Week 8 Post #7

Option #1

Bernini's "David"

vs

Michelangelo's "David"

For this blog, I decided to choose option 1 of the two given; because I find Michelangelo's "David" to be lovely, and I was curious to go into more visual details when comparing it to another version of "David". Even just looking at these two statues side by side with no idea of art and how art history works, its easy to tell the differences. These are two entirely different statues taking a view of David and interpreting it how they feel it should be interpreted. However there are other reasons why these statues are more similar and different in art history terms rather than citizen terms. 

To begin with, Bernini's "David" is depicted as being in action. He literally looks as if he is about to leap into battle with his sling and rock. His face isn't idealized with a serene look such as in Michelangelo's "David" but instead is contorted into a fierce grimace reflecting his inner battle as well as facing the battle before him. The lines created in this statue are very diagonal, and dynamic. It's using the contrapose to its thinnest definition, since it almost seems as if he is about to fall into us off of his little ledge. I also find it interesting that Bernini used himself as the figure for the battling "David" instead of doing it from an idealized depiction of what Bernini thought "David" should have looked like. In this way, we get a more accurate and relate-able image that welcomes us to imagine what David was really like instead of having his name seem unreal with an accomplishment available to normal everyday men and women. I also find his piece of fabric humorous and love how it "accidentally" fell over his nudity. Thus preserving his modesty while in the heat of battle. His body is very naturalistic as well, his muscles aren't perfect, and he seems like an ordinary man with his appearance.

In comparison, Michelangelo's "David" has no clothing on or really any way to hide the fact that he is nude. Not only is the figure nude, but he is in incredibly good shape. Even now this statue is seen as the most perfect male figure, and may of even had men striving to look like him in the time it came out. Unlike Bernini's "David", Michelangelo's "David" is standing very still with a contrapose as he views something off in the distance with a strange expression. From the side, his expression seems at peace with what is about to happen, or really you wouldn't expect him to be looking at a giant, as the Bible story suggests. He almost appears as if before the battle he stood and posed in a fashion that seems almost egotistical.  I believe also that the more important thing on Michelangelo's mind with this one was humanism while naturalism was on Bernini's mind with his version. 


They both depict a very strong man, standing up for what he believes in. Even though these two statues are obviously different, their base historical pretext is the same. A young man stands up against a giant for what he believes in, and with the strength and power of God, overcomes his foe and saves his people. Both statues emit a feeling of grandeur and suggest that the person depicted was a very important figure.  

Week 6 Post#6

Option #1

Albrecht Durer 

Self Portrait 

1500

I chose this painting from Albrecht Durer because not only does it represent a stage in the artists life that is of high enough importance to paint, but because of its peculiar nature in which it is painted. Going through and looking at paintings from this time period, the only one's I've seen of self portraits with a head on view, were ones depicting Christ in one form or another. All other normal self portraits or even just portraits of people commissioned, were of the person in a 3/4 view. thus for this artist to have depicted himself in such a manor could very well have been sacrilegious in nature when it was created. (according to the documentary) 

I find this fascinating that this artist could so easily depict himself in a way that almost appears to be a likeness of Jesus, and yet not get scorned for doing such a thing. especially in that time period! It is shocking to discover that the opposite is the case and instead of getting the cold shoulder, he got more recognition than ever! funny  way to turn the tides if you ask me. On top of all that he was originally blonde? and to have depicted himself with brown hair just to appear more like Christ? Seems rather backwards in my mind. 

Albrecht Durer found out a way to use the printing press to mass market his art, and thus spreading his popularity even more so across the continent. I found it really interesting that he was so famous all over the European Continent rather than just Italy, because of his ability to recreate his images an innumerable amount of times. This is in itself different from what the earlier European Traditions depicted, because they found that putting more time into one image, and making it the best they could was enough to get recognized in the area they were located at. But I think that Albrecht Durer was better deserving of his fame and fortune because of his wit and genious nature to use such a technology to his benefit. 

