Select any of the images we viewed last Friday. What were your initial impressions? Why have you selected this image? How might studying the work yield a greater understanding of the historical period and vice-versa? If you did not attend the trip, visit one of the sites below and examine a work online to complete the assignment.
http://artgallery.yale.edu/
http://ycba.yale.edu/education/edu_fellowships.html
15 comments:
Since I was unable to go on the field trip I visited the Yale Art Gallery website and selected the painting entitled "Ave Caesar! Morituri te salutant (Hail Caesar! We Who Are About to Die Salute You)", painted by the artist Jean-Léon Gérôme in 1859. The first few things I noticed was the use of contrasting colors between the sky and sand, as well as the shadow that extends across the painting from left to right. It seems to darken especially over the emperor, who the roman gladiators are saluting. This could have been used by the artist to express the attitudes of the gladiators at being forced to fight and kill for the audience's and the emperor's pleasure. I also noticed that the realism that was evident in earlier pieces of Baroque style by such artists as Bernini and Donatello, was less evident in the work. The subjects of Gerome's work are seen at a distance and are not shown with much care to their physical detail. Instead, a large emphasis is placed on the Colosseum itself, specifically the architecture of the structure.
I selected this image because I thought it was unique to some of the other images I went through. It was not simply a portrait of a person or family, but rather was a depiction of a live action event. It was almost like a snapshot of the time, and if the artist had waited a few more seconds the scene before him would have changed dramatically. Unlike a portrait, where the subject would remain in the same position for great lengths of time, this painting shows the ending scene of a long struggle of warriors. It is also more graphic then some other paintings that I looked through. Although there is not blood throughout the work, there are still figures that are either dying or dead, which is different from the more happy landscapes of other scenes. This painting has almost a brutish quality about it that I thought differentiated itself from the others.
The work definitely gives an accurate depiction of the time period in the way that it doesn't falsify the deaths of the gladiators and it also shows the wealth and status of the emperor. The columns adorned with golden eagles as well as the royal red chair seated shows the significance of the emperor to his people. This painting also tells its audience that the gladiators were not well clothed or armed as many of them are wearing little and have pitchforks as weapons. The vast array of people in the stands shows that the games held at the Colloseum were well watched and admired by the Romans. Though I have limited knowledge of the time period, I know that the artist is accurate in his portrayal of the gladiators and the emperor, as the differences in status between them were vast. Emperors often used the games to recieve compliments from the people who enjoyed the festivies associated with the 'sport'. This painting can teach both about the time period, as well as portraying the time period accurately based on previous knowledge.
The image I selected is called “Allegory of Intemperance” by Hieronymus Bosch. My initial impression of the painting is one of shock. It’s just an absolutely surreal image that Bosch is portraying. The main focus of the picture is these naked men wading in a green sludge-like liquid and drinking out of a keg. On top of the keg sits a short strangely dressed man playing some sort of a horn like instrument. I was just shocked by the almost demonic nature of this whole scene.
I selected this image because I found it to be the most interesting piece of all of the pieces that we viewed. I liked the allegorical nature of the piece. It isn’t portraying a realistic scene like most of the other pieces we saw. It clearly is trying to convey a message and is filled with symbolism. It isn’t just a nice looking picture. I also think that this picture can tell us a lot about the time period in which it was painted. Most pictures are just superficial images from the time periods they represented. It’s good to see what they looked like, but I really want to know what these time periods were for the people who lived in them. Lastly, I just liked the rawness of the picture. Bosch wasn’t hiding anything or sugarcoating anything when he painted this. He was truly expressing his feelings. He also clearly wasn’t afraid to shock or scare people.
