätte für Frauen, where she taught painting and graphic techniques to young women who were still shut out of the formal academy classes that required study of the nude. She kept the school running until health forced her to step aside in 1909, handing it over so the lessons could continue, and in her will she remembered both struggling artists and the friends who had shared her studio life.

My newsletter opens every week with deeper research and the details behind moments like this. Subscribe now!
https://buymeacoffee.com/pmamtraveller

Dali painted this piece right in the middle of writing his wild, autobiography 'The Secret Life of Salvador Dalí' while he and Gala were living in exile in America. He took the cover of an old French film magazine called Pour Vous, and he painted right over a photograph of the actress Betty Stockfeld. Her face is still there if you look carefully, but he covered the lower half of it with ink and gouache so that her nose, mouth, and chin become the back of a woman sitting on a beach. Beside her a small boy kneels, and the whole scene opens out onto the sands and the long horizon of Cadaqués, the place where Dalí’s family spent every summer when he was little.

The upper part of the actress’s face turns into the hills. It is one of those double images Dalí loved so much, the kind that lets the eye slip back and forth between two readings until the landscape and the face seem to exist together. The kneeling boy is Dalí himself as a child. The seated woman is his nursemaid Llucia, the one he described as almost papal in her authority, with hair so white and skin so wrinkled that she seemed carved from some ancient stone.

There is a memory he records in the autobiography, half true in the way only childhood memories can be, of a military parade where he first saw a girl he called Galuchka, the focus of a sudden, overwhelming desire that filled him with shame. He hid behind the back of a nurse sitting on the ground, pressing his head against her as if she could protect him from the girl’s gaze. Yet every time he peeked out he met those eyes again, and it felt as though her look was burning straight through the nurse’s body, leaving him more and more exposed. In the painting those same eyes are in the hillside, watching over the beach, while Llucia’s presence remains the shelter. The whole image has that trembling moment of adolescence when the old safety of childhood and the first fierce pull of desire fill the same space and refuse to let each other go.

He had already tried the idea once in a small study in 1939, using the same magazine cover, and the next year he set the same pair of figures into the center of a larger oil painting called The Three Ages, where they appear between the face of an old man formed from rock and the smaller face of infancy rising out of a woman mending nets. Then in 1941, still finishing the book, he took two more copies of the magazine and made a pair of gouaches. This one opens the beach and sky so that the memory seems to stretch forever. The other frames the scene inside a dark arched doorway that throws a heavy shadow across the foreground, pushing the figures farther away in both space and time. He printed the second version in the autobiography under the title 'Mysterious Mouth Appearing in the Back of My Nurse'.

Enjoyed this? Join my weekly newsletter for in-depth art write-ups and research.

This painting is drawn from the book of Genesis, and God has decided the people of Sodom and Gomorrah have gone too far with their ways, so fire and brimstone come down from the sky to wipe the places clean. Only Lot and his two daughters make it out after the angels warn them to leave and never look back. His wife cannot help herself. She turns for one last glance and becomes a pillar of salt right there on the path.

Martin fills almost the whole left and center of the painting with the cities getting swallowed in a massive storm of flame that looks like the inside of some enormous furnace from the ironworks he knew in his own time. The whole heavens boil, and a bright white bolt of lightning cuts across the scene, heading straight for the figure of Lot’s wife who is behind.

Over on the right, down in the foreground, Lot and his daughters walk away with their faces set forward, no looking back. The path they follow leads out toward safer ground, toward Zoar. Martin paints the figures tiny on purpose so the destruction appears large. He finished this late in his life, around the same time he was working on those huge Last Judgment canvases. The fiery reds were his signature for scenes like this.

John Martin came out of a one room cottage in Haydon Bridge up in Northumberland, the youngest of four boys in a family that lived close to the edge. His father drifted between fencing lessons and pub work, while his mother was a fierce Protestant, a faith that filled the house with talk of judgment and fire. One of his older brothers, Jonathan, later set York Minster alight in a fit of religious frenzy and spent years locked away, so the nickname Mad Martin was on the whole clan and followed John into the art world even after he had made his name. He never had proper academy training. After a short, unhappy stint learning heraldic painting on coaches, he taught himself by decorating china plates and glass, then moved to London at seventeen and slowly moved toward those vast biblical scenes that people know him for.