I like how in this image there is so many fuzzy and furry things. because of this, it looks really comforting in a way. maybe that has to do with its symmeterical nature, or the fact that he has more hair than I do. Im not sure, but I do know that his jacket looks like it would be really warm. All the details on this piece are stunning, from the accuracy of how the fur on the coat would react when touched, to the shine in his eyes and hair. the folds, the hair, everything is depicted with such skill and beauty, its no wonder the painting itself is considered a miracle. And even now, seen as a beautiful work of art even further around the world. 

Week 5, Post #5

Option #2 

Which belongs Where?

A look at 2 works from SAM

Leda and the Swan and her children

&

The Origin of the Cornucopia

While it may appear to be easy to pinpoint which work of art is closer to the ideas and themes seen in Mannerism, it may actually be harder to nail it down to a single painting of the two. Both paintings shown have their own unique traits to them that appear to be influenced by the mannuristic ideals. In The Orgin of the Cornucopia its easier to see this influence because its more obviously laid out for the viewer than it is in Leda and the Swan and her Children.

For example, the layout is confusing and crowded for the composition size, the character's heads are small in comparison to their elongated bodies, and they seem awkward with how they are sitting and moving within the frame. The three characters in the forefront of the image seem massively unnatural; and how they're sitting just seems wrong. Each character in this painting has their body contorted in such a way that it seems as if they may fall over, and to be honest kind of makes me feel uncomfortable. The thighs and arms of the person in blue are almost bigger than their head, and it seems as if the same may be true for the woman in yellow as well. This is what Professor Bowen said in her lecture about one of the main traits of Mannerism so thus this painting must have strong influences from there.

However, I mentioned earlier that I believed there to be some influences of mannerism in Leda and the Swan and her Children  as well as The Origin of the Cornucopia. Its not as obvious with the framing on this one, if it would be truly tight enough to be to that level of cramped compositions... however we can clearly see it within her leg that seems to go on forever; with her knee almost touching the bottom of the canvas before it drops down off the picture. the width of her thighs is also unnatural, and although her head isn't anatomically smaller than it should be, her legs are definitively too big for her body. The way the babies are sitting and interacting with her also seems dangerous; especially the one that appears to almost whisper something into her ear. That and also this image gives off a sense of eroticism from the way the swan almost kisses her cheek and seems to step into the space of the Naked Leda's body.  

So in conclusion, it appears to me as if both of the images provided for this option have some sort of influence from the mannerism style. what with the way the artist cramps the figures into the small canvas space, the way the bodies are contorted in unnatural poses and seem way too big for their heads. But overall if I had to choose an image that I believed was a better example from this artistic time period, i would have to say The Origin of the Cornucopia displayed this style more accurately than the other. 

Week 4 Post #4

Humanism in the Renaissance 

3D view of the Sistine Chapel

http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/index.html

The influence and impact of humanism on renaissance art can be seen in famous works from the entirety of Leonardo Da Vinci's works, to even more religious based and religious inspired works. For this journal entry I'd like to focus on some works by Michelangelo, because I feel as if his works (while some being religious in nature) are the best example of humanistic influence in the High Renaissance Period.    

The most prevalent example of his humanistic works would be "David" (a lifelike sculpture of a human man). This sculpture is an accurate portrayal of a man as he is. There is no artistic reinterpretation, just the solid legitimate attempt to capture David as accurately as possible. Everything from the muscle structure to the genitalia, to the facial features, shows his focus on creating it as naturalistic and humanistic as possible. This is in comparison to the version of "David" done by Donatello in the early renaissance, where the artist took a lot more stylistic approaches when creating his version of "David". One major difference that can be seen in Michelangelo's version compared to Donatello's, is the amount of detail on the hair, thighs, legs, and feet. 

Moving on, I'm going to be talking about how Michelangelo's work at the Sistine Chapel was influenced by humanism as well. The painting that I'm going to be focusing on is "The creation of Adam". I chose this painting because the most common interpretation is of God reaching out towards man. If a deeply religious painting such as this one is done in a humanistic style, that would attest to the influence that said style had on the High Renaissance Period. 

