Author: Sofi Escobar (Page 2 of 3)

Today we talked about Baroque art in France.

A central figure in today’s lecture was Louis XIV, who is the pinnacle example of the concept of absolute monarchy. In France, the monarchy displayed its power in a similar way to the Catholic Church: By lavish displays of artistic value and luxury.

We discussed the progression of the Palace of Versailles and his reasons for create such a building. The premises cannot be looked at all at once, and that overwhelming sense of power made the visitor of Versailles overwhelmed by the king’s power and glory. The aspect I thought was most interesting about Versailles was the influence of the sun in its architectural and decorative composition. The axis of the building goes west to east, making the sun cross the building as it rises and sets. I think that to take such a magnificent and essential thing as the sun, and in a way control it, or appear to control it by equating the King to it is a very clever way of instilling fear and displaying grandeur. I think this is what absolute monarchy was all about, the assertion that the King was as omnipresent as the sun.

We also talked about the Portrait of Louis XIV by Rigaud. As opulent as the decoration in this painting appears to me today, it is evident that at the time, this opulence was not only intentional and carefully curated, but essential to the Grand Portrait of the Sun King. The blue with gold Fleur de Lis, the expensive Ermin fur, the monumental column and the red fabric, it all says: this is something no one else has. Professor Plesch also pointed out how the pose he is standing in not only makes one feel powerful, but that the diagonals created, imitate the rays of the sun. She also pointed out a connection to Apollo. This reminded me of Nitszche’s the birth of tragedy, and the Apollonian aspect of art. I think it would be a good exercise to apply this dichotomy to other artworks we study, and see if I can distinguish similarities or differences between them.

Today we talked about Rubens, and baroque art in Holland.

Rubens was an artist who got to live the fruits of his own fame. He was recognized during his time for his impressive artistic ability and was not only highly successful but he was also ridiculously influential. He was one of the two defining figures on currents of art during the following period. His story is quite interesting, especially his relationship with Christianity, and how his division between Protestantism and Catholicism is such a representation of his time and Holland at the time.

We talked about the Elevation of the Cross. It is a work that very well reflects the counter-reformation. Everything about its composition, to the tríptico format alludes to the pride of Catholicism and imagery. I can see the influence of the Italian Baroque in the work as well, it feels as though the moment is about to pass the moment you blink. The diagonals in the work create a weird feeling of unbalance between the figures, its movement, and that lack of stillness makes me feel slightly anxious looking at it, like i am living the chaos of the situation.

I think the modernity in Rubens work is also represented in Van Dyck’s portraits. I like his portrait of Charles I because I can tell it was a form of creative innovation. The humble depiction of the king, whilAnd I think that drive to create something new could only have been possible under the influence and apprenticeship of Rubens.

Today we went to the museum to learn about the different kinds of printmaking. We had the chance to look at works in the Colby Museum collection that are representative not only of the different forms of printmaking, but also of the ways in which the style of printmaking changed as new techniques were invented. We learned how to distinguish between etching, dry point and engraving as well as between intaglio and relief printmaking. I thought the most interesting part was the fact that the “new” printmaking techniques tried to imitate and pass off as the old ones, and that it wasn’t until the medium had become more accepted and respected, that new techniques were given the liberty of embracing the uniqueness of the medium, and the more stylized capabilities of the printmaking technique.

Another thing that struck me as interesting was the attempt of hiding the print as a sketch instead of a reproducible work by cutting off the excess paper.

Bernini’s David is my favorite sculpture of David that we have seen thus far. I understand why he saw himself in the same level of mastery as Michelangelo, but I think the comparison takes away from his personal style and accomplishment. The dynamism in the sculpture is hardly replicable, and although the potential for movement is evident in the sculpture in of itself, I liked the comparison to the Discobolus. I think that it helps exemplify both how Bernini’s look at antiquity influenced his work, but also how he took the potential for movement and the action-scene of the athlete one step further. His rendering of facial expression is remarkable, one can see the strain of the movement he is doing as well as the concentration on his target for the shot he is about to take.

The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa is another personal favorite of mine. It is a very theatrical artwork and its interaction with its environment is key to experience the full effect of the “ecstasy”. I wonder if because of this, the sculpture might be considered an installation. The hidden window that makes it glow seems to

Today in class we talked about Italian Baroque. We discussed Caravaggio and the things that made him stand out from the rest and perdure as an influence in the movement. He pioneered Tenebrism, which utilizes dramatic lighting to evoke a mood. He painted in a studio, which is what allowed him to reate such harsh contrasts and imitate them perfectly in his paintings. He didn’t draw, which is a hard thing to grasp especially if you are someone who paints. It is marvelous what he was able to create without the aid of pencil. We also talked about how he had a violent history and about how he was essentially a criminal.

A painting that we did not talk about in class was his original San Matteo E’lAngelo, one of my favorite works of his. We talked about The Calling of Saint Mathew, but not about the original painting that was supposed to hang beside him. San Matteo E’lAngelo depicts Saint Mathew not as this glorified Saint full of wisdom but rather as a fisherman, a simple man who can’t quite grab the pen in order to write the gospel. It is clear to me why the work would be rejected, but it also speaks to the genius of Caravaggio that it was his choice to give Saint Mathew humility and reality.

I was not in class today. However i did do the reading so i will share some thoughts on chapter 18.

The artwork that struck my interest the most from the chapter was Albrecht Durer’s self-portrait. The reading explains that this was not weird to paint in the likeness of Jesus Christ, but the resemblance goes beyond the way his hair is modeled. His frontality and the position of his hands really resembled the pose that Christ has in the Sacred Heart image. It is my instinct to believe that imitating Christ is idolatry. It makes sense that one of the points of the Protestant reformation was the sacrilege of icons. In the same sense, it reminds me for example “The Madonna with the Long Neck”, who was it modeled after? It seems to me that these contemporary depictions of biblical figures tread on thin ice when it comes to idolatry.

We talked about mannerism today in class, and how it was truly pioneered by Michelangelo in the Sistine chapel ceiling, although people don’t usually recognize it as such. We talked about how the grimy ceiling of the chapel, gave Michelangelo’s work an aura that seemed more reminiscent of sfumato techniques, classical of the high renaissance for example. When these works were cleaned many years after, and finally looked at for what and how they were, it became clear that Michelangelo made them during a time in which he was no longer concerned with representing objects in the same way in which he did during the “cusp” of his career.

I like Mannerism. It is weird. I think about how art periods and trends have a tendency of going against each other. So whatever the next period embraces, will be in direct contradiction with the previous period, and this relationship remains relatively unchanged, so that there is a clearly traceable relationship between art periods. With mannerism, it becomes clear that in a way, naturalism looses its emphasis. It is dramatic in ways that might be described as antinatural, and the works are busy, they cannot have any empty space, and emotion floes through the work in a way that goes beyond the human experience. It reminds me of how medieval art was not attempting to be naturalistic as much as it was trying to express an emotion, except the use of color in mannerism is much more authentic to the period, not replicable.

Leonardo.

He was everything and everyone. I have studied Leonardo before and it still surprises me how much he did. I think he is a perfect example of the Renaissance man not only in his range of skills and interests but also in that, as an artist who mostly painted catholic images, he was not doing it out of devotion to Christianity, but to art, and math, and perfection and harmony. This is the Renaissance.

The Madonna of the Rocks was my favorite work discussed today in class. I thought it was interesting how he left it unfinished for years and years only because he grew bored of it after having figured out the composition of the painting. I think the Renaissance is remarked by the efforts made to add depth to works that should already be deep in themselves. The image of the caves, both representing the death of Christ (while he is being figuratively depicted as a child) and the Nativity, it comes full circle. Christ is the beginning and the end, and the work represents Christ’s beginning and end.

The composition of the work is beautiful, and visually satisfying. Leonardo’s mathematical harmony does not only solve the problem of mathematical composition, but it creates a perfect flow of visual relationships between the subjects depicted in the painting: it is easy to understand how they are all connected just from the way in which they are laid out.

I want to talk about the comparison between Ghiberti vs Brunelleschi, and my personal thoughts on it.

I think from the competition we can get a pretty good idea of what was valued at the time during the High Renaissance. We talked earlier in class about Studia Humanitatis, and how at the time, there was an emphasis on the stuff that what made by us. I think it is interesting that moral philosophy plays a big part in this, for in medieval times, it is pretty clear to me that morals were thought of as entirely dogmatic. (Given, as long as the Catholic Church is in command this is still true).

So with this in mind, it is very obvious why Ghiberti wins. He brings out the moral conflicts of the scene by building tension, he creates a narrative that is thought provoking in the way that the story of the sacrifice is meant to be experienced. It is supposed to make you think. I personally think that Ghiberti’s composition is very crowded, specially with the inclusion of the mountain. Another thing worth mentioning is Ghiberti’s depiction of Isaac. He looks heroic, he thinks his dad is going to kill him and yet he is depicted in the full splendor of a brave boy. In a way, it is counterintuitive that they would choose this scene as it shows you Abraham’s most cruel moment: when he is willing to kill his own child for a God that seems cruel. So it seems to me that this also shows just to how a high regard art was held in the ecclesiastical world at the time in Florence. It is not only about the stories, and no one questions the church so there is no imminent danger in depicting the perceived cruelty of God instead of his benevolence.

In today’s class, we discussed The Tribute Money by Masaccio. We spent a good amount of time dissecting the work and I enjoyed the discussion. One of my favorite aspects of it is his treatment of light. We talked about how he made the narrative nonlinear by starting at the center, so that the first thing the viewer saw was Jesus Christ in the center. However his use of light is a more subtle way in which he attributed focus to Jesus. If you look closely, the sun is shining Christ the most frontally, and all the apostles at either side of him are slightly obscured.

I think he managed to create narrative in a way that is more akin to contemporary ways of showing narrative than a lot of the other artists we have encountered. We also made the comparison to The Lamentation, and although I do like Giotto’s work more, I have to say that the way in which Masaccio uses the environment of the scene to add to the narrative and separate is done more gracefully (I only say this in light of how important progress is for the Italians).