What I like in my art.

I would have to say that my art has been somewhat influenced by impressionism. I say somewhat because I'm not strictly an impressionist. Occasionally when I paint with oils I'm told that my work resembles something that Van Gogh did, or it just resembles impressionism because of the kind of brush strokes that I use.

I was told that one of my paintings from Winter term resembled Van Gogh's Irises https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhWW81Qe3RHE6pfuOjUkzPqnN-jVmsHV_IVz9sNQ3iWB_Cg-Q-iWzCgpVoK-sV7ii8vJU8SGlnD9onS_MvIxasWFrgr0WCCCmPfL_jgS_TnvOha4hzOPZQV1IYtqCKzfXfS4SnONkWed0/s1600/van-gogh-vincent-iris-2403781.jpg they said that my blades of grass are in a similar style as his. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0chi3a0GG1qhqw22o3_1280.jpg

Another painting from Winter term that I did was also semi-impressionistic. When painting it I chose to use quick brush strokes, mixing the paint on the canvas, and paying attention to light in the background. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0lamgs0IG1qhqw22o1_1280.jpg I've updated the painting since this photo was taken, so the cup, leg, beak, and foot look different, but you get the general idea of the style.

Impressionism is probably one of my favorite periods in art. When I look at a painting like this http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/03/26/arts/27402629.JPG by Gustave Caillebotte, I just fall in love with everything about it. The way the different colors and brush strokes are used to convey water and a light reflection, it's just absolutely beautiful! The way the colors are blended, but all stand out on their own as well. The extreme brights and darks; and the wonderful attention to detail with just a few brush strokes.

Aside from impressionism I also liked learning about pop art this term. Or more specifically the work by Roy Lichtenstein, and only him. I loved his work just because of the line quality it has, and I hope that my line quality can be that good someday. http://www.students.sbc.edu/kitchin04/artandexpression/roy2%5B1%5D.jpg

When I paint with watercolors (once the painting is dry) I normally go back over the painting with fine tip pens and create an outline for each object, as well as some descriptive lines for its form. This is probably one of my better examples from my blog http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyr9mb4jmo1qhqw22o1_1280.jpg I have a lot more than this, but the blog needs to be updated to cover all of my work from this term.

I love the black lines because they make the painting pop off of the page; up until then the colors are too dull and flat for me. Which is why I like Roy so much now, he can take those areas of flat color, and add a few different size lines around them and just make them pop off of the page. Someday I hope to be able to find some sort of balance between these two styles. If any one would like to see any other work that I've posted please feel free to check out my blog here http://amandartist.tumblr.com/ Over the next week I'm going to be updating it more to cover over the past 2 months of work that I've done.

Roy Lichtenstein

So, in the past I had heard of Pop art, and I knew of a few works of art from it, including works of art by Roy Lichtenstein, even though I didn't know his name or anything about him (aside from the use of comic book imagery in his art.) The image that I have decided to research is Thinking Nude, State 1, 1994 http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images/160529/672973.jpg there is another form of this print just called Thinking Nude that has far less color in it http://roy-lichtenstein-paintings.painting-reproductions.com/image/paintings/Thinking%20nude.jpg I'm not sure if the first image is actually stage 1 of making the final print or not. And for the purposes of this post I will just be discussing Thinking Nude and not State 1.

In the Academic Journals from the library website I was unable to find information on Lichtenstein's Nude series, but on one website I was able to find a small amount of information on the subject. He made his first collection of Nudes in 1993 and used references from 1960's comic book caricatures instead of live models to create the female form. This series is similar to his other pop art works because it keeps a strict color palette, as well a two-dimensional space within the print. Around most of the nudes in this series are either geometric or curvilinear forms to compare and contrast to the female body. http://www.guyhepner.com/pieces/roy-lichtenstein-nudes-thinking-nude

One thing that struck me about the Thinking Nude is the subtle variations of line that separate her body from everything else within the composition. There are very minute changes that keep her outline separate from the outline of the pillow behind her and the blanket under her, even though the blanket and the pillow have the same color of outline and pattern in them as her body. You can even see the pillow continue lower and appear underneath her armpit, it's lined up perfectly so that the viewer can establish the connection to the rest of the pillow.

Through flat color, and absence of color, you can tell what the other objects in the print are as well. The brown rectangle in the back is a door, and the pink triangle is a bit of the floor. The tan shape in the back right corner is a dresser, and on top of it is a bowl of red and yellow fruit, along with a mirror and a drinking glass of some sort, that are pure white with only a black outline. The only object with color that I cannot recognize is the darker blue shape on the bed with her.

The bits of color on her are fascinating too, with the very light yellow used to fill in part of her hair and then the black and red dots used to describe the rest of it and keep it so that the viewer can recognize that her hair is in front of the pillow. The red on her lips is also really interesting because it's on top of the dots describing her face, I really like how it just pops into the foreground. The bits of color used to describe the blankets that she's laying on is a nice touch as well, and doesn't overpower the whole scene.

Lichtenstein did a great job portraying the female figure as well in this print. He was able to use foreshortening correctly to establish that her legs are going back into the background and to show that her right elbow is the shape that is the farthest in the foreground by giving it the thickest actual line in the whole print.

All together this style just works perfectly for me to show off the female form, and I'd have to say after looking at this print, and others by Lichtenstein, he's slowling becoming one of my new top favorite artists.

(p.s. I just looked and saw that everyone in the group so far is doing Lichtenstein lol he's popular)

Dada¿

So for this weeks blog I have decided to discuss how Dada and Surrealism changed the form, content, and concept of art. Before I begin though I am going to bring some of my own opinions on the subject to the table.

Back in my freshman year of college I had to take an art class that discussed different forms of art, and revolved around the subject. “what is art?” In that class we discussed Marcel Duchamp's work, such as the Bottle Rack, the Fountain, and his L.H.O.O.Q. We also discussed other works by Mondrian, Dali, Picasso, and even Oppenheim's Object (Luncheon in Fur.) And for every single conversation a conclusion could never be made about, “what is art?” Even when it became the discussion of what is the difference between “art” and “craft” the conversation could never come full circle.

It wasn't until we talked about Oppenheim's Luncheon in Fur that we gained an idea of how craft and art are different. With Oppenheim's Object not having a utilitarian purpose. It make look like a cup, a bowl, and a spoon, but you cannot use them in the way that you would normally use a cup, bowl, and spoon, because his are made out of fur. It changes the context of the piece and it becomes art rather than craft.

However when it came to discussing Duchamp's Fountain it completely derailed the class and we were back at square zero for figuring out what is art. I know that for that class I was furious about the idea of “ready made art” and to be honest it still upsets me to this day. (I despise Jeff Koons...)

After listening to this weeks lecture though, I finally have a bit of a perspective on the idea of Dada and found art, because of how professor Bowen brought up Duchamp's quote, “...he took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under a new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object.”

Now that I've heard that quote, I have to say that I like the idea of ready made art. I like the idea of taking an object out of it's original context and placing it in a different one, changing its meaning. Though I don't necessarily like the idea of the object being a mass produced one. The thought that Duchamp could just go out and get another Fountain, practically identical to the original one and replace it in the gallery kind of bothers me.

So for Dada, I would have to say that it changed art so much that art could be anything. It doesn't have to be historic, or a study of light, or even a study of emotion. Through Dada there is no specific definition of what art isn't. At least that's the conclusion I've come to after a lot of years of listening to the subject.

As for Surrealism (or even cubism) I do consider it along the lines of Dada. Because of the unusual out of context objects that you can find in it. Like in Dali's Birth of Liquid Desires there is a white cabinet just floating up in the air with stuff running out of it. It changed art by allowing pieces to be irrational, disorderly, out of context, express sexual desires, and even analyze dreams. It even enabled art to tackled social or political issues in an uninhibited and strange new way, like with Guernica and Cubism.

And while we're on the subject, Guernica was completely ruined for me a long time ago.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOZTDP8Ff9w

The Yellow Gauguin

I would have to say that Gauguin's painting, “The Yellow Christ” can be considered as “avant-garde” for a few reasons, that include “reference, deference, and difference.” To start though, it reminds me of a slide from this weeks lecture that had “Avant-Garde” described as : 1. Challenging authority, and 2. Displayed art with unconventional techniques and modern subjects.

When I look at “The Yellow Christ” I can see that Gauguin is doing both of these. He challenges authority by possibly having Christ be a portrait of himself, while also depicting Christ in a sickly yellow color, within a modern setting. That's not what I would call conventional for a painting of the crucifixion.The painting is also unconventional because it's full of bright, but dirty colors, and it isn't a 'study of light' like in impressionism. Instead the colors give a sad and almost sickening feeling to the painting. And again it's also unconventional because it's depicting Christ in a modern setting, for the modern theme of the struggling artist verses the public.

Here are my broken up ideas for Gauguins, “reference, defere,ce and difference.”

Reference: I see this in how Gauguin chose to depict Christ in this painting. The way Christ is posed is a very iconic and recognizable image that's related to probably a thousand other paintings around the world. It shows that Gauguin is aware, of both current and past depictions of Christ and of the crucifixion. I also see reference in the colors that he chose to use, in order to depict emotion.

Deference and Difference: I would say that both of these connect to a term to describe art from this time period, “Synthetism.” Which is, “based on the idea that art should be a synthesis of three features, the outward appearance of natural forms, the artist's feelings about his subject, and purely aesthetic considerations of line, color, and form. Within, “The Yellow Christ” I can see that Gauguin has made it so that the viewer can recognize all of the natural (and unnatural) forms in the painting. His lines for them are also exaggerated and thick in some areas, while in other areas of the painting they are under exaggerated, and barely there, if not there at all. It makes the painting distorted and focuses attention on the aesthetic, as well as focuses on Gauguin's meaning behind the painting and the feelings that it should evoke.

Caillebotte

One thing that I would like to say before I begin is that I've never heard of Caillebotte before, but I have to say that I'm now a fan of his! His paintings are wonderful! :) I love impressionism!

When it comes to the concept of modernity in Caillebotte's work I think that his art is leaning more towards critiquing modern life, but only because of the use of isolationism in his paintings. However I do think that he celebrated modern life in his paintings as well, just not as much. I can see this in his painting Fruit Displayed on a Stand. Between the vibrant colors and the abundance of the fruit it seems like he is celebrating the availability of fresh food, commerce, and trade. It's a very different painting in comparison to the other ones that I've seen. It's bright and lively, and makes it seem as if not everything is wrong in the world.

But back to the critiquing, I would have to say that Caillebotte's painting, A Traffic Island, Boulevard Haussmann is a prime example of it. In the painting he isn't celebrating the use of the space. Instead of showing it as a busy area, full of life and accomplishment, he shows it as a big and mostly empty space with a few people here and there, either going about their own business or just kind of standing around. I'm speaking of course about the 2 men standing on opposite ends of the traffic island, are they traffic officers? Because if they are they don't seem to have much of a purpose that day. Which is also odd because they are the people in the image with the highest contrast in comparison to the background, you'd think that they would be the most important part about the painting and yet they're not doing anything.

The bright background on the painting also makes it feel as if the traffic island would be a very hot place to be. There are practically no shadows in the area, so it gives off a rather unpleasant feeling, and because of that I wouldn't want to walk across it. Even though the colors are beautiful it's very stuffy. If Caillebotte was critiquing the area, I wonder if that's what he was going for. If he wanted to make the space not as grand as it actually is, and point out all of the flaws it has when it's not filled with people.

Manet and Monet

Edouard Manet, the Rue Mosnier with Flags 1878 oil on canvas

Manet's The Rue Monsier with Flags was painted in 1878 during the festival on the 30^th of June. Manet's version of the festival shows a much quieter picture then what Monet had painted that same day. In Manet's painting we see a small street brightly lit by the sun. The buildings along the street reflect the light while tricolor flags dot along them. Unlike Monet's there are only a few scattered people along the street.

In the very foreground you can see a crippled, 1 legged, war veteran in a blue coat, using crutches to walk down the street. Manet included him in this calm, and almost somber scene, as a reminder of the past, and what was sacrificed so that there even could be a celebration at all. The veteran is juxtaposed against the background, he even has a small black outline around him to help with this. (Manet was known to juxtapose extreme light and darks in his paintings.) Another example of juxtaposition in this painting is the carriage on the right side of the street.. The darkness of the carriage pops it off of the blinding white street.

One thing that makes this painting balanced is the shadowed background, in comparison to the blinding white foreground. Even though the background is covered in shadows, it's very subtle, and you can still distinguish what everything is. Where the street turns, where the people are, the large tree...etc.

.

Claude Monet the Rue of Montorgueil, Festival of 30^th June 1878 oil on canvas

Monet's the Rue of Montorgueil, Festival of 30^th June 1878 was painted on the same day as Manet's however in a very different location, with a different message. While Manet's painting is a reminder of the past, Monet's painting is looking towards a bright future, and celebrating it.

Both sides of this painting are covered in rows and rows of flags, and the street below is completely filled with people, these two elements combined create an incredibly energetic scene. This scene is also from a higher perspective than Manet's. Because of that there is a much larger sense of scale in the painting.

One interesting thing about this painting is the light and dark balance in it. Both horizontally and vertically. The lower half of the painting is much darker, and the upper half of the painting is filled with a bright blue sky. While the right half of the painting is covered with dark shadows, while the left half of the painting is a bright yellow.

Both of these paintings are considered “avant-garde” in terms of style and political views. Monet's painting ignores the war that just happens while focusing on the future. While Manet's painting makes sure to bright the past into light, and to remind the people of what happened.

Impressionism

For this formal analysis I have chosen to write about is James boot McNeill Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold, The Falling Rocket on page 1,000. Impressionism is probably one of my favorite art styles (and artistic periods) so I had a hard time on deciding what painting to write about. But I've never seen any of Whistler's art before, so I figured that I would write about something new and fascinating to me.

Whistler's Nocturne was painted in 1875, is 22 ¾ x 18 3/8 in, and its medium is oil on panel. The first thing to notice about Whistler's painting is how dark the whole thing is. Aside from small bits of very bright yellow, red, and green fireworks there is very little color or light in the painting. The painting is very muted and has an almost haunting feel to it.

The different variants of blacks in the painting range from green to blue in color. On the left side of the painting the viewer can see a very large black shape taking up most of the length of the canvas. However near the bottom of this shape is a break, where one of the brightest shapes is located in the painting. This light shape is symmetrical (horizontally) and suggest where the lake starts and ends. The viewer can also tell where the lake starts because there is a line of horizontal brushstrokes all the way across the canvas. Though a lot of it is hard to see because the dark color of the strokes, blend in with the area above the lake. However there are a lot of very noticeable, long, vertical brushstrokes in the background, to help separate the different areas in the painting.

In the foreground you can see that several ghostly (transparent) figures of women are sitting on the curved lake bank watching the fireworks. Whistler loved to do abstract imagery in his paintings, but I wonder if these semi transparent figures look the way they do because of the smoke from the fireworks? Could the haze actually just be a lot of smoke causing the figures to look strange along the bank? There even just appears to be the shadow of a figure reflecting onto the bank and on the water in the lower right corner of the painting.

Nocturne, even though it is a very dark painting, has a good sense of scale and depth to it, for two reasons. One reason being that the painting is in a vertical format and that the figures in the foreground are so close to the bottom of the painting it focuses the viewer's attention on the very large landscape filled with shadows, smoke, and fireworks. The other reason being that, the viewer is not quite sure what objects are advancing or retreating in the painting. It gives a sense of mystery and I think it's up to the viewer to decide what exactly is in the background .

The limited color in Nocturne provides a strong contrast in the painting. With the wavy groups of light, gold, dots from the fireworks falling out of the sky towards the lake, surrounded by much darker areas. Some of these golden dots even get larger in the size the closer they get to the foreground in the painting. These gold dots work well with the vertical format of the painting because the viewer can see that they are falling from a pretty good distance. The viewer can also see that in contrast to the golden dots there is also smoke rising up towards the top of the painting around the falling dots.

Along with the golden bits of light, there is also a small grouping of much larger red, green and yellow lights at the very top of the painting. I think that these are supposed to be other fireworks off in the distance, but I'm not entirely sure. What I can say though is that Whistler illuminated them so that they look as if their insides are glowing, though they're not producing any light around them.

The Stonebreakers

Gustave Courbet's painting, The Stonebreakers was considered offensive to the bourgeoisie for several reasons. Some of reasons that I can think of are a mix between political and technical things. When looking at Stonebreakers you can see that Courbet used rough paint strokes in the painting, I mostly see these strokes in the background, on the various rocks and objects scattered about. I don't really see the rough brush strokes on the figures though. They seem rather clean and realistic looking. Though I can still see why the bourgeoisie would be upset at the rough brush strokes here and there because of how academic paintings were devoid of noticeable brush strokes.

Another thing to point out would be the size of the figures and how far into the foreground they are. Because of how big the figures are there is very little landscape in the background and Courbet isn't portraying a lot of depth/space in this painting. Though, I personally think that despite the limited background in the painting Courbet was able to portray a good deal of space and depth within the painting. The size of the 2 people in the painting also upset the bourgeoisie because, in the past lower class people were displayed in much smaller sizes, where the landscapes took up most of the paintings.

The subject matter was also offensive to the bourgeoisie because it was of modern, lower class, stonebreakers, who the bourgeoisie thought were not important enough to paint a picture of. The two stonebreakers that you see in the painting are working away by a road. The older man is kneeling down and bending over some rocks with a hammer, while a younger man is trying to carry a very heavy basket of broken stones. Both of these figures are in torn clothing, and you can tell that they are working very hard and struggling with what they are doing.

The figures in Courbet's painting are also not turned to look at the viewer, and even have their faces covered in shadow, which disturbed and upset the bourgeoisie because of the recent unrest of the working class, and because Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto had been published a year earlier. Not being able to see their faces reminded them of the countless working class rising up against them. And not being able to tell what the figures were thinking, was very disturbing and frightening to the higher class bourgeoisie. (It was also considered an untraditional way of portraying people in paintings. There was supposed to be some sort of connection in the painting to the viewer.)

The size of the painting also upset the bourgeoisie because, in the past larger paintings were reserved for historical events with great importance. And since Stonebreakers is showing an untraditional, lowly, subject matter, of the working class, the bourgeoisie considered it offensive towards traditional and historical art.

Avant-Garde

When I've thought about the word “avant-garde” in the past I've always connected it movies or t.v shows with overly artsy people talking about what I saw as really bad modern art. So, I've always associated it as something negative. Our book lists the positive associations of the avant-garde, as forging ahead, breaking down barriers, caring nothing for expectations, being innovative, and challenging conventions. However it also states the its negative associations are, difficulty and incomprehensibility.

I can understand what the avant-garde means to do, by changing art as time goes on by challenging conventions. But at the same time I look at some of these works of art and I don't necessarily think that the avant-garde is always advancing art as a whole.

Just to get this out there, for the most part I can't stand a lot of modern art, and I absolutely cannot stand the topic “what is art?” because I've had that topic drilled into me so much, and the topic never goes anywhere. So, for a good portion of this quarter I'm more than likely not going to be very into/enjoying what we're reading, but I'm still going to give it a chance.

When I was going through our first reading, this is what I thought about the different examples of modern art: Mondrian's Composition with Yellow and White is not a bad painting, even though I'm not a fan of Mondrian he knew how to use color and composition in his art so I respect him; on the other hand I can't stand Marcel Duchamp, the book shows his L.H.O.O.Q painting and I understand that it's supposed to be mocking the Lisa, but my response to that is, “so, you copied a famous painting and drew a mustache on it and wrote that it has a hot ass, so what?” Duchamp is also the one who found a urinal and placed it in a gallery and had people question whether or not it's considered art. which of course there is no answer to; the other artist that I would like to point out is Damien Hirst, and I'm not entirely sure what to think of him between the diamond skull and all of the animals he has suspended in formaldehyde, such as the shark in our book or even the “unicorn.” I mean his work is really interesting, but at the same time I see it more as something that should just be in a science museum rather than as an art exhibit.

Now to move onto Manet's Luncheon on the Grass and how I think it challenges the viewer. Some of the things that Manet did that might have been considered avant-garde were, his use of brush strokes. Up until then paintings, from the Academy, had no traces of brush strokes in them. In Manet's painting he use quick brush strokes with thick paint. Because of this a lot of objects in the painting look like blobs and the painting looks more like a study rather than a completed work of art.

Another thing that Manet did was he depicted a nude of a modern prostitute, instead of depicting a classical nude, with modernly clothed men. One interesting thing about the prostitute is how she is staring out at the viewer as if you're apart of the picnic as well.

The other avent-garde challenge to conventional art that Manet put into the painting is the woman bathing in the background. Even though she's far into the background she is the same size as all of the other figures in the painting, when she should be a lot smaller. This makes the foreground/middle ground/background a bit confusing and a lot of the painting seems very flat.

What I liked the most?

During this term the type of art that I particularly enjoyed studying was, art in the 15^th century by Jan van Eyck.

Considering that I just began to study oil paints this term I have to say that the most inspirational person to read about (and see the works of) is van Eyck. Just the detail image of Giovanni Arnolfini and His Wife on page 575 is enough to make me want to head over to the studio and paint. The beads hanging on the wall in particular are my favorite part of the painting. The way that van Eyck was able to show light shinning through the beads and into their shadows amazes me. Another aspect that I like about it is the weight that I feel from the beads as they hang from the nail in the wall. You can see that the thin rope is tight with their weight, but not so much that it is straining the rope or the nail.

Right after reading this chapter I actually had to paint clear beads in a still life, and even though they're no where near as incredible as van Eyck's I'm still proud of myself for being able to show light passing through them, and the little bar in the middle for the line to go through.

Another thing that I just now noticed in the detailed image is the window's reflection in the mirror. It shows the outside world a bit more than the actual window in the painting. I can't exactly tell what I see in the window's reflection, but it looks almost like a row of sunflowers. That mirror really does reflect everything from a different perspective. It's nice to be able to see the backside of the fruit, the rest of the furniture, and even all of the details on the ceiling.

(The only thing that I don't see reflected in the mirror is the dog, why wouldn't the dog be in the reflection? It's standing between the couple so it should be there.)

The other thing that is probably the most striking to me about this painting is the size of it. The whole double portrait is only 33x22 ½ inches. That strikes me so much because it's only a little bit bigger than the canvases that painting students have to use in their classes. It's insane to think that he was able to get so much detail into a canvas that's that small. And because of the amount of detail in the painting every time I look at it I see something new. Just now I noticed the stained glass design above the window, but oddly enough that too is not reflected in the mirror.

Mill Paintings

For this weeks blog I have decided to write about several works of art by Francois Boucher. I wasn't able to find as much information as I had hoped to on these paintings, but there were no full text articles online about Boucher's landscapes.

Here are the paintings:

1. The Mill, 1751

http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/kunst/francois_boucher/the_mill_1751_oil_on_canvas_hi.jpg

2. Landscape with Watermill and Temple, 1743. Oil on canvas

http://media.kunst-fuer-alle.de/img/36/m/36_153204~landscape-with-water-mill,-1743.jpg

3. Landscape with a Watermill, 1755. Oil on canvas, 57.2 x 73 cm.

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/upload/img/boucher-landscape-watermill-NG6374-fm.jpg

References for these three paintings can be found here http://www.artres.com/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox&VBID=2UN365IS6RB0&VBIDL=&SMLS=1&RW=1333&RH=581

And on Artstor when searching for Francois Boucher Watermill. I also found information on Landscape with a watermill here http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/francois-boucher-landscape-with-a-watermill

That last link was able to provide me with interesting information on why Boucher was so interested in these soft, idyllic landscapes in rural areas. All three of these paintings are of Boucher romanticizing about the “rural way of life” and rural landscapes in general. Which makes sense because Bocher was considered to be a Parisian Rococo painter, like Watteau.

Within each of these paintings the viewer can see how Boucher has created an all around beautiful and idyllic landscape with people living in/working in it. However the people are not the main focus of any of these paintings. Sure they are there and doing their daily work or relaxing, but the scenery and the mills take up most of the space in the paintings and dwarf the people inhabiting them.

Out of the three paintings I think that Landscape with Watermill and Temple accomplishes this romantic and idyllic feeling the best. The figures in this painting are smaller than in any of the others. And you get an immense feeling of deep space with the forest and sky behind the mill. The part that I think romanticizes it the most though is the Roman looking temple in the forest.

One thing that I find interesting about the other two mill paintings is how similar they both look to one another. I feel as if Boucher has a very set ideal for what a rural mill would look like, and he sticks to that throughout his paintings. Both of these paintings look so similar to me I feel as if the mills would be found near each other on the same stream.

Comparing all three of them though I can see a rather major shift. Landscape with Watermill and Temple was painting in 1743 and has very dramatic lighting and a sharpness to it, that is just not seen in the other two mill paintings that were painted 12 years later.

Bernini V.S Michelangelo

I've been waiting forever to write on a subject like this, and I promise that I'm going to keep it as far away from “Bernini is better than Michelangelo because...” as possible..... even though he is.

During the Baroque period in the 17^th century they incorporated ideals like naturalism, and a very small amount of idealism, into their work. While they also rejected humanism, because it wasn't the subject for art at the time due to the counter reformation.

In Bernini's “David” you can see that David is portrayed as a more naturalistic person, and not entirely idealized like Michelangelo's “David.” With Bernini you can see a lot of muscles on David's body, however you don't see all of them, and David is also much more mature looking. Unlike Michelangelo's where you see every muscle on young David's body in perfect definition.

Even though Bernini's David isn't idealized, it's still a depiction of a famous Classical character and it makes up for not being idealized with the amount of drama and energy that can be seen in it. Michelangelo's David is very static standing there in contrapposto, and just being the ideal person who accomplished something great (or is about to.) While with Bernini's David it's a lot harder to tell what David is doing, because the statue looks different from every angle.

From one angle it looks like he just got his sling into position to throw it, but from other angles it looks like he is building up the energy and power in his body to launch it at Goliath. From one angle in particular it looks like the exact second that he is going to throw it with all of his might. This illusionism was valued in Baroque art, and for David it really helps trick the viewer into to thinking that the statue is going to start moving.

