Art Appreciation

[miss buenos aires]

Yep. Well, actually it's the remake of the one commissioned for Rockefeller Center, since the one commissioned was jackhammered on Rockefeller's orders.

I know my history! I saw Cradle Will Rock!

[noiseradio]

That's one of my favorite films. And it's even accurate, which is rare.

[miss buenos aires]

And PJ Harvey is on the soundtrack.

[noiseradio]

Indeed she is, which is one of the many reasons I love the film. Is it just me or is To Bring You My Love just savagely good?

[oily slick]

oh man, i just dug out the 10 year-old To Bring You My Love day before yesterday and listened to it.

[noiseradio]

Does it make you warm all over?

[selfmademug]

Apparently El Greco suffered from a form of astygmatism which was the reason his figures always appeared elongated.

There always seem to be theories about pathological reasons behind styles, and as Otis says, who really knows. But the more relevant fact is just that the anatomical elongation was a common aesthetic among Mannerists, of which El Greco was one. E.g., this (perhaps most famous Mannerist) painting by Parmigianino was done around the time of El Greco's birth, so think of it as a predecessor or influence:

[bobster]

Newsflash -- Mike Boom and El Vez...pirates! Avast ye, mateys!

[bambooneedle]

'Mug, mind quoting me properly? I don't care if it's not word for word, but you are gradually altering what I was supposed to have said. First, "I just couldn't abide the arrogant and laughable meaninglessness of a statement like the one 'Boo made about Caravaggio (i.e., along the lines of, I checked him out, he's not that good)". Then, "I wouldn't just waltz on here and say "I've had a look; it sucks." Here's what I actually wrote: "He's not that good. I checked out some of his other works and they look rather ordinary and quite forced to me".

I need look no further than my computer screen to see that Caravaggio didn't possess the same mastery of proportion, of composition, of colour, of creating believable scenes with congruent human expressions, with palpable emotion [as Velazquez]...

My point is that you don't make comparisons like this, they're ahistorical and meaningless.

I didn't say anything about their respective historical significance as artists or anything like that... Its meaning is just what it says (it's clearer that it's my opinion in the paragraph it is from). I'm comparing them on that specific criteria... It's pretty applicable because they were both realist painters painting human figures and faces, objects, colours etc in an accurate, lifelike fashion - it's not like trying to compare them with Van Gogh or something.

Just because YOU hate contemporary organized religion you can't assume that someone doing religious paintings centuries ago was somehow selling out, that's just idiotic! For the record, Caravaggio potrayed both Biblical and Greek Mythological scenes (check out his portayal of Bacchus, VERY similar to one Velazquez did after going to Italy), and his steps towards making the subjects of both kinds of painting real people with real emotions were what paved the way for non-religious artists like Vermeer and Velazquez

I don't hate religion so much as accept it's there, and don't know whether he was trying to sell out or not but all the religious subject matter would certainly have been handy in helping him get recognition. But I suppose he would also have had to stand out from many others doing the same thing... I had a look at Young Sick Bacchus by Caravaggio, it's apparently a self-portrait - himself as Bacchus. Do you know the name of the one you mention by Velazquez? Since C went to Rome (1600), he did no more of the Greek Mythological stuff but almost exclusively the religious themed stuff. That last bit is a good point, but surely there would have been many other sources of inspiration because I'm not sure you had to keep abreast of 'what was happening' very immediately (with the cost and slowness of travel, lack of reproduction, and so on).

Caravaggio's mastery of proportion is magnificent, his compositions and color, ditto-- just entirely different. His 'Descent from the Cross' is one of the most studied and revered compositions in all of painting; that and other works have made more than a few scholars call him the Father of Modern Painting.

'The Father Of Modern Painting' has been said of so many painters though, and is itself a pretty meaningless statement, don't you think... kind of like calling someone The Father of Rock n' roll. But you seem to have confused him with his contemporary, the Flemish painter Rubens, who painted 'The Descent Of The Cross'. Rubens did two called that. I have no idea which is the more famous one, but one is the centrepiece at Antwerp cathedral - http://www.artchive.com/artchive/r/rube ... escent.jpg , the other is in Lille - http://www.wga.hu/art/r/rubens/12religi/34religi.jpg

I've kind of had Caravaggio down as a case of the good being the enemy of the great but now have more appreciation for his role and significance than before. His compositions, for me, at least most of the ones with several people in them, seem to emit this sense of claustrophobia, with the (somewhat generic-looking) people often looking like they don't have much awareness of their personal space! But to each his own etc... a painting may be great for reasons I can learn about but hopefully it manages to captivate me on its own.

