I would like to see this painting, the internet version cannot possibly do it justice. There is something very comical, joyful and fun about it all. The darkness in contrast to the frolick, the observance by the humans brings out the confusion and lack of comprehension on our part of mythical things...it is definately sacred and profane.
i agree ! the imagination does the work to create a narrative for the painting (along with the expressions of the characters) and it looks like it was made out of good fun ! i would LOVE to know what was going on behind Böcklin's head while doing this painting (endearingly) I bet he had some fun making this.
I don’t see what’s so bad about it. It looks fun and chaotic in the best way. I love that chubby lil mer-baby, she has such an overwhelmed expression that might well capture the feelings of many who see this painting for the first time
Thanks for your article, this painting is tremendous, haha, I didn't know it existed. I like it, in its strangeness. As a weird anecdote, one of the very big fans of Böcklin was Hitler, who bought one of the versions of the painting Isle of the dead.
The presence of a baby Nereid in the picture requires the existence of heterosexual male Nereids.
Unfortunately the only well-painted male in the picture looks less like a creature from mythology, than a Swiss businessman who has fallen into a swimming pool.
In fact, there's a swimming pool quality about the whole painting. But it's saved from being a bad painting by its sheer wackiness.
Böcklin was an important painter if you are filtering for *subject*: that is, he looms large if you are looking for the Symbolists, the fantastic, the proto-Surrealists. He just looks bad and embarrassing if you care about technique.
How exactly did you get the number 7 mermaids/nymphs from looking at this painting? The baby is grabbing/laying/touching not a fish but a upside-down nymph/mermaid. I guess I'm just super confused by the whole assessment if my 2 second look with they eye of a layman gives me so different a view from your description of the basic layout.
Thank you so much for this. Reading your wonderful writing plus some of the comments made me truly LOL. Please consider further distracting yourself with an examination / reflection of … hmm … a fearful pot-belly (??? I think you’re best suited to find the words) in Bocklin’s “Playing in the Waves.” I’m a fan of his awful[ly] enchanting talent. He certainly had a captivating perspective on life and death, likely influenced by his unenviable experience. I cannot fathom having endured what he lost. His paintings exude a sort of “life is too serious to take it too seriously” quality. As does your writing, for which I am grateful. Keep it up and THANK YOU again.
This is exactly the kind of deeply unnecessary art criticism that I love. Absolutely no one was demanding a takedown of Play of the Nereides, and yet here we are: gleefully dissecting impossible mermaid anatomy, spatial absurdities, and a horny man who apparently looks like the Mulholland Drive parking lot guy. 😁
The sheer audacity of Böcklin to paint something so chaotic and then demand it be taken seriously? Inspiring. Also, imagining the Swiss repressing their latent oceanic desires in front of this fever dream of a painting is now my new favourite mental image. This was fun, weird, and utterly pointless in the best way. Loved it.
The postage-stamp size threw me for a sec. Until I put on glasses and blew it up, I was thinking “The Raft of the Medusa”(1819) which predated it by a few yards. Not that there’s a comparison beyond a general composition of blocks of color and water and bodies clinging for dear life…
Well, maybe there’s something there, but who knows?
The dividing the painting into parts is hilarious! It makes it a totally different painting and I can't see it any other way than a sum of bizarre parts.
I would like to see this painting, the internet version cannot possibly do it justice. There is something very comical, joyful and fun about it all. The darkness in contrast to the frolick, the observance by the humans brings out the confusion and lack of comprehension on our part of mythical things...it is definately sacred and profane.
i agree ! the imagination does the work to create a narrative for the painting (along with the expressions of the characters) and it looks like it was made out of good fun ! i would LOVE to know what was going on behind Böcklin's head while doing this painting (endearingly) I bet he had some fun making this.
I don’t see what’s so bad about it. It looks fun and chaotic in the best way. I love that chubby lil mer-baby, she has such an overwhelmed expression that might well capture the feelings of many who see this painting for the first time
Thanks for your article, this painting is tremendous, haha, I didn't know it existed. I like it, in its strangeness. As a weird anecdote, one of the very big fans of Böcklin was Hitler, who bought one of the versions of the painting Isle of the dead.
Yes I read that. Extremely mawkish/sentimental art preferences.
The presence of a baby Nereid in the picture requires the existence of heterosexual male Nereids.
Unfortunately the only well-painted male in the picture looks less like a creature from mythology, than a Swiss businessman who has fallen into a swimming pool.
In fact, there's a swimming pool quality about the whole painting. But it's saved from being a bad painting by its sheer wackiness.
"One of these men has a sort of Cabbage Patch quality, while the other resembles the parking lot guy from Mulholland Drive."
I can't stop laughing... lol thank you so much for this.
Böcklin was an important painter if you are filtering for *subject*: that is, he looms large if you are looking for the Symbolists, the fantastic, the proto-Surrealists. He just looks bad and embarrassing if you care about technique.
How exactly did you get the number 7 mermaids/nymphs from looking at this painting? The baby is grabbing/laying/touching not a fish but a upside-down nymph/mermaid. I guess I'm just super confused by the whole assessment if my 2 second look with they eye of a layman gives me so different a view from your description of the basic layout.
There are 7 older mer-people, one mer-baby, and two lascivious men (one of the men resembles the creature from the black lagoon, but I digress).
The fish is being clutched in the mer-baby’s left hand. It is a small fish.
Yes, the mer-baby is obviously touching an adult mer-woman, not a fish. But where is the second lecherous creep? I only find one.
it's touching a fish
Why does said fish have a human torso and head?
Beauty is in the eye...
I counted 8, plus creepy fish baby.
I'd say he was a pretty good painter! His paintings are full of character, and the compositions are interesting.
I liked the painting, but I liked your writing too!
Thank you so much for this. Reading your wonderful writing plus some of the comments made me truly LOL. Please consider further distracting yourself with an examination / reflection of … hmm … a fearful pot-belly (??? I think you’re best suited to find the words) in Bocklin’s “Playing in the Waves.” I’m a fan of his awful[ly] enchanting talent. He certainly had a captivating perspective on life and death, likely influenced by his unenviable experience. I cannot fathom having endured what he lost. His paintings exude a sort of “life is too serious to take it too seriously” quality. As does your writing, for which I am grateful. Keep it up and THANK YOU again.
This is exactly the kind of deeply unnecessary art criticism that I love. Absolutely no one was demanding a takedown of Play of the Nereides, and yet here we are: gleefully dissecting impossible mermaid anatomy, spatial absurdities, and a horny man who apparently looks like the Mulholland Drive parking lot guy. 😁
The sheer audacity of Böcklin to paint something so chaotic and then demand it be taken seriously? Inspiring. Also, imagining the Swiss repressing their latent oceanic desires in front of this fever dream of a painting is now my new favourite mental image. This was fun, weird, and utterly pointless in the best way. Loved it.
The postage-stamp size threw me for a sec. Until I put on glasses and blew it up, I was thinking “The Raft of the Medusa”(1819) which predated it by a few yards. Not that there’s a comparison beyond a general composition of blocks of color and water and bodies clinging for dear life…
Well, maybe there’s something there, but who knows?
The dividing the painting into parts is hilarious! It makes it a totally different painting and I can't see it any other way than a sum of bizarre parts.
Perhaps this is why the poorly regarded Arnold Bocklin typeface was named after him.