Quote Originally Posted by HarborSpringsPiper View Post
I surmise that the odd pair of hose with "lines" that Richard pointed out above is a similarly less than accurate portrayal of that particular gent's hose. I know for some this is tantamout to heresy, but I think all artists take a little license now and again.
Not this artist: I've seen actual vintage examples of just about everything shown in these portraits, or vintage photos of same, and his eye for detail is quite amazing.

"Artistic license" is a term thrown about, but in the history of art this licence takes different forms at different times, and varies with the skill of the artist.

We today, living after the art world has gone through impressionism and expressionism etc etc sometimes have a hard time seeing back to a time before these ideas existed. Many portraits painters in the 17th century for example, though having an incomplete grasp of human anatomy, were obsessive about the accuracy of surface detail, for example painting with painstaking accuracy all the intricacies of the lace being worn on a jacket.

It's why I trust the detail of the costume and pipes in this portrait, even though the artist had obvious difficulty painting knees, and fingers: