I recently painted a yacht with the reverse numbers on the sail and one of them was the right way around - I was going to change it but thought, no, I wonder if anyone will notice!

I've looked closely at Manet's "Bar at the Folies-Bergere in person on several occasions (and many other times in books and on the internet), and like many others I have puzzled over whether he got the reflection in the mirror correct.

A brief discussion of the picture and it's seeming discrepancy can be found here: http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/manet_bar/

A more mundane example was at our watercolor society meeting a couple months ago in which one of our "signature" members displayed her latest work, a picture of two fairies looking at a calendar, the cover page of which was visible but had the title printed upside down. Oops... sort of like the old New Yorker cartoon in which the guy is painting the name on the stern of his small boat, ignoring the fact he has it upside down in the sand while doing so.

The exclusion of the reflection is probably one of the reasons the painting is so powerful. Like Robert suggests, accomplished artists leave room for the viewer's own imagination and interpretation.

If the reflections are also some of the tulips in the title, then the missing reflection is just a picked tulip. Really nice painting!!

What about that poor woman with no umbrella -- you'd think someone might share? The man walking away from us probably just came out of the local pub and doesn't want anyone to know he's been drinking -- and he may also be trying to whistle on his end which is not getting good results. Ah yes, rain has a way of bringing out the best and the worst in us. I like the painting.

This could be a missed opportunity to sell another painting.... I would contact the owner..... offer to paint in the missing umbrella.... Then try to sell another painting.... People who have purchased a painting are your best potential clients.....

On more than one occasion I had a wrong number of fingers in a portrait, but I fixed them rather than leaving it for conversation. No offense intended to the people with 4 fingers!

JCB asked a good question:

Robert claims "We know that women in general tend to have better art brains [than men]"?

I haven't heard that before, and I haven't seen any evidence of it. So, I'm curious, what is your factual basis for saying it?

Robert did not answer so I did a little research.

Wandering wombs, an anatomically conferred destiny of penis envy and masochism, smaller brains, smaller frontal lobes, larger frontal lobes, right-hemisphere dominance, cross-hemisphere interaction, too much oestrogen, not enough testosterone – all have been invoked to explain why women are intellectually inferior to men, more emotional, less logical, better at asking for directions, worse at map reading, hopeless at maths and science, and ever so much better suited to jobs involving finger dexterity, nappies and dishes.

As Cordelia Fine documents in Delusions of Gender, researchers change their focus, technology marches on, but sexism is eternal. Its latest incarnation is what she calls “neurosexism”, sexist bias disguised in the “neuroscientific finery” of claims about neurons, brains, hormones.

Fine was spurred to write her critique, she says, when she found her son’s kindergarten teacher reading a book that claimed a young boy’s brain was incapable of forging the connection between emotion and language. The result of Fine’s irritation is a witty and meticulously researched exposé of the sloppy studies that pass for scientific evidence in so many of today’s bestselling books on sex differences, notably Louann Brizendine's The Female Brain, Simon Baron-Cohen’s The Essential Difference, Michael Gurian’s What Could He Be Thinking?

When we follow the trail of contemporary science we discover a surprising number of gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies, poor methodologies, and leaps of faith – as well as more than one echo of the insalubrious past”.

Over and over, if you watch what people do rather than what they say they would do, and vary the situations in which they do it, gender differences fade to the vanishing point. As Fine puts it, “Pick a gender difference, any difference. Now watch very closely as – poof! – it’s gone”.

For more on this http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7171325.ece

Robert's claim that "We know that women in general tend to have better art brains [than men]" is not only laughable, it's a cynically sexist attempt to cater to his mostly female audience.

Shame on you, Robert.

I think the irregular perspective on the base of the lamppost is what draws my eye not the lost shadow. Unless this is a purposeful design ploy that really tells me the artists needs to learn to draw better.

I was taught to never leave anything wrong on your canvas that you can notice. It's too late for the shadow but I agree with the angle on the lamppost. Not good.

I was at a demonstration by a nationally prominent artist, several years ago. He neglected to cast the same reelected light from the umbrella of his main subject as was prominent in the rainy street.
To me, it spoke of the use of a separate photo for the figure. It was a very successful painting otherwise and no one else found this unsettling.

I liked the anomaly of the parasols. Years ago I painted a series of cow heads, followed by the rear view. Sold the pair, and discovered after they were framed in a friends bathroom, that I was short one cow behind. True, what a conversation piece! It's still one of my favorites.

What made some postage stamps draw so much money in the philatelic world is when there is a flaw or a mistake at their first issue and were withdrawn from circulation and only a few exist anymore. They are a rarity which makes them a novelty. Perhaps this is in the same way what makes Anne's painting unique and makes it an interesting conversation piece. Was it intentional, an oversight or error? The more people wonder the greater the interest. Serendipity also plays a part in the game. It is beautiful painting. For all purposes we would like our work to be perfect but once in a while we may overlook something or make extra brush strokes which made the painting more exciting and more appealing that piqued the viewer.