Martin spent years drawing up practical plans to clean and reorder London itself. He designed sewage systems to stop the Thames from poisoning the city, and even fireproof ships and lighthouses. None of which were built while he lived. He sent this painting to the Royal Academy in 1852 as one of his last exhibited pictures, working on it while he finished the huge Last Judgment triptych. A year later a stroke took the strength from his right arm, and he died on the Isle of Man still believing that abstinence might restore him.

Loved wandering through this with me? Come find more write-ups and fresh discoveries in the weekly letters.
https://buymeacoffee.com/pmamtraveller

You know that story of Saint Hubert, the nobleman who lived for the hunt until one Good Friday he rode deep into the woods and came upon a great stag that turned to face him. Between its antlers was a shining crucifix, and a voice spoke, telling him he had chased the very one who had died for him. From that moment his life turned toward the church, and he became the patron of hunters and of the forest itself.

Franz von Stuck painted that vision in 1890, and he set it down in oil on a modest canvas that now hangs in his own villa museum in Munich. The whole scene is in a darkness so immense that the trees themselves are only shapes. Somewhere in all that there is a stag, its body almost the color of moonlight and the antlers branching upward like living trees. Between those antlers a cross shines and it's the only true light in the painting.

Stuck came from a miller’s family in a Bavarian village, and by the time he was painting this piece he had already begun turning his own life into a kind artwork. A few years later he designed and built the Villa Stuck on the banks of the Isar in Munich.The house was meant to be a complete world where painting, sculpture, and architecture existed together. He even created a small altar-like niche in his studio where one of his versions of 'Sin' hung in a golden frame of his own making, so that the image of temptation became the center of the space where he worked each day.

In that same year of 1890 he also finished Lucifer, which captured the seated figure of the fallen angel staring straight out at the viewer. The painting unsettled King Ferdinand of Bulgaria that he bought it for his palace, and later told Stuck that some of his courtiers would hastily cross themselves whenever they passed the canvas. That direct gaze appears again in the stag here, the animal’s eyes locking with whoever is before it so that the viewer becomes the hunter who must decide what to do with the light between the antlers.

Enjoyed this? Join my weekly newsletter for in-depth art write-ups and research.
https://buymeacoffee.com/pmamtraveller

A woman is alone in her private chamber reading an old book in front of her. The pages are filled with the dark knowledge of necromancy. On her shoulder is a black cat, it stares straight out with wide, bright eyes. Around the book lie scattered tarot cards, they have already been read and set aside for the deeper study.

Dondey was a French painter born in Paris in 1813, the sister of the romantic writer Philothée O’Neddy and a student of the artist Sophie Rude. She showed her work at the Paris Salon and at Boulogne-sur-Mer around the same years this canvas was made. Later in life she gave several of her paintings, including this one, to the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Dijon, where it still hangs. In the middle of the nineteenth century, fortune-telling and the study of occult books had a strong pull for many people, even while the law treated professional diviners with suspicion.

Clémentine Dondey shared her life for many years with her older brother Auguste-Marie Dondey, better known under the anagrammatic pen name Philothée O’Neddy, he burned brightly and then disappered into obscurity within the wild outer circles of French Romanticism. In the early 1830s he belonged to the Petit Cénacle and the Bouzingo, which was a loose band of young writers and artists who treated literature as a kind of fevered experiment. O’Neddy’s 1833 collection Feu et Flamme had poems immersed in damnation, and the lure of occult knowledge, and he later turned to medieval hermeticism, Masonic symbols, and Egyptian iconography in his fiction. The two siblings lived together with their mother after their father’s death, and this piece by Clémentine seems to have the same air of secret study that her brother once explored on the page.

When Clémentine finally gave three of her own works to the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Dijon in 1897, one of them was the portrait she had made of her brother and another was this very scene of the fortune-teller with her grimoire and the black cat. By then O’Neddy had been dead for more than twenty years, having long abandoned the literary stage for a post as a civil servant. The donation preserved both the memory of the poet who once danced on the edge of the Romantic abyss and the image of a woman who continued, years later, to paint the same territory of forbidden books. In that single act of generosity the sister’s brush and the brother’s earlier fire were placed side by side in the museum’s collection, where they still are today.

