The Mud Fence Follies: Miss Lizzie Jabbed By the Pen

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:01 am

It occurred to me a bit earlier, looking at that particularly hideous newspaper rendering of Lizzie Stefani posted recently on the blog, “Who made that mess, and how?” After a few minutes’ fishing in the photo archives, I concluded (with some reason, be it good or bad) that in all likelihood the drawing was made by someone looking at the photograph reproduced in Len Rebello’s book, or one very similar to it. (See photo, below left.)

Particularly fascinating is what appears to be the primary means of “aging” employed by this penny-press Rembrandt:

First, the bagging/shadowing particularly pronounced under the left eye nearer the inner aspect.

Second, the hairstyle is aged by merely making it a bit looser, “fuller” so to speak.

Third, the artist added an odd, almost disproportionate fleshiness to the right cheek, and filled out the chin considerably. (If it was double in her youthful days, it’s nearly a triple chin in the rendering.)

Lastly by my count, the wardrobe depicted is rather frumpish – simple, stern, and darkish in hue, such as might fit a woman of threescore years and seven.

Unflattering? Ayup, it is that for certain. But short as it may fall in the flattery department, it’s still (in an almost otherworldly fashion) a very good – if a bit exaggerated – rendering.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:30 am

Some artist need's to go back to art school.

1. The ear is not Lizzie's and leans over too far to "her" right,

2. The head is too broad,

3. The nose is not Lizzie's,

4. The mouth has been narrowed,

5. The shadows around the eyes are too dark,

6. The whole value key is off, a common mistake made be beginning artists.

Maybe Lizzie stuck her head in a bee hive? That was my first impression.

But the real question is, "Is it really Lizzie under that bad make-up job?"

-1bigsteve (o:

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:59 pm

Okay... I see your points. But let's put on the flop artist's shoes for a minute. As Estelle Getty used to say so often in her role on The Golden Girls "Picture it:"

It's June, 1927 - Lizzie Borden has just died. You know of her mainly by repute, but not much else - have never seen her in person. Your editor walks in with a photo of Lizzie - but it's a photo possibly as old as 40 years or very close. Nobody that you know of (or that your news organization knows of) has seen Lizzie Borden at all in recent years, much less taken her photograph.

The editor says "We've gone through our files and this was the only picture we had available of Miss Borden. Work with it - make something that looks like Lizzie as she might look today. You have twenty minutes - and you will have something in that time frame, or you're out the door - I don't care if you are my nephew. Now get to work!"

So you do just that. You are by the way, going through a slight Van Gogh period, in that you really don't give much more than a tenth of a tinker's damn what the ears look like, just so long as they are present and represented in a reasonable (if not exact) fashion.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:59 am

Is it British?

Very funny you guys!

Her face looks like it's fallen and it can't get up.

Hmmm...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:25 am

I found where the picture came from:
It illustrates the Alexander Woollcott story, "The Theory and Lizzie Borden: O. Henry Sends a Sheriff to Snoop Around an Old Murder Mystery."
Going to Pieces. NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1928. 218-227.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:38 am

Interesting. Does that one also say "-From an old photo."? The one Stefani posted on the blog has that - well, I suppose technically it is an "attribution." I inadvertantly cropped that out in trying to size the two photos to match.

That's actually what I was aiming at to begin with - that it was based on an actual photograph of Lizzie, with a little speculation as to which one might have been the source. At least as the ones I know of - and possibly that we are aware of presently - very few show...what am I thinking of - that pose, or more precisely the angle. It doesn't have to be the photo above that was used as a model, but it is very likely one similar to it I would think - again primarily because of the angle.

Flesh out the cheeks and chin, add shadows, a bag worthy of Thomas Lipton under the eye ... a little hair work, and - voilla! One rendering of an "aged" Lizzie Borden.

(The feller most likely didn't get his artistic license revoked, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was suspended awhile.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:03 am

Someone wrote 1927 on the copy, but the publish info is 1928. That's the year after Lizzie died.
It only says "Lizzie Borden" under the rendering.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:08 am

Okay. The rendering posted on the blog - let's see if this shows up - do you see "-From an old photo." underneath the borderline there, above "Miss Lizzie Borden"?