I think that this picture can tell us a lot about the time period during which it was painted. It was painted sometime between 1495 and 1500. During this time period, we have the Renaissance really coming into full swing, and people starting to get interested in science and reason. People began to turn away from religion as well because of the corruption of the Catholic Church during this time period. Bosch was an extremely religious person, so these two events may have had an impact on this painting. This painting helps us understand that many people were upset about the movement away from faith which occurred during this time period. The painting depicts a world of sin and chaos, which may have been how Bosch saw this time period. This painting really demonstrates to me that while there were a fortunate few who could participate in the Renaissance; there were many who still clung to their religious ways. This painting could also be seen as a critique of the Catholic Church. The man on the barrel is wearing an outfit vaguely reminiscent of a monk. To the right, there is a woman drinking with a man. This woman appears to be wearing a white habit on her head, similar to a nun. This displays how Bosch and others may have viewed the church of the time period as sinful.
Knowing about the time period definitely can help us understand the painting as well. First of all, as I said before, if you knew about the corruption of the Catholic Church during this time period it would really help you interpret this painting. Also, if you knew about the Renaissance that was occurring during this period, you would understand how really peculiar this painting was. Also, I think if I knew more about how drinking was viewed by general society during this time period, it would really help. It is clear that many of the figures in this painting are drinking so I would like to understand how much of a taboo this was back then. I think that this painting can really tell us a lot about Europe in the early 1500s.
The piece I chose is titled
“J.M.W. Turner, Staffa, Fingal’s Cave, 1831–32, oil on canvas, Paul Mellon Collection.”
This piece futures a industrial steamboat on the sea, and the perspective is from a cave. The cave on the west coast of Scotland, was in fact a popular tourist attraction in the 18th century because of its strange formations of basalt, the cave was made famous by Ossianic poems, by Celtic homer.
My impression from this picture is gloomy, the dark and yellow colors give an impression of warning, that something bad is to happen. The sun in the picture is about to set, and there seems to be storm clouds coming in. The picture shows that man is still below nature, even though he might have technology such as the steam boat.
I selected this image, because it is like the images we have discussed before during the IR teachings, it has the same mixing of colors as seen in images like the train and bridge, and it has the same theme of industrialization.
Studying of such work give further info the romantic view of the industrialization. J.M.W. Turner is a romantic , and by this painting he seems to give the impression that man is submissive before nature, therefore nature is dominant. This was a common triat of romantics at the time. These romantics were against industrialization, belizing that it mechanizes man.
The picture that I picked was Camille on the Beach at Trouville by Claude Monet in 1870. Claude Monet is one of my favorite artists because he always uses his scenery really as one of his focal points, and really captures more of the feel of the place more than the detail that would make it more formal. This piece interested me the most because I love beach scenes, and depending on the colors, you can get a sense of the emotion the artist was feeling at the time it was created. Its easy to compare similar thoughts on a piece when you can connect with its origionality and understand what the artist was feeling at the time. This picture left an open space for one to form an opinion and relate to it because of it’s colors and because almost everyone has been to the beach, so they know what it looks like and how it feels to be on it.
This picture makes me feel like this lady is not so much unhappy, but more lost. She is looking away from the ocean and what seems to be her son and his caretaker, which makes me feel like she doesn’t want to be there. Usually, when you’re at the beach, you don’t weat nice clothes like she is, and she is also carrying an umbrella when it is niether rainy or sunny. The dark colors used makes it look like its not the summer, but more of a cold time and not a usual time to be at the beach. The lady looks mystertious because she doesn’t have a face, but it that makes it seem more like she is lost. I think that Monet left that up to interpretation so that the viewer can make their own opinion of the piece. The lady lacks any detail which makes her seem like she is a plain woman without any purpose at the time. She makes me think that in this time at Monet’s life, he had something in the back of his mind that he wanted but couldn’t reach, though he was some what conent with his life.
This piece especailly can teach about this time in history. It shows what I think is more of the wealthy class because she is wearing an elegant dress to a place where there is a good chance it could get dirty. This proves that the upper class was very proud of how they presented themselves and wanted it to be obvious everywhere that they went.Also you can see people in the water way in the back of the picture, so that could emply that it was their job to maybe go clamming or something. Monet’s style of painting also teaches us about his time because he was an artist who invented a new technique, so people started to step away from all of the fine detail and focus on the big picture.
