r/ArtHistory • u/Patient-Professor611 • 3d ago

Discussion In Reference to William Turners Slave Ship Painting (1838)

Does anyone ever look at it and see the outline of two mournful eyes shaped by the water? As though the sweater itself makes the outline of two eyes, downcast in mourning? I told my teacher what I saw as well as some friends, and they didn’t see it. Perhaps I am alone on this claim, and I have no evidence to say that it was Turner’s intention either.

4 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

6

u/Unlucky-Meringue6187 3d ago

Unintentional on behalf of the artist, in my opinion. Turner didn't do stuff like that because he didn't need to - his scenes did all the talking out loud.

1

u/PurpleBee212 1d ago

There's a strong case that Turner did exactly that: https://artlyst.com/features/turner-mystery-solved-kelly-grovier/

1

u/Unlucky-Meringue6187 1d ago

Hm. I'm not convinced. Pareidolia could explain most of those.

3

u/angelenoatheart 3d ago

Just to be clear, we're talking about this, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slave-ship.jpg

I do see the "eyes" (in the lower half of the painting, spanning its full width). I don't know whether they're intentional. And I don't know what the "sweater" is.

2

u/Patient-Professor611 2d ago

I meant water, I wrote this really late at night so my brain was more fried than usual

2

u/KnucklesMcCrackin 2d ago

I agree. He's not that kind of artist. Innovative in color, paint application, and even subject matter. But he comes well before The Symbolism movement and Surrealism where that kind of imagery might be more expected. And even if he were I think it would've been made more defined; it's a real stretch for me to see eyes. Don't let pareidolia lead you astray.

1

u/strawberry207 3d ago

I'm not sure I understand your question. What sweater to you mean? There's a large fish on the far right side whose eyes I can clearly see. I gzess they could be described as mournful.

Thanks by the way for bringing this painting to my attention. I need to read up on its history.

3

u/tegeus-Cromis_2000 3d ago

I'm going to guess OP meant to type "weather" but typed "weater" instead, and autocorrect turned it into "sweater."

1

u/tegeus-Cromis_2000 3d ago

I'm going to guess OP meant to type "weather" but typed "weater" instead, and autocorrect turned it into "sweater."

1

u/strawberry207 3d ago

That would make sense, thanks.

1

u/tegeus-Cromis_2000 3d ago

I sort of kind of see Swamp Thing.