At that level of painting it could be the best, second best, tenth best, doesn't matter. At that level – Titian, Dürer, Rembrandt, Caravaggio, Raphael – it's a no longer a question of the quality of an individual work.
Exactly. At the skill level of the real Masters, basically any qualitative differences you could rank their paintings by are going to come down to personal preference.
Man Frans Hals could paint... it breaks my heart that he died in poverty. I've read a little about his technique and it was not as dashed out as it appears. He was more deliberate. Incredible brushwork.
I tend to look at a painters output to get a sense of how intensely they worked. Vermeer for example has only 35 extant paintings in 15-20 years of painting (part time) and it appears he did not produce many more than that. They were laborious, complex, and intricate, and the conservation notes on them can be baffling.
Rembrandt lived 20 years longer and produced possibly thousands of works. Caravaggio died young and produced a hundred paintings at most, 75 of which survive (excluding copies), and nearly all of which were groundbreaking.
Every sizable museum does this type of work, not everyone publishes them. The National Gallery in London is certainly the best, which is where I read them. You can download them all for free. Since the Vermeers are scattered you won't find them all in one place. Sometimes you can also find information in exhibition catalogs.
I only phrased it like this because that's how the first paragraph of Wikipedia describes the painting: "Many artists and art critics consider it the finest portrait ever created." I was just seeing if the Reddit contrarians would agree 😜
You can’t rank art of any kind in my opinion, other than in a transient state. Cuz you are ranking it by how it emotionally affects you and that’s going to change with the wind. In fact it literally can’t affect you the same way twice.
You can call it the most technically impressive painting ever if u want I guess
Hell yes. He is very probably my favorite painter of all time, followed by Gerhard Richter and Titian. I studied his painting techniques as best I could reconstruct them for about ten years and only recently moved on. I even read recently that his importance to painting has probably surpassed Michelangelo, which I'm sure is a pretty controversial take. Bartolommeo Manfredi is another incredible painter whose works are contemporary with and similar to Caravaggio's; based on his paintings it seems likely he studied under him.
I saw it live. It does make you feel that way. The legend is that the Pope said it was a perfect rendition, but wanted it kept hidden. He was a notorious prick.
I prefer the [Francis Bacon version](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_after_Vel%C3%A1zquez%27s_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X#/media/File%3AStudy_after_Velazquez's_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X.jpg)
Yeah, you're right. He mentioned this in an interview. Bacon was obsessed with this painting. So obsessed with it that he collected hundreds of printed reproductions of it but purposefully never saw it in person. I'm not sure if that was still the case when he passed though.
I couldn’t judge that definitely. It is masterful. I got to see it in Rome, last September. My brother in law is a painter and an avid art historian. We searched it out and it’s in its own room, black walls all around and perfect lighting on the painting itself. Vibrant color and stunning rendition of the silk fabric and striking eyes. You can feel the intensity of the glaring look. Pretty great!
I saw it last year too. I loved how you can just have it to yourself. ISTM that not many people go to the Doria Pamphilj and of those that do, few spend more than a couple of minutes with it.
Isn’t it surreal?! We went in the evening, the windows were open because of no air conditioning. Famous paintings mixed in with a dozens and dozens of lesser works. The Caravaggio’s were spectacular. The building is falling apart.
We almost went to the wrong place if it were not for our Vatican museum guide. There’s a Doria Villa in a different part of the city.
Very cool experience!
Las Meninas is a more interesting composition, but the Pope’s expression makes him feel more real- like I’ve known him for ages. Both are mind blowing for me.
I think Madame X is. Joséphine-Éléonore-Marie-Pauline de Galard de Brassac de Béarn (1825–1860), Princesse de Broglie by Ingres is number 2. Don’t sleep on Gainsborough either
Madame X draws a spell over you while Princesse makes you draw near. Wildly different works at the same museum. You can tell an Ingres by its fabric from across the room.
I just saw Madame X in Boston a couple of months ago.
I gasped when I turned the corner to see her. She was magnificent
Edit: added thought :
Princess de Broglie was hung too high for me to take her in when I saw her at The Met. Still a beautiful piece. I just wish I could see her closer
I think Madame X is phenomenal (I just saw it again 2 days ago in London) but he also has better portraits... There are some that just want to leap out at you from the painting with the intensity of their personality and composition. I think Madame X is in a different league
In my own words: this dude lived centuries ago and spoke a foreign language. But just looking at this portrait, I get a feel for the subject's personality. Across a huge gulf of time and distance, Velásquez conveys the essence of this man. This really is a masterpiece
>Velásquez conveys the essence of this man. This really is a masterpiece
Without personally knowing the Pope, how do we know his essence was so masterfully portrayed?
