Lovers parting, page from a book of fablesc. 1590–95 · Study 2013.303

Context from the museum

The lovers have met in a remote wilderness location, away from the city shown in the distance. However, their affair has run its course, and they decide to part ways, each walking in opposite directions through an ominous landscape, where strange rock formations and an oversized serpent-slain by foxes gnawing on its innards-lend a sense of foreboding. As Mughal court painting developed into the last decades of the 16th century, artists began using increasingly muted colors and gentler shading techniques than they did in the more robust Adventures of Hamza at the left. The omission of a light source and shadows adds to a timeless, otherworldly impression to the landscape.

Museum description reproduced from its CC0 open-access record. Read the original catalog entry.

Read the dimensions before the image

The selected painting measurement for Lovers parting, page from a book of fables is 12 cm wide and 24 cm high, equivalent to approximately 4.7 × 9.4 inches. Dividing width by height gives a format ratio of 0.50:1. The rectangular bounding area is 0.03 square meters; it describes the measured footprint, not the amount of paint or the monetary value.

On an illustrative 300 cm wall, the recorded width occupies 4.0% of the span before adding a frame. A centered placement leaves approximately 144.0 cm on each side before adding a frame. These are calculations by Physical Art For Crypto using museum measurements. They are not the museum’s display recommendations.

Questions to bring to your own collection

With Lovers parting, page from a book of fables in view, identify one feature you can point to, then distinguish what the museum records from your personal response. Keep its medium, Gum tempera, ink, and gold on paper, in your notes when comparing contemporary works.

• Which part of this vertical composition catches your eye first?
• Would a 12 cm width still suit the space after allowing for furniture and a frame?
• What surface detail would you need to see in person or in a close photograph?