I agree with you that the painting is fine and shouldn't be adjusted. Enough people liked it to vote it as their favourite, and someone liked it enough to choose it for their wall.

Weavers have a saying that only the gods can produce something perfect, and if a weaver wove perfect cloth, the gods would be angry. In my painting and weaving I do strive for perfection, and have yet to anger the gods.

It's much better not to mention the "error" and let the owner discover it on their own. You'd be amazed what people don't notice. As a tapestry weaver, and owner of many Turkish Kilim rugs, it's always a wonderful surprise when I see an error (be it intentional or not) in a rug that I've owned for years. Kind of like a gift that keeps on giving, it always brightens my day.

In viewing a watercolor show in SC a couple of years ago, I was admiring a nice, clean painting of a shrimp boat when my boyfriend, who in not an artist, pointed out the the name of the boat was reflected in the water right side up. I wondered if this was just a joke the artist was playing on the viewers or did his senility just kick in and he forgot that the reflection should have been up side down.

Shadow, or not, is completely unimportant. It’s the mood and feel that makes this piece appeal to the buyer.

Incongruity is at the sole and soul of life. God protect us from too much congruity.

Please pass on to Anne Swannell that I LOVE that the umbrella's reflection is missing. Had I the painting, I'd be delighted with the discovery and think it perhaps intentional, just to draw us in further to wonder why. What a wonderful, whimsical detail, even if unintentional. By the way, if she does print the cards, I would love to know how to buy some. Capture that 'mistake' and just think of it as a symbol that somewhere, somehow, it's not really/always raining even if it may seem so. Life is like that some times.

I found one of those mistakes in my paintings and after I considered changing it I just felt I’d leave as is. Your right it adds interest and that’s why I opted to leave it alone.

I once painted a picture where the person had no arm. I was working from a photo where the arm could not be seen and this is the trouble with that system. It's good to understand how things work.

Fess up, Anne, and make a friend for life.

I would insist on adding the umbrella to this particular painting had I painted it. I've missed some things over the years but such incongruity in a representational painting is jarring. We can make deliberate decisions on eliminating detail or adding interest but this isn't Salvador Dali. It's like watching a figure who doesn't cast a shadow ... something isn't right. The overall excellence of the painting loses its impact because the viewer is distracted from the mood of the painting. A conversation piece is one thing but I would prefer a painting of mine be noted for its quality rather than "she forgot the shadow!" The viewer does not know your mindset: only the painting in front of them.

Works for some people. Others, when they realize the reflection of the umbrella is missing, won't be able to get past it. I'd broach the subject with the current owner of the painting.

Robert has dealt with the creative ability of women in many letters that can be found on this site or in his books. The main thrust of these arguments is the bicameral nature of the brain, the tendency of more women to be right brained than men, and the evidence of a larger corpus collosum in women--the conduit between the hemispheres. He also notes the lack of stubbornness in women, their excellent networking ability, and willingness to take advice from others, including men. (As opposed to men taking advice from women)

Everyone who has written about leaving mistakes or not being bothered by mistakes is just another sign of the mediocrity of women' art today. Listen to yourselves making excuses for someone just to be politically correct. Come on!
Also, being a women, I have to say that if 78% of artists are women and not rich and famous maybe we should take a better look at what we are passing off as art! Men succeed at this because they are dedicated to an art life whether they have wifes or not. They don't do this on weekends as a hobby or to make pretty pictues to put in the kitchens of women who search the local art shows for something that matches their curtains. I feel women need to get real and stop bitching as to why they can't make it and get on with it. This is one reason men don't take us seriously.

Bobby, you spoiled your tirade with your last sentence. why do you care if man take you seriously or not?

I'm commenting on the workshops page. It would be so much easier to read if in addition to the dates, the location and medium would be up front and center for each listing. As it is, it wastes a lot of time trying to wade one's way through it.

Not everyone uses umbrellas.

Pnk - 'cause they currently have the power! AND we are the only two species on this earth and need to get along with each other.

Cute story. It reminded me of the time I sketched a young lady's portrait and left one of her eyebrows off ! We were admiring it together afterwards when I realized my mistake, so I was able to fix it on the spot.

I learn much from your letters and from the responses you give to questions. Ergo, here's one from me. What, if any, legal pitfalls might there be if one creates paintings using images from books or magazines as inspiration?
Have a great, painterly day.
Mel

Mel- With the way you phrased your question, I think you already know the answer. There are copyright laws in force that if you are found to be using copyrighted material, in all likelihood there will be litigation against you. And in many cases it will be obvious to those who know that your work is a copy. If you live in a little town and only enter local shows with no national attention. I wouldn't worry about it. The only ones you would be cheating are going to be your neighbors and those foolish enough to buy your work. But on a more serious note, Why would you do that in the first place if you have any talent at all.

not everyone uses an umbrella when it rains .

"Artists are supposed to be the ones with imagination. A good part of our job description is to get regular people to use theirs." R. Genn
This is a Genn Gem, I believe.

Your comment makes think of Velazquez's Venus at Her Mirror. The reflection in the mirror is totally wrong but did anyone care?