Both of these statues where made of the same material and depict the same story, but because of Baroque art Bernini wanted to show a Classical David in action, while also using illusionism to involve the viewer with the story to make it seem as if part of it was happening right in front of them. To that end I believe that Baroque art added ideals that Renaissance art needed, and I'm glad that it was able to borrow from the Renaissance and improve upon it to make the great works of art that we can see today.

(p.s. Bernini made stone look like squishy skin!) http://maitaly.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/proserpina5.jpg

Albrect Dürer watercolor

In order to show Albrect Dürer's relationship with early northern European traditions, and the Italianate features in his artwork I have chosen two works of art.

Wing of a Roller, 1512, watercolor and gouache on vellum,

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFHwkjs8OfQWRJT5D7FoursfNfJWZB40h9A42FhXT_mc3-5QUK0zE1DppK9NORD8dU0EYDgBNyvqIC2MCqGuQY0trutGkKwz6ug0EEXbzDkf8CGkAWmp4uRxCC8AeukTD4PGKa-fx8qn0/s1600/DurerCranesWing.gif

Cupid the Honey Thief, 1514, Pen and ink and watercolor on paper.

http://nbba.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/cupidthehoneythief.jpg

I chose Wing of a Roller because the amount of fine details in it reminded me of earlier works by Jan van Eyck. In Dürer's watercolor study of this bird's wing he brings out an enormous amount of realism and naturalism in the painting. When looking at the bird's wing you can see where every feather starts and stops, and how it overlaps the next one beneath it. By looking at it you can also feel the textures associated with each of the feathers. From the soft fuzzy ones where the wing used to meet the body, to the soft, fragile, and small ones in the middle of the wing, and to the stiffer long ones that make up the lower half of the wing. Though my favorite detail for the wing has to be how he took note of how some of the feathers are shiny and have light roll across them, while how others are just muted and softer in the light.

When looking at this painting I just want to stick my hand out and mess up the feathers, because it feels as if there should be more underneath of what we are seeing. His use of color is also beautiful, and when looking at a real picture of a Roller you can definitely see what he saw while creating this work of art.

While the other work I chose, Cupid the Honey Thief, reminded me of an Italianate style. The woman in the painting is in a contrapposto pose, with almost all of her weight going onto her right foot. Her body is very natural, and though she is not entirely nude, you can see almost all of the curves on her body, and the painting does seem to be celebrating the nude figure. There are also a lot of fine details throughout her whole body. And I've just now realized that this figure looks a lot like Dürer's Eve, from his Adam and Eve engraving. They both have the same forehead, nose, hair, and body shape.

Her arm is also foreshortened, a long with Cupids leg as he's trying to get away from the bees swarming him. It almost looks as if she is scolding him for stealing the honey. One thing that also struck me about that ugly cupid is how he has wings on his back. It's a strange mix considering all of the other humanism/naturalist qualities in the painting, and I also find it kind of strange that his wings are one of the only areas of color in the painting.

In all honesty though, the main reason why I chose these works is because I saw it as an opportunity to be able to write about watercolor in this class. I wish that there were more opportunities for it though, because of how beautiful some of these paintings can be. I wanted to write about more Dürer watercolors that I found, that showed some beautiful atmospheric perspective, but I don't have the time to write about them all day. So to whoever reads this I'd like for you to check out the 2^nd link that Professor Bowen posted and look for the two Dürer watercolor galleries.

Mannerism........¿¿¿

Abraham Janssens, The Origin of the Cornucopia can fit within the realm of Mannerism for a few reasons. The first being how the figures within the painting are twisted and positioned in ways that make them seem out of balance. For a lot of the figures I feel as if they are either going to fall forward onto their faces, or fall sideways, as if they are drunken and unstable. The second reason being how out of proportion each of the figures are. This is especially noticeable in the figure on the right side of the foreground, her thigh/leg is utterly massive, however most of the figures in the painting have out of proportion limbs.

The Origin of the Cornucopia reminds me a lot of the Allegory with Venus and Cupid on page 663. In both of the paintings all of the figures seem rather pudgy with well toned muscles. It's kind of a strange mix that seems to come from this Mannerist style. The more I look around Cornucopia the stranger the things I see. Especially in that one woman in the right foreground. I've just now realized how big her shoulder is, it's just as big, if not bigger than her entire head. Both of these paintings are also very busy, with each figure doing something, such as pointing one way but looking another. It's all rather confusing and I'm not sure what the focus of the paintings should be.

Vincent Sellaer, Leda and the Swan and Her Children reminds me a lot of Pontormo’s Entombment on page 661. The lighting, and the way the figures are painted, are quite different in each painting. However they are similar in how the figures seem to be floating in space and not resting on everything. They seem stacked and you can't tell what their bodies are resting on.

In Leda and the Swan what I really want to know is what she is leaning her body on. You can see that under the cloth that he leg is laying on something, and that her right arm is resting on the swans neck, but she feels horribly off balance and as a painter it bothers me to be honest...

The weightlessness, and the lack of balance that each figure has ties the painting to Mannerism. There is some elongation with the figures as well, but it isn't quite as apparent. I can really only see it in the woman's left arm, and with the standing child in the background. I feel as if the child should be a lot shorter then that, but then I'm also not sure where his feet are supposed to be..