Mark Morris
A.P. European History
13 February 2007
Mr. Kirby
Art Review
I selected a group of prices we viewed last Friday to explain. I believe the works were a series about a hunting part. The first picture depicted two men and a several dogs preparing for a hunting trip. The second picture showed them heading out for the hunt, the third picture showed them men shooting a bird, and the last picture showed the men and dogs with their kill in the early evening.
What was my initial impressing on this series? It was the simplistic manor of which attracted my attention. The paintings had very simple brush strokes that at the same time expressed much detail throughout the paintings. Each stroke was deliberant and came together to express very realistic scenes. The colors were very much earth toned. These pictures of course were of the countryside, so there were many rich browns, and greens and different types of shading applied that seemed to make the picture come alive. In each picture you understood the everyday tasks the author was trying to display to the viewer. There was no much guess work involved. It was the simplicity that attracted me to these works.
I picked these works mainly because it displayed the parts of European society we do not look at in depth, the peasants, and everyday life of England’s peasants. We are so focused on the big industrialization of England’s cities, we rarely discuss the countryside. This picture helped illustrate the life of an everyday Joe to me.
This series of pictures helps illustrate the life of every day peasants, and the lesser known part of society. If one were to study the series of pictures one would find out how and what was hunted by the locals, as wells as some of the techniques (i.e. Dogs) and the type of weapons were used to hunt game. Also the type of game that was hunted could be discovered based on the series of pictures. The pictures also portray the English countryside. People could quite easily get pictures of what type of plants grew in the country side and the type of plants and shrubs that were in existence during the time period. This is by no means a guide to plants for the region, but one could quite clearly infer as to what type of plants grew in the English countryside. In the first two pictures a house is present so it is assumed that one could gather the basic structure of a house during the time period. Also this series displays the everyday activities of people.
What one does not see is the urbanization of England during the time. There are no cities or factories present. Also Government or other forms of rule are not featured in these pictures, as is pictures of affluence or wealth. Not many machines or technology is described in the paintings, so one cannot see the type of machines that existed during the time period. In short this picture soley describes everyday life of an average person, not that of a factory worker, or a government official. Wealth, mechanization, and urbanization are the three main things we cannot infer by looking at this series of pictures.
“Blam” by Roy Lichtenstein made me very excited when I first saw it. At first I thought it was simply a printed object, and I wondered if it could really qualify as art. However, upon further inspection, I realized that it was actually painted. This struck me as very impressive; while the dots were not all the same size, they were still all present and in the appropriate positions. The lines were also all very close to what they should have been, and the picture showed little evidence of brushwork. The amount of work that the artist had put into this work was tremendous. By studying this image, it would be possible to assume that dot matrix printing was a new thing at the time and still fascinated many people. The subject matter of the picture may also tell about the time period from which the picture is from. It is possible that there was a war going on at the time in the area, and for that reason the artist decided to paint the image of a fighter plane being shot down. By studying the art from a period, we are able to understand much about it. Because art depicts what a particular time is like and the technological advances from it, as historians we are able to learn a lot about the time and the people who lived in it. Because of this art can be considered to be a very important part of placing histories about the past together.
The picture that I chose to analyze was the one with the multiple blacksmiths making a horseshoe for an old man. They are in an abandoned old church and appear to have made a business out of horseshoe making. On the left side of the picture can be seen a few more workers who are working with what appears to be a white horse, possibly the old man’s. I selected this image because it had an obvious direct relation to the industrial revolution and also had a few hidden qualities to it that were at first misinterpreted and then later explained by the tour guide.
Looking at the picture, it is obvious that the conditions for the men are harsh, as they are all in a cramped building with a chunk of wall missing that shows the night sky. The main focus of the painting seemed to be on the forging of the metal (the title had something to do with steel) based upon what they were working on and the large amount of crafted materials placed around the building. One of the first impressions that I got from the old man that it was an old woman. Later, the curator explained to the group that it was indeed a man. Also, I had believed the men in the left corner were just working on more materials, but the curator once again pointed out to the group that there was a small sliver of white between them that belonged to a horse’s hind legs.