The humanistic aspect of this painting can be easily deduced by the fact that neither of the men depicted in "The creation of Adam" are portrayed in a divine manner. Instead it can actually be argued that this is an old man trying to reach out to his younger self. They're both very human, and neither have the early renaissance characteristic of a golden halo surrounding their heads. It also confuses me as to why if this image was truly of "God" why then would he need to be carried by his angels? If this is truly a depiction of God reaching out to man, then why would he be reaching further and more fervently than the man reclining on the mountain? It would almost seem as if the old man is the spirit of the younger man (carried by all his successes and accomplishments) reaching out to his younger self. However knowing how much Michelangelo hated this project, and how focused he was in his endeavor to capture the essence of humanity,  its more likely that this  painting portrays an old man carried by his desires yearning to be alive once again. By doing so this would appear to be a painting reflecting the deepest desire of all humanity: Eternal Youth. 

I believe that by looking more deeply into the works of artists in the High Renaissance Period you will find that even the most fervently religious ones had their works influenced by the humanistic movement.

Week 3, Post #3

Early Italian Renaissance Art

Formal Analysis

The Birth Of Venus

by Sandro Botticelli

For my formal analysis I decided to choose "The Birth Of Venus" as my painting of choice from the Early Renaissance period. this painting is a great example of how artists would create art in this generation because it has many of the techniques we see compiled into one image. In my formal analysis I will be discussing these techniques and really going over what we see in this painting.

            One of the first things I noticed when looking at this painting, (as i'm sure is the same thing countless others first notice) Is the naked Venus standing almost perfectly in the center, in a contraposto pose in a shell. At this point, most of these features of the Venus woman and the shell are decently realistic for the time, and appear to be very naturalistic in my opinion. Both are fine examples of techniques and subject matter that are popular during this era. another thing to be noted, is the horizon line. Its location in the image is slightly high, but it creates what appears to be atmospheric perspective because of how the land closest to the viewer is almost black with how dark it is, but in the farthest area closest to the horizon line it is the lightest. This can also be seen with how the water was painted as well as the sky.

            Another example of popular things from this period we can see in this work, is the many use of triangles in this painting's composition. the first one we see is created with the figure of Venus, and the woman's arms throwing clothing over her. her arms create the tip of the triangle while the figure of Venus is the base. another triangle I found in this image is from Venus's eyes, lowest hand, and the eyes of the two figures on the left. These two triangles alone create enough movement throughout the entire piece that The artist could have left it at two, but after looking at this work for awhile longer, found another triangle formed by Venus again, her head is the tip of the triangle, while the shell forms the base for what makes a third triangle. Those were just the triangles created out of figures of things supposedly there. On top of those, there are at least 3 other triangles formed from the negative space around the figures, and even more created from the land jutting out into the sea and back to land.

            There is also a mix of naturalism and illusionism in this painting and even some stylization is mixed in. The artist used naturalism when creating the people (with what they had ability wise for the era) and the clothing. Every fold and crease is easily seen and thus can be identifiable with as natural and real. all these elements mixed together create a very naturalistic feel; they even tried to get foreshortening with an illusionism feel from the shell that Venus stands on. it almost seems to be coming towards us with the way it is painted on its back. However on top of all these elements is the very stylized water that seems slightly out of place when looking at the overall amount of detail, naturalism and illusionism in this painting. So why would the artist throw it into the painting instead of just painting the water like what we would see in the natural world? maybe because it was a popular style back then to have stylization in opposition to naturalism in the early Renaissance era.

            Overall I believe this work of art to be a very influential and beautiful piece of Early renaissance art, and it very easily shows examples of most all the techniques found to be popular in this era; as well as seemingly opening doors to more realistic and influential paintings in its era and ours. paintings like this one stay with us for a long time. we remember them because they touch a spark in us that we don't feel through most modern means anymore. Even though this painting was painted with tempera and gold on canvas instead of as a fresco painting, we still hold it in a high regard for its importance in its generation. 

Week 2, Post #2

Intro  to  Northern  Renaissance  Art

Considered the great "century of change" the northern Renaissance consists of a new way of painting, which started an "image revolution." (quotes taken from the northern renaissance documentary) This Image revolution was important because it reflected new ideas and concepts of how to look at art and how to create art that had never been seen before. By creating an image using only oil paints and still creating an image that seems so real the audience can relate to the people in the images and feel as if they are looking through a window into another world. This idea of ultra realism was so different from the idea of worth and value of jewels, gold and silver in art that it became its own genera of worth and in some ways are worth more than those that used gold, silver and jewels in their creations. 