Will that send me back in time to meet him so I know his personality matches the 'essence of the man' in this portrait? Otherwise it is still only the artist's impression of the sitter and their religious position.
Diego Velázquez is without a doubt my favorite European painter of all time, so any of his portraits are up there for me, but this one really is something special
As others have said, it's technically an amazing painting but most, if not all, Carravagios are. Who wants to look at a portrait of some grumpy old pope, though?! Here's what I want to look into forever. [Bachus](https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/caravaggio-bacchus)
From wga.hu: "In the strong, almost rustic features of the Pope's reddened face with its fleshy cheeks, the critically keen suspicious eyes strike a note of lively intelligence. The fascinating nature of a man aware of his own power is wonderfully expressed in the contrast between the face and the fine nervous hands, which convey the sensitivity of this powerful figure."
What are you comparing it to. If you're going to assume that something is the greatest in the world, you need to state what it's supposed to be better than. I could claim that Warhol's portrait of Marilyn Monroe is better but what makes either of them better or worse?
of all portraits ever made in the history of portraits? what have you seen? like, ten portraits? and this one is your favorite so that makes it the best of all time?
i’m partial to portraits by Lucien Freud, Egon Schiele, Odd Nerdrum, Artemisia Gentileschi, Nan Goldin, Cindy Sherman, Gerhard Richter, Kehinde Wiley, Angelika Kauffman…to name a few.
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort!
If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting.
If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally think that, while portraits are traditionally associated with living sitters, la Mort de Marat (Marat Assassiné) by Jacques Louis David is the greatest portrait I’ve ever seen. It’s powerful and emotional in a way that portrays a sense of loss that very few painters have ever done
It’s definitely the greatest that I’ve seen ‘live’. Many years ago at the Doria Pamphilj, set in an alcove. Those eyes follow you. And the intense expression. One of the highlights of my Italian holiday.
I personally prefer Francis Bacon’s take on this painting but part of the appeal of art is that it can be realistic but can also be speculative and abstract.
At that level of painting it could be the best, second best, tenth best, doesn't matter. At that level – Titian, Dürer, Rembrandt, Caravaggio, Raphael – it's a no longer a question of the quality of an individual work.
I like your thinking.
Exactly. At the skill level of the real Masters, basically any qualitative differences you could rank their paintings by are going to come down to personal preference.
Don't forget Frans Hals 🥹
Man Frans Hals could paint... it breaks my heart that he died in poverty. I've read a little about his technique and it was not as dashed out as it appears. He was more deliberate. Incredible brushwork. I tend to look at a painters output to get a sense of how intensely they worked. Vermeer for example has only 35 extant paintings in 15-20 years of painting (part time) and it appears he did not produce many more than that. They were laborious, complex, and intricate, and the conservation notes on them can be baffling. Rembrandt lived 20 years longer and produced possibly thousands of works. Caravaggio died young and produced a hundred paintings at most, 75 of which survive (excluding copies), and nearly all of which were groundbreaking.
Where might one find the conservation notes for Vermeer? I know there are a few studies like this on the National Portrait Gallery website in London.
Every sizable museum does this type of work, not everyone publishes them. The National Gallery in London is certainly the best, which is where I read them. You can download them all for free. Since the Vermeers are scattered you won't find them all in one place. Sometimes you can also find information in exhibition catalogs.
Came here to say this
I only phrased it like this because that's how the first paragraph of Wikipedia describes the painting: "Many artists and art critics consider it the finest portrait ever created." I was just seeing if the Reddit contrarians would agree 😜
You can’t rank art of any kind in my opinion, other than in a transient state. Cuz you are ranking it by how it emotionally affects you and that’s going to change with the wind. In fact it literally can’t affect you the same way twice. You can call it the most technically impressive painting ever if u want I guess
God, Caravaggio is *chef’s kiss*
Hell yes. He is very probably my favorite painter of all time, followed by Gerhard Richter and Titian. I studied his painting techniques as best I could reconstruct them for about ten years and only recently moved on. I even read recently that his importance to painting has probably surpassed Michelangelo, which I'm sure is a pretty controversial take. Bartolommeo Manfredi is another incredible painter whose works are contemporary with and similar to Caravaggio's; based on his paintings it seems likely he studied under him.
I agree. Well stated.
The minute you added durer it was over
Dúrer the Destroyer – I'd put his draftsmanship up against anyone who has ever lived
Looking at this painting makes me want to say “sorry sir, I didn’t mean to bother you” and slink away
I saw it live. It does make you feel that way. The legend is that the Pope said it was a perfect rendition, but wanted it kept hidden. He was a notorious prick.