He seems to like leadlight windows...

Lots of those in Amsterdam and Delft, I suppose.

Each one of his canvases is like a little jewel. The incredible rarity (only 35 are known to exist) makes them even more special. I've probably seen about half of the 35 now - the Rijksmuseum has several excellent ones as well, as you would expect. One of them was included in the Rijksmuseum traveling exhibition that we saw at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne earlier in the year.

Heard of Vermeer's riddle? http://www.vermeersriddlerevealed.com/the_artist.shtml

I like the pleasant, relaxed atmosphere he captures in this one, have you seen it on your travels? It's in Vienna:

[Who Shot Sam?]

Heard of Vermeer's riddle? http://www.vermeersriddlerevealed.com/the_artist.shtml

I like the pleasant, relaxed atmosphere he captures in this one, have you seen it on your travels? It's in Vienna

Unfortunately I've never been to Vienna. Definitely one of those places I've always wanted to visit. Maybe when the kiddies get a little older.

Interesting stuff about that Vermeer. I think I'd read about this somewhere, but never in that much detail. One of the things I like most about his paintings is the fact that he put so much thought into the composition of the scene. Combine that with the beautiful stillness of his work and that amazing ability to capture light and you have something really extraordinary.

[bambooneedle]

I also like how the angle is sympathetic to the painter in it looking up to the woman's face.

[Mike Boom]

Bert Christensen eat my shorts.

[invisible Pole]

.... Flemish painter Rubens, who painted 'The Descent Of The Cross'. Rubens did two called that. I have no idea which is the more famous one, but one is the centrepiece at Antwerp cathedral - http://www.artchive.com/artchive/r/rube ... escent.jpg , the other is in Lille - http://www.wga.hu/art/r/rubens/12religi/34religi.jpg

'Boo, I think he did more than two Descents From The Cross.
Unbelievably, one of them was in my hometown of Kalisz. Here's an interesting story about it :

"Until the early 1970s, one of Rubens' several Descent From the Cross paintings could also be seen in Poland, in St. Nicholas Church in Kalisz. Its composition differed slightly from the St. Petersburg one. Piotr Żeromski, the royal head cook, donated it to the church in the 1630s, and it managed to safely survive years of wars, unrest and partition. It was an inspiration for local Polish artists in Baroque era. Rubens-influenced paintings can be seen in the churches in Toruń, Leżajsk and Warsaw.

On the night of Dec. 13, 1973, fire broke out in the Kalisz church. After the flames were extinguished, it turned out the altar with the Descent From the Cross had completely burned. Though experts didn't detect any remains of the painting in the ash, the police dropped the investigation after several months. Many art historians suspect the painting was stolen. "The altar fire was staged in order to steal this excellent Flemish work of art and take it abroad," says Prof. Juliusz A. Chroscicki, from Warsaw University's History of Art Institute. "Society should be informed that a chance to find and recover this valuable painting exists. Any publications about it, and even publication of images of it, may help find it and bring it back to Poland, as happened recently to a work by Cranach, which has returned to the National Museum in Szczecin." "
____________________________________________

And I do remember the fire as I was almost eight years old then !

[selfmademug]

Boo, I'm not going to argue the substance of these points because you and I have a long history of talking past each other and I'm just not up to it. I do respect your differing opinions and I apologize if I mischaracterized them.

I need look no further than my computer screen to see that Caravaggio didn't possess the same mastery of proportion, of composition, of colour, of creating believable scenes with congruent human expressions, with palpable emotion [as Velazquez]...

My point is that you don't make comparisons like this, they're ahistorical and meaningless.

I didn't say anything about their respective historical significance as artists or anything like that... Its meaning is just what it says (it's clearer that it's my opinion in the paragraph it is from). I'm comparing them on that specific criteria...

Perhaps but I strongly disagree with you even on those criteria, AND I'm of the belief that it's meaningless to look at such art (in more than a cursory, seat-of-the-pants way anyhow) without some sense of historical context-- there were different conventions and styles for each of those attriubtes you mention (color, composition, etc.) and even different technologies, in each time and place, and so comparing them in a 'who's better' way is not something I find useful or enlightening.

Just because YOU hate contemporary organized religion you can't assume that someone doing religious paintings centuries ago was somehow selling out, that's just idiotic! For the record, Caravaggio potrayed both Biblical and Greek Mythological scenes (check out his portayal of Bacchus, VERY similar to one Velazquez did after going to Italy), and his steps towards making the subjects of both kinds of painting real people with real emotions were what paved the way for non-religious artists like Vermeer and Velazquez

I don't hate religion so much as accept it's there, and don't know whether he was trying to sell out or not but all the religious subject matter would certainly have been handy in helping him get recognition. But I suppose he would also have had to stand out from many others doing the same thing...