Want more? Get my weekly newsletter with detailed artist stories and research.
https://buymeacoffee.com/pmamtraveller

This painting pulls you right into a corner of the theater where the performance has paused for a moment and the performer just stepped forward. He is an older man with a face that carries years of knowing smiles, the corners of his mouth is curved in a certan amusement only known to him. Every bit of him is dressed in a glowing red attire. On his head is a close-fitting red fool’s cap, the kind that once belonged to court jesters.

Grützner moved easily among the actors of the Munich court stage, and the painting almost certainly records one of them in costume rather than an abstract demon. Years earlier he had already painted a backstage scene that captured the half-dressed, half-prepared life behind the curtain; here he isolates the figure completely, letting the dark background do the work of the wings while the brilliant scarlet costume steps forward as if the footlights have found it. He returned to Mephisto more than once, sometimes placing him in larger Faust episodes with a student or other characters, always treating the spirit as a slightly weary professional rather than a pure embodiment of evil.

What draws me deepest into Grützner’s world is the way his lifelong collecting shaped every canvas he touched. As a boy in a crowded Silesian farmhouse he gathered eggs, butterflies, and minerals which he later brought to painting, even copying an entire textbook on crystallography by hand when he was fourteen. Once success arrived in Munich he filled his villa, built near the Maximilianeum in a deliberate Gothic style, with late-medieval and early-Renaissance pieces. In his final decade the collection itself changed direction; he turned toward the Far East, began learning Japanese, and sought comfort in Chinese philosophy, occasionally placing a small Buddha or a porcelain vase into a composition.

Perhaps the most unexpected thread running through his career is the pressure the public placed on him to keep painting monks. He once complained that almost every exhibition demand required “priests, or at least a few of them,” and that any other subject made people declare the work not a true Grützner. Yet the same hand that produced those cheerful cellar gatherings also gave us the sly intelligence of Mephisto and the wine-soaked presence of Falstaff, figures drawn from Goethe and Shakespeare.

My newsletter opens every week with deeper research and the details behind moments like this. Subscribe now!
https://buymeacoffee.com/pmamtraveller

Max Klinger painted this scene when he was still in his early twenties, and he gave it the title Der Tod am Wasser, (Death at the Water). The nickname that stuck, Der pinkelnde Tod, ("The Pissing Death") came later from people who saw the picture and could not help smiling at what it shows.

Everything looks calm and ordinary until your eye settles on the figure standing at the water’s edge. He is a full skeleton, with one hand on the handle of his scythe while the other helps guide the stream from between his legs straight into the lake. He leans the way any man might when he finds a spot to relieve himself.

Klinger had already been drawing skeletons and death figures since his student days, and the old German tradition of the living skeleton, the Totentanz, was still very much alive in the culture around him. What Klinger does here is far stranger. He lets the skeleton keep his scythe, yet he gives the figure the most ordinary human need. The body that has no flesh still has to piss. In that single moment, death becomes a fellow traveler who gets tired, and who does what bodies do.

Some who have written about this piece talk of the pure lake receiving what should never touch it. Others see a young artist laughing at the grand seriousness of death. Klinger himself seems to have treated the painting as a joke at first. He rolled it up and gave it to his close friend, the Norwegian painter Christian Krohg, who carried it home to Oslo. For years it stayed out of public view, circulating among friends who understood the dark humor.

A few years later that same canvas made a brief appearance inside a prison cell in Oslo. The writer Hans Jæger was serving a short sentence for a novel that the authorities called pornographic, and Krohg, unrolled Klinger's skeleton and hung it on the wall of the cell. Visitors who came to see the locked-up author found themselves looking at a bony figure peeing into a lake instead. After Jæger walked free the painting disappeared again into Norwegian private rooms, changing hands at an Oslo auction in 1915 before drifting south into German collections where it waited nearly a century for wider eyes. Only in 2010 did the work finally settle into the Museum der bildenden Künste in Leipzig, the city where Klinger was born.

Loved wandering through this with me? Come find more write-ups and fresh discoveries in the weekly letters.
https://buymeacoffee.com/pmamtraveller