The Beethoven image

[MICAULT-VERHAEGHE]

There is a good "esquisse of 1808 or 1809 to see in the book edited by the BEETHOVEN-HAUS (DER FREUNDESKREIS DER FAMILIE MALFATTI IN WIEN - Friend circle of family MALFATTI in WIEN). The drawings are fron Ludwig Ferdinand SCHNORR von CAROSFELD (very talented in protraiting). This drawing of B. is a profile and if you compare with the profile of the mask of 1812 it is exactly the same ! On this drawing the eye is very expressive. If you can't find it I can send a copy.


------------------
Prof. VERHAEGHE-MICAULT

[Rod]

Originally posted by MICAULT-VERHAEGHE:
There is a good "esquisse of 1808 or 1809 to see in the book edited by the BEETHOVEN-HAUS (DER FREUNDESKREIS DER FAMILIE MALFATTI IN WIEN - Friend circle of family MALFATTI in WIEN). The drawings are fron Ludwig Ferdinand SCHNORR von CAROSFELD (very talented in protraiting). This drawing of B. is a profile and if you compare with the profile of the mask of 1812 it is exactly the same ! On this drawing the eye is very expressive. If you can't find it I can send a copy.

I don't think I've seen what you describe, but if the eyes are right then that would be something - the mental image I have of the master is almost devoid of eyes based on the portraits I have seen. G Breuning reckoned the 1803 miniature that fronts this website was the best portrait. And their is another miniature of B in his twenties that has vivid eyes. The eyes are the window to this man's soul. But how to capture his most animated expression I don't know.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[MCS]

Originally posted by MICAULT-VERHAEGHE:
.......
Let us just imagine how he was ! We have a photo of CHOPIN..... well it is not a nice one and it was better to stay on the portrait by DELACROIX !!!

[/B]

Agreed! Forget the daggeureotype. What we really could have done with was a good portraitist. I believe Rembrandt or Raphael could have captured those eyes better than any of those early cameras.

Mary

[MICAULT-VERHAEGHE]

To Rod :
The Drawing I mean (Carosfeld's one) is exactly in profile the miniature of 1803.
You have to find it but be careful :it does exist a copy from NEUMANN (1865) and a lithographie of 1871 and those did not caught the eye (only one but very very expressive...
To Mary :
For CHOPIN it is not a Daguerreotype but a real foto... anyway you are right, beeter forget it !!!

------------------
Prof. VERHAEGHE-MICAULT

[PDG]

Originally posted by MICAULT-VERHAEGHE:
To Rod :
The Drawing I mean (Carosfeld's one) is exactly in profile the miniature of 1803.
You have to find it but be careful :it does exist a copy from NEUMANN (1865) and a lithographie of 1871 and those did not caught the eye (only one but very very expressive...
To Mary :
For CHOPIN it is not a Daguerreotype but a real foto... anyway you are right, beeter forget it !!!

And doesn't Chopin look so terribly weak in his photo? I agree with Mary - a photo of Beethoven in declining health would be a sad sight indeed.

Neumann? Now where have I heard that name before?........hmmm.........

------------------
PDG (Peter)

[MICAULT-VERHAEGHE]

To PDG Peter,
I have made a mistake . The correct name is Ludwig Ferdinand Schnorr von CAROLSFELD.
Maybe you are thinking about NEUGASS (look in Bary COOPER)....
To have a better ideas of his eyes, we have just to listen his music. In french we say "les yeux sontle miroir de l'esprit" (Eyes are the mirror of the spirit...)And all B.'s soul is in his music...

------------------
Prof. VERHAEGHE-MICAULT

[MICAULT-VERHAEGHE]

To PDG Peter,
You can see the Carolsfeld's portrait on the site BEETHOVEN, Ludwig van - The Magnificent Master (Picture Gallery). The eye is not so lively as in my fac-similé but it gives a good idea.



------------------
Prof. VERHAEGHE-MICAULT

[PDG]

To Claudie,

The Neumann reference was a private joke - I'm sorry. I take your posts seriously, & won't impinge on your sincerity again.