From this work there can be seen a variety of aspects of life in the time period, the industrial revolution. One of the first things, as mentioned earlier, was the abundance of forged steel. This acts as evidence of the growth of the industrial revolution, with the invention of new ways of forging steel, coking, and its new popularity. Also, the men are all wearing ragged clothes as they stand around the anvil working on the horseshoe. They are in a small, partly roofless church that is poorly lit. From this, the author of the painting was clearly showing how the conditions for the common worker were very low during the industrial revolution. To go along with this, the moon is shining through the roof as they all work, which shows that they had long hours and worked late into the night to complete their tasks. Through the author’s depiction of the painting with most of it being dark with only three light sources (the moon, the candle, and the hot iron) it can be seen that the general attitude of the people about the industrial revolution was a bleak one that showed the harshness and darkness of the period.
Not only is it helpful to understand history through art, but art can also be understood better through a general knowledge of the time period in which it was written. As an example, the building that the workers are in at first just looks like any old run down brick structure. However, with the knowledge that innumerable factories and workshops were opening during the industrial revolution and that many owners were using old, rundown churches as places of operation, it can be seen that they are actually in a church that has fallen into disrepair. Also, as was mentioned earlier, many people had mistaken the identity of the figure on the right handle side sitting on the bench as an old woman. However, as the tour guide pointed out, the figure was wearing pants and therefore must have been a man. In that time period, it was unacceptable for women to wear clothing like pants on an everyday basis. Thus, using a little background knowledge of the time period yielded a better understanding of the events taking place inside the picture.
For my painting, I chose the simple yet awkwardly enticing Zebra by George Stubbs. The painting, while of no member of British royalty or aristocracy- no epic depiction of England’s history- still seems equally interesting to me. I chose this picture because while it looks merely goofy at first glace, the zebra in itself has a much deeper meaning.
When one thinks of a zebra, they do not associate it with Britain, let alone with a coniferous forest such as the animal in Stubb’s artwork is set in. That is, however, until one considers Great Britain’s great empire, one that by the time of the painting, 1763, was already beginning to span across every corner of the globe. The zebra, native to Africa, almost represents the native creature now in a British setting, one of European woods, where it does not belong. Just as the British influence does not belong around the zebra, neither did English control belong rightfully around the true lands in which the proud animal exists. It seems that this simple painting only unravels as a greater statement once one begins to question the basic idea, the zebra standing, rather oddly, almost glowing against portions of the dark background.
I believe the out-of-place zebra not only alludes to the historical nature of Europe and its colonial holdings, but also of the sense of adventure that the upper class in later generations found in hunting. The animal looks to be seen just as the classical English game hunter would find it, a prized target open for killing. The zebra lies in the open of a world that, instead of the lands it lies accustomed too, is ruled by the European ideal, and seems to only faintly sense what could be sudden destruction as it calmly stands in its foreign environment.
To be perfectly frank, when asked to remember a painting from that Friday, I can’t. All I can imagine in my head are those stupid, worthless pieces of wood covered in paint in such a manner that a four year old could replicate them with ease. No, I take that back. A four year old would at least try to stay inside the lines. What really exasperates me is the fact that he is actually getting paid for all this “work.” He’s even presumptuous and arrogant enough to feel that he is somehow better and more sophisticated than everyone else. Take for instance how he paints: he splatters a coat of paint, and then leaves it for YEARS, only to return to throw another coat of paint on. He makes it seem that it takes a lot of time and effort to create his so called masterpieces. I, regrettably, do not and cannot see what the big deal is about in his art.
It’s not even like I don’t understand or dislike abstract art. On the contrary, I enjoy analyzing a Pollock once in a while or so. It is Hodgkin’s seemingly lack of effort on his part in his work that just struck me with, for the lack of a better word, awe. To think he also thinks so highly of his own work, and I’m a little shocked and disgusted to be honest. Someone like Jackson Pollock spends a lot of time on his work, but for Hodgkin to come along and just make a mockery of art, it’s embarrassing. I do not see a sunset in that painting or a beach in this one, and definitely not a window right here. What ultimately frightens me the most of all is the fact that people actually buy his paintings and consider him to be a true artist.
