Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy. Howard W. Newton
Compromise: The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece. Sherry Rothfield
Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. Abraham Lincoln
I can be as tactful as the next person, ya know! But sometimes I just don’t wanna be. When I’m confronted, which isn’t often, by someone sans tact, either I stifle my first response or don’t think of a good one until I’m long gone.
I used to be able to be as quick on the draw as anyone in high school, but the ’skill’ has sort of fallen by the wayside, for which I’m grateful.
OTOH, I get plenty of opportunity to divide the whatevers exactly in HALF between my two girls…and if all 4 of my kids are in the same place, they likely are all eyeing the pieces to see if I did it right or not.
I’ve heard it said, let one person cut the cake and the other choose which piece they would like. That keeps it fair.
But maybe half the fun is bitching about it, if you are the kid. It’s not so much fun for the mom.
It makes sense that in olden days the painters used to make their subjects look better — early PhotoShopping.
Karin
If you liked this article, vote for it on del.icio.us and stumbleupon.Categories:
Just thinking, Quotations
Related Articles Related Stores
5 comments ↓
Karin I always wondered how Goya got away with the ugly (but probably true) paintings of the Spainish royal family!
Good question, I’ll ask Mary, aka VelvetSky to answer, or maybe Amy….
LJ, excellent observation!
The simple answer is that Goya was recognized during his lifetime as the great and profound genius that he was, probably the last of the ‘old masters’. His pictures, including his portraits, were purposely extremely subjective and (some said) bordered on caricature. These portraits of royalty were probably pretty accurate, although somewhat unflattering. How did he get away with it? Goya was very well-connected in court circles and had many powerful patrons. The concept of royalty was hanging by a thread in Spain at this time in history, as the French people had just overthrown their king. I suspect no one was going to ‘rock the boat’ by complaining about their appearance in portraits. Besides, compared to the horrible subject matter in Goya’s paintings before he died, I really don’t think the royal collection is bad at all.
Thanks, Mary! I asked Amy too, so I hope she weighs in a bit…
Amy adds the following:
1. Taste. It just changes, what’s ugly and what’s not is very much in the eyes of the viewer.
2. Assumptions and expectations. He was among the best and everyone knew it — famous like Andy Warhol (who made a bunch of mostly heinous and at least unflattering portraits of lots of people who paid him a lot to do it).
3. Style. He was a master with paint and that was at least as important as the way things looked when he was done (particularly if they recalled - and they did - the work of his predecessor, Velazquez, who painted the very successful and much revered ancestors of the 19th century folks.
4. The job of painters. To be successful as propaganda, portraits had to look like their subjects — you could only stray so far from the (unfortunate, in this case) reality or everyone knew it wasn’t true.
A combination of all these factors accounts for Goya’s success and the way so many of his royal subjects look in his portraits of them.
Leave a Comment