Well that's an understatement, as European painting was more or less ONLY Christian or Mythological then, even the historical paintings were done within one of those two contexts. When you write 'handy in getting him recognition' you imply he had some other choice, but that was what painting WAS at that time. To do something else would have been like that scene in Back To The Future where Michael J. Fox gets up on a '50s stage and plays Hendrix. Not possible.

I had a look at Young Sick Bacchus by Caravaggio, it's apparently a self-portrait - himself as Bacchus. Do you know the name of the one you mention by Velazquez?

You have the wrong Caravaggio version; I'm talking about the more famous one in the Ufizzi. I'll post them together in a minute (see bottom).

Since C went to Rome (1600), he did no more of the Greek Mythological stuff but almost exclusively the religious themed stuff. That last bit is a good point, but surely there would have been many other sources of inspiration because I'm not sure you had to keep abreast of 'what was happening' very immediately (with the cost and slowness of travel, lack of reproduction, and so on).

I don't understand what you mean.

Caravaggio's mastery of proportion is magnificent, his compositions and color, ditto-- just entirely different. His 'Descent from the Cross' is one of the most studied and revered compositions in all of painting; that and other works have made more than a few scholars call him the Father of Modern Painting.

'The Father Of Modern Painting' has been said of so many painters though, and is itself a pretty meaningless statement, don't you think... kind of like calling someone The Father of Rock n' roll.

Well I'd say Caravaggio is a better candidate, as he came first. I mean you can argue this stuff as much as you like but traditional scholarship credits him with that title more often than not, I'd say.

But you seem to have confused him with his contemporary, the Flemish painter Rubens,

Um, no I don't.

...who painted 'The Descent Of The Cross'. Rubens did two called that.

Well some knowledge of Christian art would serve you better here, cause 'Descent From the Cross' is just a title like 'Nativity,' or 'Annunciation,' or 'Crucifixion'. It's just the scene they portrayed; the titles don't even come from the artists themselves at this point.

Here's the one I mean:

I've kind of had Caravaggio down as a case of the good being the enemy of the great but now have more appreciation for his role and significance than before. His compositions, for me, at least most of the ones with several people in them, seem to emit this sense of claustrophobia, with the (somewhat generic-looking) people often looking like they don't have much awareness of their personal space! But to each his own etc... a painting may be great for reasons I can learn about but hopefully it manages to captivate me on its own.

Yes but the more you see and learn, the more your ability to be captivated evolves. And that's the point of 'art appreciation'. Art is not fast food; it takes some work if you really want to savor it. If I get snarky about it, it's because there's much, much more to art than "I know what I like."

*******

Caravaggio's Bacchus:


Velazquez's Bacchus, in a different context but with a nod to Caravaggio:

[selfmademug]

Incidentally I *highly* recommend this book to anyone interested in art history or art, period:



Drenched in well-printed images, suitable for start-to-finish reading or just jumping from part to part. I bought it for a dear old pal (Tallulah's Dad! Don't tell!) and came sooooo close to getting myself a copy as well. Come to think, I did just get a small check from me Mum and it's currently on sale at Amazon ($27 down from $40)....

[Who Shot Sam?]

Drenched in well-printed images, suitable for start-to-finish reading or just jumping from part to part. I bought it for a dear old pal (Tallulah's Dad! Don't tell!) and came sooooo close to getting myself a copy as well. Come to think, I did just get a small check from me Mum and it's currently on sale at Amazon ($27 down from $40)....

Cool. I just got a $50 b-day gift certificate from my brother that's burning a hole in my pocket. May get this and one of the Vermeer books I've been eyeing.

Speaking of great art books, are there any fans of Simon Schama's work out there in EC Fan Forum land? I took one of his art history courses when I was at Harvard (titled "Art and Revolution" I think - covering artists of the French Revolution and Napoleonic era such as Greuze and David, as well as Goya) and it was hands down the most entertaining and enthralling experience of my four years there. His Rembrandt book, "Rembrandt's Eyes" is quite good, as are "The Embarrassment of Riches" about 17th century Dutch society and "Citizens" (the French Revolution). He's wonderful at explaining the intersection of art, popular culture and politics. Funny as hell in person too.





The idiots at Harvard didn't tenure him and I think he slipped off to Columbia.

[selfmademug]

Simon Schama wasn't tenured?!? Good lord. Numbskulls. I can't believe they didn't keep him if only for the name-brand value, which means so much at Harvard. You shoulda seen the mass fawning to lure Steven Pinker from MIT a few years back. But I digress...

