âEverybody always says this painting is about reason and enlightenment, the dawn of scientific inquiry, all that, but to me itâs creepy how polite and formal they all are, milling around the slab like a buffet at a cocktail party. Although --â she pointed -- âsee those two puzzled guys in the back there? Theyâre not looking at the body -- theyâre looking at us. You and me. Like they see us standing here in front of them -- two people from the future. Startled. âWhat are you doing here?â Very naturalistic.â
Donna Tartt, The Goldfinch
Early and incidental, the main characterâs mother talking in front of Rembrandtâs The Anatomy Lesson; she goes on to talk about all of the various non-naturalistic effects in the painting, the corpse used as a light source to draw the eye, an arm rendered the wrong way around. Our narrator canât really see the picture, doesnât really care because heâs spotted a girl, and itâs a nice moment, an interesting reading of a painting, and a technically nice transmission of a monologue.
This also reminds me of Bennett Simsâs A Questionable Shape, which also opens with a consideration of the non-naturalistic in Dutch golden-age painting; both incidental bits -- Sims was making a point about vision and perspective, I expect Tartt is even more tangential here, to the point that reading this as commentary on realism is probably justifiable but also grad-school stretching it -- that demonstrate a certain kind of practice while carrying forward. I really liked Simsâs book; his reading of his painting, though, was intense, crabbed, close and impacted. Tartt, on the other hand, has this clean open paragraph, which easily circles in and out of direct speech and narration, part of a longer looping disquisition on an exhibition: calm and assured and glowing.