Hodgkin’s a relatively recent painter, the exhibit at Yale being a collection of his works between 1992 and 2007. He seems to be one of those artists people like just because they want to feel accepted and cultured. Abstract art lately has been connected with a lot of the higher class people, who have the money to pay for them, and thus it is the upper class that controls what “art” is, or at least what popular art is. In the past century, the popularity of abstract art has really been on the rise and people just want to feel superior if they pretend to understand a piece of art when others express their true feelings of confusion. People have a tendency nowadays to try to a) make them feel better than others; and/or b) get accepted by the “better” people.
Abstract art started as a sincere form of art. It was all about taking apart life as we know and recreating it in a fantastic way. It was about instead of displaying a specific scene, displaying an emotion. It was about how the art made the viewer feel, not about what exactly was depicted on the canvas. It was about how each individual perceived the work, which goes along with modern thinking. Even though lately, there has been a lot of conformity among people, there’s still a strong emphasis on the individual. Goes along with the American system of capitalism and existentialism (Time’s most important person of the year, anyone?) in the fact that people feel that it’s important to be your own person and develop your own sense of self. However, when that ideal is corrupted by some people’s need to feel superior, abstract art loses its roots. It’s now either you understand it or don’t, and if you don’t then you’re stupid.
Getting back on topic, after looking at a few other Hodgkin paintings, I actually can see some effort and even one or two I actually like. However, they were nothing like the ones we saw at Yale. So I have decided that another reason for Hodgkin’s popularity now is our society’s love of the celebrity. Hodgkin probably made a name for himself, and then experimented with a new style. The people then probably loved his new style initially for its novelty, but continued to like it because of the fact that he was a famous person. Sad as it is, at the end of the day many things are loved just because celebrities endorse them.
Andrew Morris
2/13/07
AP European History
Blog
A Picture is Worth 1000 Words
The picture that I selected was of a very expensive house with the owners going out hunting. I picked this picture because of its detail and very realistic looks. It showed that the artist had to have had a lot of skill. When I first saw this picture I was very impressed with the detail that had gone into it. The picture portrayed a huge amount of land which appeared to be everything the owner of the castle owned. I was impressed that the artist could paint the people in the fields or the town and castle with such sharp detail. I was also impressed with how the painter used light in the picture. The mansion itself was in the bright early morning light while the town was in a shadow. This symbolized the power that the manor had while the town was important but less significant.
Many details that the artist put in the painting told a lot about the time period. The first thing I noticed was the hunting party in the fore ground. The people were well dressed so I thought that they were the people in who lived in the manor. A woman was with what looked to be four men with dogs so this appeared to show a family hunting trip. This shows me that like today families still did things together. It also showed that sport hunting was something for the wealthy to do and not for the farmers. This brings me to the next part of the picture which was the peasants in the fields. They seemed to be working very hard on stacking hay into piles in the field. This means that it was harvest time and that during harvest time the peasants were busy getting the crops in so they would have enough food for the winter. Another important part of the picture was the main building in the town which was the church. This showed me that church was a very important part of the people’s lives if it was placed in the center of the village. Running though the center of the picture was a river that divided the town’s land from the manor’s lawn. This showed me that the river was an important part of early European life. They must have used the river to no only water the fields but to water the manors gardens. Gardens also must have been an important part of status in early Europe because the garden in this manor was huge. The garden had what seemed to be statues and huge hiking paths that were lined with trees and ornate benches. The manor itself was also very elaborate. The roof had decorations and the windows and stairs leading to the door were all over the top with carvings and designs. These details really explained a lot about the culture at the time.