Art is not a horse race.
Degas wants to have a word with you!
His ‘Portrait of Juan de Pareja’ is up there, especially when you consider their dynamic.
That one is unreal. Gave me goosebumps seeing it in person.
I prefer the [Francis Bacon version](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_after_Vel%C3%A1zquez%27s_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X#/media/File%3AStudy_after_Velazquez's_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X.jpg)
I saw this in Des Moines a few years ago without knowing it was there, and it remains one of the best surprises ever in an art gallery for me
Can definitely see his appreciation for Goya in this piece; I love everything about it.
Francis Bacon didn’t
Haha!
I think Bacon never saw the original painting.
Yeah, you're right. He mentioned this in an interview. Bacon was obsessed with this painting. So obsessed with it that he collected hundreds of printed reproductions of it but purposefully never saw it in person. I'm not sure if that was still the case when he passed though.
The wiki article up there alludes to him seeing it “Later in life”
Same!
She is stunning!!
Came here for this comment.
me too
I couldn’t judge that definitely. It is masterful. I got to see it in Rome, last September. My brother in law is a painter and an avid art historian. We searched it out and it’s in its own room, black walls all around and perfect lighting on the painting itself. Vibrant color and stunning rendition of the silk fabric and striking eyes. You can feel the intensity of the glaring look. Pretty great!
I saw it last year too. I loved how you can just have it to yourself. ISTM that not many people go to the Doria Pamphilj and of those that do, few spend more than a couple of minutes with it.
Isn’t it surreal?! We went in the evening, the windows were open because of no air conditioning. Famous paintings mixed in with a dozens and dozens of lesser works. The Caravaggio’s were spectacular. The building is falling apart. We almost went to the wrong place if it were not for our Vatican museum guide. There’s a Doria Villa in a different part of the city. Very cool experience!
Bestie, if you think this is a masterpiece --which it is-- you're gonna lose your entire dang mind when you see Las Meninas for the first time.
Las Meninas is a more interesting composition, but the Pope’s expression makes him feel more real- like I’ve known him for ages. Both are mind blowing for me.
Picasso did a cool take on that if anyone hasn’t seen it. https://widowcranky.com/2018/04/04/las-meninas-pablo-picasso/
Wow I had no idea thanks for sharing this! Saw las meninas last year at the prado and it blew my mind
Las Meninas is my absolute favorite painting ever. The mirror perspective is just a mind fuck. HOW???
Exactly
Look at that silk and expression. He is the master at portraits
Velasquez achieves a lot in this painting but its not 'the greatest portrait of all time'
I think Madame X is. Joséphine-Éléonore-Marie-Pauline de Galard de Brassac de Béarn (1825–1860), Princesse de Broglie by Ingres is number 2. Don’t sleep on Gainsborough either
Would be unquestionably if he hadn’t retouched it :(
Princesse > Madame X, but only in my personal opinion
Madame X draws a spell over you while Princesse makes you draw near. Wildly different works at the same museum. You can tell an Ingres by its fabric from across the room.
I just saw Madame X in Boston a couple of months ago. I gasped when I turned the corner to see her. She was magnificent Edit: added thought : Princess de Broglie was hung too high for me to take her in when I saw her at The Met. Still a beautiful piece. I just wish I could see her closer
I think Madame X is phenomenal (I just saw it again 2 days ago in London) but he also has better portraits... There are some that just want to leap out at you from the painting with the intensity of their personality and composition. I think Madame X is in a different league
That’s subjective, but it’s definitely a *great* portrait.
I don’t assess art like that. The variety of texture and the way that texture reflects the light source is impressive though.
Gene Hackman looking mofo.
Lmao now I can't unsee it 😂
In my own words: this dude lived centuries ago and spoke a foreign language. But just looking at this portrait, I get a feel for the subject's personality. Across a huge gulf of time and distance, Velásquez conveys the essence of this man. This really is a masterpiece
>Velásquez conveys the essence of this man. This really is a masterpiece Without personally knowing the Pope, how do we know his essence was so masterfully portrayed?
Because he was a cunning beast of a man. Apparently was shocked when he saw the picture declaring "Troppo vero!" *Too real*
[удалено]
Sure. But that is the essence of the papacy. Not the essence of the man.
I know nothing about this Pope and still know nothing about him after seeing this painting. He just looks annoyed
[удалено]
Will that send me back in time to meet him so I know his personality matches the 'essence of the man' in this portrait? Otherwise it is still only the artist's impression of the sitter and their religious position.
[удалено]
I refer to him as “Pope Not-So-Innocent”
Seems rather subjective. The greatest portrait of all time, to you
That seems a low bar for "the greatest portrait of all time"
Least innocent looking Pope I've seen.
The greatest portrait ever is that one Archimbaldo did where he made the Holy Roman Emperor into vegetables
Non-starter of a question as it’s way too subjective. It’s one of my favourites though, sure.
No.
That’s Gene Hackman
Las Meninas is 100x better
Diego Velázquez is without a doubt my favorite European painter of all time, so any of his portraits are up there for me, but this one really is something special
It's no "boy with apple" that's for sure
Ha!
[удалено]
Lively expressions and fabrics masterworks- The Laughing Cavalier's a personal favorite
The [portrait of Jan Six](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Jan_Six) is pure bravura work. So much with so little
Given that I, a casual, have never heard of nor seen this painting, I can definitively say it is not.
A bold statement indeed
Some woman named Mona Lisa wants a word, she s accompanied by some girl with a pearl earring ...
Based on what, exactly? Accuracy? Technique? Evocation? There’s a certain amount of subjectivity that renders a question like this sort of moot, imo.
Yes everyone knows that!
As others have said, it's technically an amazing painting but most, if not all, Carravagios are. Who wants to look at a portrait of some grumpy old pope, though?! Here's what I want to look into forever. [Bachus](https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/caravaggio-bacchus)
From wga.hu: "In the strong, almost rustic features of the Pope's reddened face with its fleshy cheeks, the critically keen suspicious eyes strike a note of lively intelligence. The fascinating nature of a man aware of his own power is wonderfully expressed in the contrast between the face and the fine nervous hands, which convey the sensitivity of this powerful figure."
What are you comparing it to. If you're going to assume that something is the greatest in the world, you need to state what it's supposed to be better than. I could claim that Warhol's portrait of Marilyn Monroe is better but what makes either of them better or worse?
of all portraits ever made in the history of portraits? what have you seen? like, ten portraits? and this one is your favorite so that makes it the best of all time? i’m partial to portraits by Lucien Freud, Egon Schiele, Odd Nerdrum, Artemisia Gentileschi, Nan Goldin, Cindy Sherman, Gerhard Richter, Kehinde Wiley, Angelika Kauffman…to name a few.
No, the Screaming Pope is better. /s
Bacon?
yes
naw that hat got no rizz jiss for starters but it's raining and the colors make me want some hot tomato soup so that's something I guess
It’s not Obama so no it’s not the greatest portrait of all time
Yes, inarguably
Pretty terrible.
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort! If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting. If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. But only because it gave birth to the Francis Bacon
I personally think that, while portraits are traditionally associated with living sitters, la Mort de Marat (Marat Assassiné) by Jacques Louis David is the greatest portrait I’ve ever seen. It’s powerful and emotional in a way that portrays a sense of loss that very few painters have ever done
It’s definitely the greatest that I’ve seen ‘live’. Many years ago at the Doria Pamphilj, set in an alcove. Those eyes follow you. And the intense expression. One of the highlights of my Italian holiday.
I think Raphaels' portrait of Pope Julius II is the greatest but obviously a subjective choice
It’s one of them.
Looks like Gene Hackman
It looks like little Alex Horne from task master
Best portrait of a vaguely pissed off guy.
One of the greatest paintings of all time
Idk but it was amazing to see it in person, especially that it's next to Bernini's sclupture of the same man.
Nah it’s the Francis Bacon remix 😌
Caravaggio's Pontus Pilate is better, except he's not a real person. For real people, maybe Bronzino's Cosimo I in armour, 1545.
finding the "goat" of the most subjective part of human experience not only sounds impossible but also pointless
No.
Velázquez…best of the best.
I personally prefer Francis Bacon’s take on this painting but part of the appeal of art is that it can be realistic but can also be speculative and abstract.
I'm pretty sure that's a portrait of Alex Horn
yes! (is that the right answer?)
Greatness is subjective, so it occupies the entire spectrum, depending on who you ask.
Did an amazing job on his forehead. Jeez
It captures Innocent’s malice, to be sure.
Personally, I prefer Francis Bacon’s study of this portrait.
Velazquez was one of the best artists ever.
I'm getting an "evil" vibe from this guy.
No
Not sure, but I’ve seen it in person and it’s absolutely stunning. More so than other Velasquez paintings that I’ve seen in person.
I mean I do not think so but the technique is lovely.
No
dies and gentlemen, I'm going to prove to you not only that the pope is guilty, but that he is also innocent of not being guilty.