However I will say that I think that the swan was a good choice for this mannerist painting, because they already have elongated necks. (Hah.. bad joke)

Early vs. High Renaissance

The work of art from the Early Renaissance that I have chosen is the Camera Picta by Andrea Mantegna, from the Ducal Palace in Mantua, on page 620. And the work of art from the high Renaissance that I have chosen to compare it to is Corregio's Assumption of the Virgin from the Parma Cathedral in Itally, on page 653. More specifically I should be saying that I will only be comparing a part of the Camera Picta, its domed ceiling, to the Assumption of the Virgin.

Upon the domed ceiling Mantegna painted what is called a tour de force of radical perspective in a technique called di sotto in su, “from below upwards.” It makes it appear as if the dome has opened up to the sky and heavens above the building. He painted the opening to this sky as a large oculus in the form of simulated marble and a mosaic-covered vault. Looking down through the oculus are a series of figures ranging from children, to adults, to even a peacock. There is even a large pot painted on the top opening of the oculus, looking as if it could fall down onto the viewer.

This same kind of illusionistic ceiling can be seen later, in the high Renaissance, in Corregio's Assumption of the Virgin. This time on a more grander scale, that employs other painting techniques, such as foreshortening, idealism, and sfumato. The “opening” in this ceiling leads up to a blinding white and yellow light, as figures are clouds are pulled and swirled upwards toward it. There is even one figure out in the middle of the painting as if he is either being sucked up towards the light or falling down away from it. Either way though the figure looks frantic and is reaching out to the other figures in the mass of clouds.

In the Camera Picta there is a good sense of depth in the sky from the clouds gradually getting smaller as they fade back into space, and are covered with atmospheric perspective. There is also a good sense of depth from the oculus, that makes the opening really look as if it's a tube leading into another space. However, even though some of the figures have body parts extending out into our space, a lot of the figures have rather flat faces and features. Naturalism is also lost with the wings and halos that some of the figures have as well, and their isn't a great amount of dynamic unity in the painting. Some of the figures do have their bodies angled in ways to help move your eyes around the painting, but there are still rather stiff and some of the figures (or heads) are just kind of there and not doing anything.

While in Corregio's painting there is a lot of dynamic unity. Every figure in the painting is posed in a dramatic way, and trying to hold onto something as the clouds and winds pull on them. One figure can be seen holding onto a plant for dear life, while others are seen grasping to other figures around them while their clothes are blown and twisted around them. Because of the picture some of the figures do look flat and the perspective is lost, however there is still a great amount of detail and foreshortening happening with arms, legs, and bodies as there are blown upwards into the sky. The sfumato also adds a soft touch to the painting making clouds and people farther into the painting look fuzzier, and adding depth to the painting. There is also a great sense of naturalism in the painting, unlike the Camera Picta there are no halos, or wings, on any of the figures and you can see great details in the muscles and features of each figure.

However despite these differences I would not say that Corregio's painting is better than Mantegna's. This is because both of these painters and paintings accomplish the illusion of space on a flat surface. Both were able to accurately portray an opening to the heaves on a ceiling. And despite how simple Mantegna's is there is something that I really like about just seeing the clouds slowly disappear as they get higher and higher up.

--------------------

On another note I would also like to add that I was tempted to write about Michelangelo for this blog, but I didn't want it to be nothing but a 500 long rant about what I do and don't like about his work. I do recognize him as having amazing talent in the way he can portray clothing, hair, muscles...etc. in marble. But when I see things like this http://renresearch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/michelangelo-night.jpg a woman who has breasts that are about a foot wide apart.. I can't recognize Michelangelo as a truely great artist.

Early Southern Renaissance

The work of art from the early Italian Renaissance that I have chosen to examine is the Jacob and Esau, Panel of the “Gates of Paradise”” (East doors) by Lorenzo Ghiberti. The panel, by itself, is 79cm square and made of gilded bronze. My initial reaction to it was how well I thought space was portrayed, along with how well the figures are formed in the bronze.

The linear perspective used in this scene gives off a very strong portrayal of depth in the panel, and it can even be seen represented as the floor tiles within the scene. These tiles continue far into the background before fading into the unknown. Figures in the panel also decrease in size the farther they are into the background, and like the lines of the tiles they too begin to slowly fade away. This fading, or vanishing, seems to be form of atmospheric perspective because the figures become fuzzier and loose a lot of their definition. This can especially be seen when Rebecca is listening to G-d and when she is giving birth to her two sons.

While this linear perspective is drawing the eyes of the viewer into the scene, there is also a story advancing from the background to the foreground. This continuing narrative tells the story of the lives of Jacob and Esau through the use of calculated spacing between the scenes, so that the viewer will be able to follow along in only one panel. I'm not sure though if this scene would be considered as a Historia. It has the characteristics of one, it tells a historic story, it instructs the viewer in a pleasurable way, it has a large number of figures placed in a wide variety of dramatic and emotive poses, but I'm not sure if I see any of the figures communicating to the viewer. None of them are starring out at the viewer, but there is one figure in the center of the panel that appears as if he could be pointing at an important feature within the panel.

