Bushwalk Australia

Hi all,

on Antiques Roadshow on Tue 30/6, there were 2 paintings said to be done by James Haughton Forrest in the 1880's, both featuring Tas. One was supposedly Lake St Clair, but I'm not so sure. Can anyone please ID the lake? Skip through to 29.50min on iView to see the segment, and at 29.55 & 32.35 there's good views to be had of the painting.

The lake scene does look like a little like NNW's Landscape pic Western Mountain Morning.

iView link, Series 33 Ep 14 Blair Castle 1
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/antiqu ... 00#playing

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/forrest ... ghton-6210

Thanks for saving me the trouble, Micky. (Actually, you didn't. Your post beat mine by approx 5 secs).


I suspect the painter may have taken some disparate elements of Tasmanian topography and compounded them into one single image.

The high mountain at the back looks a lot like Manfred - from somewhat north of the Heel, but minus the plateau. The lower one on the left looks a lot like Cuvier from a different angle, and the one on the other side like an exaggerated version of The Guardians. But there are a lot of other places it might be.

Perhaps a morph of cradle with suicide rock on the flip side... but the dead tree?

It's called "Artistic License "............. ...The art world is chockers with examples like this....

Thanks for the techno help Micky (& NNW).

Mmmm, it's probably an idealised lake scene. In years gone you could do a fake scene like this and there wasn't any good way for people to call your bluff; unlike the 'Where am I?' game on this forum.

myrtlegirl wrote: a fake scene like this and there wasn't any good way for people to call your bluff

Since when was art meant to be a faithful and true depiction of what was actually there?

vicrev wrote:"Artistic License ".

Another term for Artist's interpretation or vision or impression? What about the Impressionists or abstract artists? Is their work invalid because its not EXACTLY as an untouched photo might look - assuming of course the photo was in focus and exposure and ISO/film speed was appropriate for the conditions etc.

Is the viewing society equally as dismissive of photoshopped images or those that were subject to darkroom / developing tricks, no matter how minor the alteration?

Artistic Licence" is my excuse for putting out lousy art-work.......... ......

gayet wrote:

myrtlegirl wrote: a fake scene like this and there wasn't any good way for people to call your bluff

Since when was art meant to be a faithful and true depiction of what was actually there?

I'm not getting into the whole 'what is art' debate, but if a landscape is painted in a relatively realistic style (as the one in question) and presented as being a depiction of a certain place (as this supposedly was), then one is justified in insisting on certain degree of accuracy.