Just a fun fact I remember from a tour some time ago: Artist would draw the whole picture beforehand and just add the faces of kids afterwards. Kids could not hold still long enough for a whole session. That’s why some faces of children look so out of place in old paintings.
I tried to fact check this information, but couldn’t find any sources, but my memory from a visit in a museum
In Cuyp’s depiction the suppression of carnal desires is represented by the enraged cat, the traditional symbol of lust, being tempted yet restrained from the object of its desire – the fish. The courting couple of the background serves to underline the message. The distant castle can be linked to the idea of the palais d’amour which featured in late-medieval imagery from the Garden of Love a theme which had remained popular well into the seventeenth century.
This really goes to show you can read any meaning you like into art.
See it’s actually a depiction of class inequality, where the kings are represented by the fat petulant child who is withholding sustenance, wealth, and the means of production (represented by the fish) from the angry proletariat, represented by the cat.
Id like to hear Cuyp’s own interpretation, because I think most art criticism is simply people ascribing their own meaning, like I just did.
in 300 years people will wonder why owning a stuffed shark, or pink cat ear headphones, or the black/orange stripes and font of a certain websites logo, was a sign of lust to us today.
Or, most people can interpret the semiotics of “the worst guy you know” face, which will become as unreadable as the above imagine in maybe even 20 years.
Add comment