The light and shadow used across the bronze also adds depth and form to both the scene and to the figures within it. This is the only use of color in the panel, and it is executed very well. Through the play of light and shadow human form can easily be seen beneath clothing, and clothing it self takes on form through the shadows created within its folds. The shadows inside the architecture, coupled by the perspective of the ceiling and arches, creates a very believable building and space within the scene. It's almost as if the figure could take his finger and poke it all the way through to the other end of the building.

The style of the figures, and of the scene, is very naturalistic and classical. Several figures can be seen in either a contrapposto, or semi contrapposto like stance. Their bodies are proportionate and you can see foreshortening happening with some of the figures. One good example is the figure in the center of the foreground, standing either as if he has just taken a step, or as if he is in contrapposto. His left leg is raised and pushed out into our space, and foreshortened to make it seem like a believable pose.

The scale used for the figures and the scene is also very believable and naturalistic. The dog seems to be the correct size of a dog; all of the humans throughout the space are proportionate, and the building is a large and believable space that the viewer could easily see the figures walking around in.

One other interesting thing about some of the figures in the panel is that parts of their bodies, or clothing, extend outside of the panel and enter into our space. It makes it seem as if the figures are not contained within the work of art, and could easily move around and venture outwards to the other gilded panels on the door.

The Northern Renaissance I Respect

Judging by the documentary I would say that the types of ideas that were valued in the Northern Renaissance were religion and status based. In the second half of the documentary it is mentioned that religious images had the ability to enter the soul through the portal of the eye. I never knew this before, and now I understand why so many religious paintings were created and why they were so important for the culture of the time.

I always understood religious paintings as a way for people to view religious figures from history, but I never knew that when people gazed upon them they believed that part of the figure would enter them, and that they would then experience the figure as a real person and not as a work of art. And now I also understand how much these paintings must have meant to the people that commissioned them. Especially if they themselves were included in the painting, along with the historical religious figure that they connect themselves to.

Along with religious purposes paintings became a way to show status. Courts originally commissioned tapestries to be made for them, but when Jan van Eyck started a painting revolution in Northern Europe paintings became a way to show status and value. If you were able to have a portrait done of yourself, or of you with some saint or religious figure then that would count towards you, and increase your court value.

And since in Flanders it was believed that courtly expenditure trickled down and improved the lives of common people then paintings were a great, and cheaper, way to do this. Even people with lower incomes could afford some of these paintings, and with them they could improve their reputation and status by being able to say that Jan van Eyck did a painting of them, just as he did with the Duke of the area. (These paintings were cheaper than gold and jewels).

Despite this though, paintings weren't always considered to be a very respectable craft. And in fact were first considered to be along the same lines as a what a tanner would make. Sculpture was considered to be the most valuable and respected craft of the time. Altarpieces were sculpted, rather than painted on the inside, while just their doors and casings were painted. Jan van Eyck changed all of this though when he finished his brother's painting The Ghent Altarpiece. This started the Northern Renaissance, and Jan van Eyck's style of painting became highly valued. With it's remarkable realism and attention to detail.

This realism, or naturalism, was the style for the Northern Renaissance. Figures and scenes were painted in a way that made them look, in some cases, as if they could step out of their frames and join us in the real world. Jan van Eyck was the master of this style and put a tremendous amount of time and effort into each of his paintings. With using layers upon layers of oil paint and washes that he made himself. These layers caused his paintings to be illuminated, and when light shines upon them in a certain (but specific way) then they reflect light, and create shadow, as if the painting were an actual part of the room, and as if the figures were real. Even to the tiny details put into jewelry that show a reflection of a nearby window that would be shinning onto the painting.

Jan van Eyck is one of the few artists in history that I truly respect, and I hope that one day I'll be able to paint just one small miniscule object the same way that he did, with the same amount of luminosity and detail.

Art History 236

Hi everyone! I saw some people on the group list that I recognized from last term, and I also saw a whole bunch of new people. I am looking forward to reading your blogs again, it's really nice to get a different perspective on these art styles.

Just some other stuff to get out of the way: my name is Amanda Hanson I'm a Senior BFA drawing and painting major here at CWU, though I still have a year left of college after this one. My favorite medium is watercolor and I have just now started to learn oils. I'm not a big fan of this artistic period, but I do like a lot about it; and I'm even less of a fan of what we will be learning in spring. However I am a very big fan of prehistoric to ancient Greek art.

When it comes to art in the 15^th and 16^th Centuries I am not entirely sure why it is held in such high regard in our culture. I also do not know why Renaissance art is considered better than other types of art. I do however think that it is all a matter of personal preference for people. Some may consider art from the Renaissance to be better while other people may consider contemporary art to be better, while others might say that both suck and prefer something else.

I also think that artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael get the most attention in our culture because they were the artists that got a lot of attention in history. Michelangelo was working for the church, Da Vinci was literally doing everything, and Raphael was just as much of a prodigy as the other two were. They were the lucky ones in history to get the attention focused on them. And even I admit that they had talent, however I also say that for every good work of art that Michelangelo did there was always a woman painted in it who was horribly disfigured and looked like a man with a messed up boob job. But then again I also think that Gian Lorenzo Birnini was a better sculptor and makes Michelangelo look over rated. Its not that I have anything against Michelangelo, I think he was a talented artist with a good sense of humor in his work, but at the same time my personal preferences keep him out of my all time favorite artists.

In the past I have had an art history class that covered 14^th to 17^th Century art, but I am looking forward to learning about some of it again, and I am hoping that this time around I will be able to understand why people like it so much.