The image I’ve chosen is an oil painting on wood, which in my opinion, seemed really out of place in comparison to the other paintings done on canvas. The painting was said to be the oldest of the British collection and seemed to have the beginnings of a crack running through the artwork. The painting was selected because it was the most memorable painting in the gallery and had more “character” than the other artworks. It had more character in the sense that it was very different from the other paintings in the room. While the other ones had mostly been portraits with an up close view of an individual, this painting depicted several important figures in history that were taken from different times to be put in a single painting for comparison. Not only were there more notable figures in this painting that made it more noticeable from the rest, but there were also hidden meanings in the painting whereas others were straight forward as only a visual depiction and told nothing of the persons’ lives.
My initial impression to the painting was surprise. The first surprise was due to the size of the artwork, and the second was due to the multiple figures in the artwork. As said earlier, the other pieces of art within the same room were often of a single person, which made this piece more eye catching. I was then impressed with the detail in the painting and the different colors. I noticed immediately that Queen Elizabeth was wearing white, even though I didn’t necessarily wonder why at first. The painting reminded me more so of a tapestry rather than a painting that one would hang up simply because I’m use to seeing modern day pictures where everything seems realistic and shaded rather than nearly one dimensional and flat in appearance.
Studying the artwork yielded a greater understanding of the historical period simply because it had been a painting of the monarchs. Based on the cost of having a picture so large painted, as well as the detail paid to it, only the noble class were rich enough to hire an artist to paint such a masterpiece which aided in historical background of society with the rich and the poor. It was only more interesting to know that it was Queen Elizabeth herself that had the artwork painted, but once studied more in depth, it seemed only obvious that she would be the one that had it commissioned. Although it is her father, King Henry VIII on the throne, it is Queen Elizabeth whom is the largest and the most elegantly crafted in the artwork, which magnifies her status with the crown upon her head and the use of lighting as well as color in the artwork.
Since the compilation of figures in the painting had been from different times as evident by the ages of each person in the painting, each figure was purposely put there and served a purpose individually. King Henry VIII is in the center and on the throne, which depicts her respect for her father as a king, but she does not have him magnified in greatness to the same extent that she is in the picture. On the left side of the painting, her sister, often known as Bloody Mary is depicted with her husband. Mary is robed in a dark red dress that ironically reminds us of her title, and also serves in making her less noticeable in the picture. Behind the two of them is a man that we infer as Ares, the God of War. The inference means that under the rule of Queen Mary Tudor, England had fallen under much strife, famine, and war as represented by Ares, and the assumption is that there was much unrest during her time. In contrast, Elizabeth is depicted with her hand being held by a maiden, as well as the train of her dress being held by another. The two maidens in her presence represent harvest and justice or peace, which is meant to symbolize her rule among the people. Based on this information, the Elizabethan period was of great prosperity unlike that of before under the rule of her father and sister, and it was still the noble and wealthy class that dominated in England.
After spending a whole day viewing European artwork ranging from the early ages to the more contemporary and modern works, the one image that stood out to me was The Family of Henry VIII: An Allegory of the Tudor Succession. Painted in the mid/later 1500’s, this picture was not the only one that stood out to me that came from that era; the Elizabethan era. The paintings from that era used dark and rich colors that looked like oil canvases. What was also cool about some of the portraits from the 1500’s was that the people in them stood out, like cardboard. They had no dimension or depth to them; which I found peculiarly interesting and different from present day works. What I first noticed about my chosen painting was that it incorporated a lot of lavish details, and that the picture was centered so well, with the king in the middle and his 2 daughters on opposite side, making the painting well balanced at first glance.