For example, Jan Van Eyck the creator of the Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife, (pictured above) is a very important image and it still astonishes viewers to this day. Other images such as some of his alter pieces that show insanely realistic images of gold, silver, and jewels of many kinds are so realistic and breathtaking that they appear to be actual gold, silver, and jewels. He did this by only using oil paint instead of pasting actual gems to his work. The artists who used this method didn't affect its audience as profoundly as Jan Van Eyck did. because their piece wasn't a fluid surface, you could tell that the light and shadows that affected the gems on the art didn't match what was depicted underneath. 

Also during this time period works of art used in churches and of biblical figures were very important to the culture at the time. This is because Catholics and Christians at the time believed that one could become close to the figures in religion by visualizing themselves worshiping them or by putting themselves into the happenings of the characters painted. so thus the more realistic the image was the easier it was for people to do this. This is also why there are so many depictions of Joseph and Mary in 14th century houses and clothing. They believed the story stayed the same but just the environments changed.  

 

To the average viewer now, this may not make any sense. But back then it was just an everyday thing. The art styles as well we can see as a little strange, how they used to paint men so real to life; in some instances it appeared as if there was blood pulsing underneath the painted flesh. While women were usually depicted appearing more like dolls and were more impressionistic to what the general accepted look of a woman should be. Their presence in an otherwise all together realistic image confuses me. You think, well if they can make all these other things look this realistic, including the male figures, why not then make the women fit better into this created environment?

However this just seems to be the norm with northern renaissance pictures and thus will probably stay a mystery. But on the other hand its so beautiful in its depiction It doesn't seem to be as big of a question as other things would be. It would more likely be a better use of time to figure out all the iconography in all the different paintings of the time, and try to figure them out that way.

New Quarter, New Old Art!

Post #1 

Week #1

Introduction To  Renaissance  Art

In this quarter, we will be discussing renaissance art, and looking at many different works by different artists. But what is it about Renaissance art that sparks a light in our souls? Why does it resonate so fully within our hearts? Why do people still hold it in such a high regard now, with all of our technology and modern artists? It awakens a stirring inside of us, that can be felt again and again as we gaze upon the beauty that was created during this time period. But why is this so? Why do we hold this art in such high regard?  Why does our breath catch every time we gaze a work of art created during this era? What did Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and Michelangelo know that made their art so amazing? And not only was their art amazing, they created so much of it during each of their lifetimes, proving that their ability was greater than any we can imagine. Already at the beginning of the quarter, so many questions are rattling around in my head. Alas I can only speculate and research, but most of these questions may never be answered by anyone but the artist themselves... 

Even to the average viewer, one with no artistic ability of their own, can look at a work like the Mona Lisa, or the Sistine chapel and stare at it astounded at the simple beauty that resides in the semi-realistic style of those time periods. We can even duplicate and mass produce these famous paintings, turn them into skins for our cell phones and stitch them into purses and bags. But why this time period? What is so special about it? Perhaps the answer lies in the fine soft features created from oils on wood, or the powerful contrast of colors; or even an accurate representation of light and spacial elements that seem so realistic that if only we could reach out into the painting, perhaps we could join another world long since past. What woman wouldn't want a man with the physique of the statue of David?  Who wouldn't look at the mirror in A Double Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and His Wife and marvel at the accurate portrayal of a mirror and eye for the details that surround it? 

With the growth of technology in our generation, as well as the invention of photography and the change in societies level of importance from art to sports; Hundreds of years of knowledge about art techniques and training to reach that point have been lost to the wind. Which is why I believe the Art of the Renaissance period is looked upon as so marvelous and awe inspiring; because with all our technology and advancements we still lack the ability to recreate works such as the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Chapel, and The statue of David.  And this reason is among some of the main reasons I so look forward to taking this class as well. 

My name is Kelsee Franz, and I love art. 

January 6, 2012