------------------
PDG (Peter)

[Claudie MICAULT]

Don't worry, PDG, I am not a serious person ! I really like jokes... when I understand them !!!

------------------
Claudie

[Leonard]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael:
[B] If B had lived another twenty years or so we would have had a photograph of him. One exists of his nephew, Karl, but he doesn't look at all like his uncle.

Do you have any idea where could I find it? I am interested in seeing Karl's face. Thanks

Leonard

[Michael]

[quote]Originally posted by Leonard:
[b]

Originally posted by Michael:
If B had lived another twenty years or so we would have had a photograph of him. One exists of his nephew, Karl, but he doesn't look at all like his uncle.

Do you have any idea where could I find it? I am interested in seeing Karl's face. Thanks

Leonard

I found the photograph in a little book that came out in 1994, one of a series of "Compact Classics", published by Philips in association with Classic FM. They published at least four of these books, dealing with different composers, and a free CD was included. The actual publishers were "Pavilion Books Ltd, 26 Upper Ground, London SE1 9PD" but they were marketed by "Polygram Special Markets London".
Somebody else might know of another publication containing the photograph. It was taken in 1845 but Karl looks quite young in it: a skinny man with a moustache and a weak chin, in no way resembling his illustrious uncle, except maybe for the eyebrows.

Michael



[This message has been edited by Michael (edited 05-27-2001).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Leonard:

Do you have any idea where could I find it? I am interested in seeing Karl's face. Thanks

Leonard

Look no further - the photo is on the family tree page of this site!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[euphony131]

Peter,

One thing I've heard (and just recently) is how B. always seemed to have a "grimace" on his face and never seemed to smile in any of his paintings. I actually did not notice all that much till an acquintance (not a big CM lover) pointed it out. And yes, it's true.

But there are many reasons for it. First, I think it was a cultural thing at the time to not sully the appearance of "distinguished" individual by painting them with an affected smile. Also, I believe the "stoic" look was quite sought after by many then, no? It seems logical when you think about it -- a strong person should look strong, not silly or casual. At least that was the thinking then.

And this sort of thinking did not just apply to Austria in the early 19th century, but was preserved everywhere for a long time, even after the invention of the photograph. Just look at all those old, turn-of-the century family photos -- how many are really smiling or "goofing off?" It's all very serious in tone. Heck, does one know, for example, of a photo with Abraham Lincoln smiling or aping for the camera? It really wasn't until the advent of WWII that you started to have more "casual" and "relaxed" photos, thanks mainly to battlefield photographers and magazines like Life.

PS -- Anyway, compared to some metal/rap/grunge bands, B. - even at his most unkempt - is positively immaculate. So, no, I really don't think "appearance" is really the issue here. If anything, I suppose him looking "grungy" and "filthy" is more an asset in terms of trying to appeal to the young, since that's how they identify with a rebellious and wild type of guy. If you want to know what's really harming B's image, take a look at my postings in the "beethoven music as symbolism in movies" thread.

[Peter]

Originally posted by euphony131:
And this sort of thinking did not just apply to Austria in the early 19th century, but was preserved everywhere for a long time, even after the invention of the photograph. Just look at all those old, turn-of-the century family photos -- how many are really smiling or "goofing off?" It's all very serious in tone. Heck, does one know, for example, of a photo with Abraham Lincoln smiling or aping for the camera? It really wasn't until the advent of WWII that you started to have more "casual" and "relaxed" photos, thanks mainly to battlefield photographers and magazines like Life.

Portrait paintings like everything else are subject to the fashion of the day - In the 16th century you won't find any eyebrows. and you're comment about photos is also true - I suspect one reason for people not smiling in 19th century photos is the time required for exposure - difficult to hold a smile for 15 mins! - the non smile is fashionable today with models who obviously think looking mean is sexy!

B's potraits tend to get sterner as he got older - In the Horneman miniature of 1803, I think B almost manages a smile!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Michael]

Originally posted by Peter:
Look no further - the photo is on the family tree page of this site!

Like somebody else just mentioned, I am inclined to go straight to the bulletin board and miss the home page! I have found a lot more items on it since I last looked. Well done!

Michael