I had selected this image because I love the era that it was painted in, and I am fascinated with the Tudor family line. This painting had so much history, symbolism, and room for interpretation that one could truly call it “art;” unlike some of the other paintings we viewed that day. The painting, The Family of Henry VIII: An Allegory of the Tudor Succession, was of Queen Elizabeth I, King Henry (her father), Edward VI (King Henry’s son), Mary I, and King Philip II of Spain (Mary’s husband). Also included in this family portrait were two women who followed alongside Queen Elizabeth I, who each represented peace and plenty. I liked this painting because the more you looked at it, the more history you got out of it. For example, looking at Mary I and her husband, you see that they are “chained” together; which one would interpret as them being married. Following behind them is a warrior like figure, who is actually supposed to be Mars, god of war. The image of Mars is supposed to represent how Mary and Philip brought war to England. From an artistic point, the lighting and color usage is dark; they’re portrayed as being smaller, even though they are further back in the painting, showing that they are the past. To symbolize the present, Queen Elizabeth is shown as the domineering figure in this portrait, wearing an extravagant gown, followed by peace and plenty. We know that it is peace and plenty because the first woman is stepping on a sword and the second woman is carrying a cornucopia of fruit, while also wearing a red dress. Back in the Elizabethan era, red was a rare color, so for Plenty to be wearing red meant that Queen Elizabeth was also bringing wealth to the nation. This painting is significant in that it contains historically accurate information and has taught us more than what we could get out of 1000 words.
Had our class not have learned about the Elizabethan Era prior to our visit to the art gallery on Friday, I do not think that I could have made the interpretations that one should make when viewing this painting. I would not have understood the symbolism behind the warrior and the bloody knife. I would also not have been able to interpret the contrast in colors, lighting, and size. By looking at the painting a lone, I would have never known who the two women following behind Queen Elizabeth were, nor would I have thought there was any significance to the painting itself, other than its just another ordinary painting from the Elizabethan period. Nevertheless, I also believe that art does hold value in a historical sense. The phrase, “A picture is worth a thousand words” never fails to ring true, and in this picture, I believe you could triple that number and still not be able to describe the actual photo in depth. There is so much to see in the painting that the painting by itself is its own history lesson. I strongly believe that this image covered what we learned in 2 class periods on the Tudor family line.
Studying and analyzing artwork is a much more effective way of learning because most of us are visual learners, so we have to see what we’re learning. I found that I retained more information from each piece of art than I would normally sitting in class in one day. Sometimes it’s easier for us to come up with the words than for us to listen to someone or read a book on a picture that could make learning so much easier. Also, art is so important to history because much of our history is documented in artwork, so I think it was effective to see how historians gather their data to make conclusions that we end up reading from a textbook.
I chose to analyze the painting Hero and Leander. Peter Paul Rubens, a Flemish painter, painted it in 1605. Its most noticeable feature is the use of very dark, monochromatic colors. It depicts white bodies swirling in a sea of black, a storm above. The white bodies look helpless, as if controlled by the storm and the black sea. The white bodies contrast the black background, and seem to represent something greater. They may represent the inner good of people, lost in a sea of black evil. The people are pure and good at heart, but the black stormy sea easily tosses them about. This may be a comment on life, how although people are good at heart, they are often easily moved by the evils of this world.
Because of all of these factors, my first thought about this painting was that it must be an early romantic painting. Romantic paintings often used color contrast to make a statement. They were often full of emotion and feeling. The paintings were also used as a medium to convey a spiritual theme about life. This painting fits the basic descriptions of a romantic style painting. It uses color contrast, is very flowing and emotional, and conveys thoughts about good and evil. But, after looking at the year it was painted, my impressions changed.
The painting was painted in 1605, towards the end of the renaissance period. The romantic era had not yet started. This puzzled me, as to how such a painting could come earlier than its time. But then I did see signs of renaissance art in the painting. The painting is of an old Greek story, about a man who swam an ocean to be with his love. Paintings involving Greco-Roman themes were common in the renaissance. This painting also takes stylistic elements from the earlier painters in the renaissance. The uses of long brush strokes and blending of color is also seen in the work of early renaissance painters. On further inspection, this painting did have renaissance elements.
