"Princess of Babylon" (1904-1910) by the Dutch Kees Van Dongen (1877-1968).
Kees van Dongen was a modernist painter and was counted among the Fauves ("Wild Beasts"). So it’s clear that he was something like the contrary to the traditional history painter. Nevertheless he called this painting "Princess of Babylon", referring to a historical subject. But that’s all, his Princess is a modern "femme fatale", maybe a prostitute. In modern art history is no longer tellable, it’s raw material to illustrate recent circumstances.
Maybe there are some art historians who think that Pyle was no real artist more an "illustrator". But I think that’s totally wrong. These two "illustrations" show the influence of Impressionism and because of that a modern treatment of history. There’s no "pseudo-realistic" treatment of history like by Alma-Tadema or Blair-Leighton. Pyle depicted colourful and bold but also subjective impressions of history.
Kees van Dongen was a modernist painter and was counted among the Fauves ("Wild Beasts"). So it’s clear that he was something like the contrary to the traditional history painter. Nevertheless he called this painting "Princess of Babylon", referring to a historical subject. But that’s all, his Princess is a modern "femme fatale", maybe a prostitute. In modern art history is no longer tellable, it’s raw material to illustrate recent circumstances.
