How Monet's cataracts coloured his view of the lilies

By Jonathan Brown
Published: 16 May 2007

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2548759.ece

Monet's series of paintings depicting the dappled light playing across the water-lilies at his home in Giverny are considered some of the finest works by the French Impressionists.
But new research suggests the famously blurred effect achieved by the master's brush strokes may have been a literal representation of how he saw the world.
Monet's deteriorating sight, caused by the onset of cataracts, has long been the subject of speculation by art historians. A computer simulation carried out by an ophthalmologist at Stanford University has now cast new light on the state of Monet's vision and the effect it had on his work.
According to Professor Michael Marmor, the artist's failing sight was a source of frustration to him in the early decades of the 20th century. "He wrote letters to friends, [complaining] how colours were getting dull, and it was hard to tell them apart, and how he had to label tubes of paint," Professor Marmor said. "He was very vocal about how his failing eyesight was affecting him."
Monet's cataracts caused the lens of his eye to become denser and more yellowish. One immediate effect was to blur colours and reduce their intensity. "It was getting harder for him to see," Professor Marmor said. "[His eyesight] was getting blurrier, but he was probably more bothered by the progressive loss of colour vision."
The academic has illustrated how Monet's worldview changed by altering a photograph of his 1899 painting of the ornamental Japanese bridge in his garden. The adjusted photo shows that as the artist's sight got worse, so the bright, floral shades of pink and blue disappeared, leaving muddier browns, reds and yellows. The study, published in the Archives of Ophthalmology, argues that two later paintings of the bridge with strong red-orange and green-blue tones would have appeared almost identical to him.
Monet eventually had surgery in 1923 - just three years before his death from lung cancer at the age of 86. But afterwards he complained incessantly that his sight was first too yellow and then too blue. He destroyed much of the work he completed while suffering cataracts and the few pieces that survive were rescued by family or friends. When Monet eventually went back to painting, he completed the lily series that now hangs in the Orangerie.
Professor Marmor has also examined the life and work of the painter Edgar Degas, thought to have suffered from maculopathy - a condition which seriously affected his central vision. The evidence could force a dramatic reappraisal of both artists' work, he believes. "I think it points out very dramatically some physical limitations that they had, which limited their ability to paint."
But Chris Riopelle, curator of 19th-century painting at the National Gallery, said: "It does not entirely answer the questions - after surgery, Monet's style did not alter radically."

Exploring the Virgall of Lolye
Virgall or Virkall in Kannada connotes a hero stone (vir=hero, kall=stone). They commemorated the warriors, the battles and the kings. Countless Virgalls are found in Goa, many of them dating to the Kadamba period. Lolye in Canacona is full of unexplored artifacts for historians and researchers. The Virgall near the house of Isidore Fernandes, the ex-MLA of Painguinim, is a beautiful relic. It has 5 exquisitely carved panels, a magnificent Gaj-Lakshimi panel crowns the Virgall thus making it rare. The hero in a dancing pose, cheered by female dancers constitutes the second panel. prof George Moraes also describes Virgalls of the Kadamba dynasty in which the hero is depicted in a dancing pose. [Rohit Phalgaonkar, NT]

Painting found in attic in 1997 is finally recognised as Caravaggio's

By Peter Popham in Rome
Published: 20 October 2006
Nine years after it was found mouldering in a church attic, the latest masterpiece by Caravaggio to come to light was ceremonially unveiled yesterday in Italy.

Its title is The Crowning with Thorns, and it is the third painting of that name attributed to the notoriously hard-living, volcanic painter whose reputation went into an eclipse after his death, recovering spectacularly in the past 80 years.

But is it really a Caravaggio? Cecilia Frosinini, vice-director of Opificio delle Pietre Dure, the eminent restorers in Florence which worked on the painting, said: "With Caravaggio it's impossible to know whether he painted a particular picture or not. There are so many different versions of many of his works."

But for Piero Donati, director of historical art heritage of the region of Liguria, who has been closely involved with the work, it is much more likely to be the work of the master than it was once thought to be.

"When it was discovered in 1997," he said yesterday, "people were in no doubt that it was a copy of another one with the same title that is owned by a bank in Rome. But... as the restoration proceeded it became clear that two hands were responsible for the painting. And the two principle figures, Christ and the torturer in green, were found to be of very high quality. If they were not by Caravaggio himself, they were done by very accomplished artists working to his orders." The other two figures were inferior and probably painted 30 or 40 years later.

Caravaggio worked with close collaborators who became masters of his style. "He was inundated with commissions and he never said no to anyone, but he was physically unable to complete all the works himself," said Mr Donati.

In a note signed by the artist on 23 June 1605, he promised to paint a Crowning with Thorns for the Roman prince Massimo Massimi, which also supports the painting's claim to being a Caravaggio.

Nine years after it was found mouldering in a church attic, the latest masterpiece by Caravaggio to come to light was ceremonially unveiled yesterday in Italy.

Its title is The Crowning with Thorns, and it is the third painting of that name attributed to the notoriously hard-living, volcanic painter whose reputation went into an eclipse after his death, recovering spectacularly in the past 80 years.

But is it really a Caravaggio? Cecilia Frosinini, vice-director of Opificio delle Pietre Dure, the eminent restorers in Florence which worked on the painting, said: "With Caravaggio it's impossible to know whether he painted a particular picture or not. There are so many different versions of many of his works."

But for Piero Donati, director of historical art heritage of the region of Liguria, who has been closely involved with the work, it is much more likely to be the work of the master than it was once thought to be.
"When it was discovered in 1997," he said yesterday, "people were in no doubt that it was a copy of another one with the same title that is owned by a bank in Rome. But... as the restoration proceeded it became clear that two hands were responsible for the painting. And the two principle figures, Christ and the torturer in green, were found to be of very high quality. If they were not by Caravaggio himself, they were done by very accomplished artists working to his orders." The other two figures were inferior and probably painted 30 or 40 years later.

Caravaggio worked with close collaborators who became masters of his style. "He was inundated with commissions and he never said no to anyone, but he was physically unable to complete all the works himself," said Mr Donati.

In a note signed by the artist on 23 June 1605, he promised to paint a Crowning with Thorns for the Roman prince Massimo Massimi, which also supports the painting's claim to being a Caravaggio.