And so, this blend of renaissance and romantic style can tell us a lot about this period. It was the end of the renaissance period, this is clear because of the influence renaissance painters had on the painting. Also, the fact that this is a scene from a Greek story suggests that at the time, scholars were still exploring and rediscovering the old Greco-Roman works. But, the fact that this painting contains obvious romantic elements is interesting. The painter may have been ahead of his time, but the fact remains that there are romantic elements in the painting. This shows that at the time, people were beginning to think more abstractly about life. They were loosing the ideas of the enlightenment, and slowly moving towards the spiritual ideas of the romantic period. This painting reflects that transition.
And, it is this transition that made me choose this paining. The clash of the two cultures intrigued me. I was interested to figure out why two different ideologies were present in one painting. And, here I have found the answer. It is because the painting reflects a shift in ideologies, from a renaissance ideology to a romantic one.
A Capriccio of the Roman Forum, painted by Italy’s Giovanni Paolo Panini in 1741 is a very unusual piece. I was initially attracted to this painting at the Yale University Art Gallery because it immediately caught my eye and was very appealing. At first, I had the impression that the piece contained a scene that was familiar to me. It was as if I knew the subject of the painting. However, once I looked at the piece closely, I realized that the piece was not that simple. By reading the description of the piece, I learned that this was a Capriccii, or fantasy scence. In the eighteenth century, Capricciis were a common form of landscape painting. Capricciis often contain recognizable structures, including buildings and monuments. The artist paints these recognizable structures often next to each other on a landscape that is not necessarily where they would actually be found. This form of art makes for a very interesting and unique painting. I initially was very curious as to what the structures actually were since some of them did look very familiar.
After finding out more information of this painting, I learned that the structures represented in the piece are actual ruins in the Roman Forum. The artist, Panini, included the ruins of the Arch of Titus and the Temples of Castor and Pollux, Saturn, and the Divine Vespasian. These ruins are placed side by side to allow the viewer to compare and contrast these structures. Throughout the scene there are sculptures that appear to be from different time periods in Roman history. Even more interesting is the fact that the artist included people from different ages of Roman history. For instance, in the foreground of the painting, there are figures who are dressed like eighteenth century Romans. In the background of the painting, there are figures from different time periods in Roman history. For example, there appears to be a figure dressed in a suit of armor who would have lived in a much earlier time period.
This painting is very symbolic of the changing nature of human civilization. In the painting, Panini is showing the viewer how Roman civilization has progressed and changed over time. This painting is rich in historical context. Each one of the included ruins was significant in its own time and reflective of the society of the time. One vividly sees how Roman society continuously was changing. Panini painted this piece in the eighteenth century and was able to reflect on the previous changes that Rome had seen up to that point. By studying the history of Rome, the many transformations that occurred prior to the eighteenth century are evident. By studying each one of the structures represented, the sculptures depicted, and the figures included, one would be able to get a sense of the progression of Roman civilization. Even without researching this painting, the viewer is able to see clear change in the nature of Roman civilization over time. These transformations are vividly reflected in Panini’s painting. This picture says more than a thousand words!
From the Yale Art Exhibit, I chose a more modern piece in the collection, “Whatman Turkey Mill” by Paul Sandby. This work of art caught my eye because of its exceptional colors and detail. I admire the artist's mixture of colors that went into creating the sky. What makes this painting most interesting is the area in the background. It seems as if there is a small village or countryside beyond the hill. In fact this countryside was Sandby’s own home in his painting. This painting is an important step in the history of Britain showing Britain’s rise in industry. This painting was created in 1794, around the time when the Industrial Revolution was taking place and was beginning to influences countries such as Britain. Once more this artist, Paul Sandby, was known after his death as “the father of modern landscape painting in water-colors”. He often painted quaint houses amidst growing industrial countryside and he continued to do so in “Whatman Turkey Mill”. If I had not previously known what time period the artist painted this piece I would have immediately thought about the contrast between he small house off the side compared to the many building clustered together on the horizon. This painting makes it seem as if the buildings in the background are the more advanced while the small house is very separated from society and therefore not as modern. Also the type of painting would have been a clue because at this point in time the experimentation with new paints and canvas were being explored. This piece perfectly suits a painting that would have been created during the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Post a Comment