I've wanted to read both those books for a long time-- they both always get raves-- as well as the one about Landscape and Memory.

[Who Shot Sam?]

Simon Schama wasn't tenured?!? Good lord. Numbskulls. I can't believe they didn't keep him if only for the name-brand value, which means so much at Harvard.

Nope. He was probably too interested in writing entertaining books (if they're entertaining, they must not be very scholarly, you know) and actually putting some energy into his teaching of undergrads (you're supposed to let graduate teaching assistants take care of that).

[selfmademug]

PS correction about my longy up there ^^^. I wrote that most paintings at the time in question (late 16th C.) were either religious or based on greek myths. I should have limited that to say 'in SOUTHERN Europe.' The Belgians/Flemish/Dutch were already changing this quite a bit (the Reformation had lots to do with this) and although the Northerners had always been influenced by Italy, I think (?) it wasn't until just about this time-- early Baroque, in the 17th C.-- that influence started running the other way as well. In any case, Caravaggio was a brilliant artist who had a pivotal role in European painting, being one of the major creative links between what we now characterize as Renaissance and Mannerist, and the Baroque.

I should mention, since Alexv asked somewhere, that I ain't an expert on this stuff, just a life-long enthusiast with an undergrad-level degree in it from over 20 years ago... The closest I came to being a professional was a short stint at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. Worst job I ever had, worse than the assembly line I once worked on briefly.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Schama's great fun as a BBC history presenter too.

I'd like a top notch Vermeer book, too. Anyone got a recommendation?

[Who Shot Sam?]

I'd like a top notch Vermeer book, too. Anyone got a recommendation?

This is one that I was looking at...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030006 ... e&n=283155

[Otis Westinghouse]

Nice one. Available here. Looks good and complete, and Wheelock is obviously an authority.

[bambooneedle]

IP - just as well he painted a few of them. Thanks for that. I found this site about stolen artworks: http://www.saztv.com/page7.html

That last bit is a good point, but surely there would have been many other sources of inspiration because I'm not sure you had to keep abreast of 'what was happening' very immediately (with the cost and slowness of travel, lack of reproduction, and so on).

I don't understand what you mean.

I was referring to this last bit (I'd quoted):

his steps towards making the subjects of both kinds of painting real people with real emotions were what paved the way for non-religious artists like Vermeer and Velazquez

Perhaps but I strongly disagree with you even on those criteria, AND I'm of the belief that it's meaningless to look at such art (in more than a cursory, seat-of-the-pants way anyhow) without some sense of historical context-- there were different conventions and styles for each of those attriubtes you mention (color, composition, etc.) and even different technologies, in each time and place, and so comparing them in a 'who's better' way is not something I find useful or enlightening.

European painting was more or less ONLY Christian or Mythological then, even the historical paintings were done within one of those two contexts. When you write 'handy in getting him recognition' you imply he had some other choice, but that was what painting WAS at that time.

Well then they had a very limited view of painting back then in Southern Europe, or at least the art establishment of the day did.

Thanks for posting those. I'd seen the 'Descent From The Cross' one as well as Velazquez's version of Bacchus, just didn't recognize them by those names.

[Otis Westinghouse]

I'd like a top notch Vermeer book, too. Anyone got a recommendation?

This is one that I was looking at...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030006 ... e&n=283155

With the other part of my Christmas vouchers (see CD thread!) I got this:



http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 36-5502016

Same author, but fuller edition (128pp), so with a fuller intro. Each painting has its own page and an adjacent text, and a couple have detail pages. There wasn't much competition (the voucher was for Waterstones, which is rather weak on art compared to the more academic Heffers), but this was exactly what I wanted. Superb reproductions at a decent size. It's paperback, but with a nice fold out board cover. Classy stuff. I feel like a grown up - I don't think I've bought an art book of this sort before, all the ones I have (which are several) have been given to me! Now to watch the DVD of Girl With a Pearl Earring, and maybe read the book too!

[Who Shot Sam?]

Now to watch the DVD of Girl With a Pearl Earring, and maybe read the book too!

That Vermeer book looks great. I have the US version on order at my local bookseller. There's a little independent store in town and I like to give them my business if I can.

"The Girl With the Pearl Earring" was a pretty dour affair. There's something so gloomy about Colin Firth, which I suppose suits Vermeer, but was he really that much of a sourpuss? Firth is the only actor I can think of who is capable of taking all of the passion and joy out of being a football supporter - or maybe he was just miscast in "Fever Pitch". In any case, Scarlett Johansson is mighty easy on the eyes (though understandably less so here than in any of her other films).