Today, we discussed the Enthroned Madonna (1280-90), Madonna Enthroned(1310, and Madonna Enthroned (1308-1311). These pieces showed similar things but in very different ways. Each artists painted the Virgin Mary carrying Christ after birth; however, the presentation is where differentiation occurred. In the first one, the Virgin Mary pointed to Christ, as if to elevate his status and to make him the center of attention. The second one did not have the Virgin Mary pointing to Christ, but had Christ holding a scroll to indicate his significance and importance within the world. The last painting differed in its representation of naturalistic features. Both the Virgin Mary and Christ are huge in comparison to the rest of the work, making them feel God-like characters. Furthermore, the vibrant effect the colors had provided a ceremonious cause, something the other two paintings lacked.
Author: Erik Holm (Page 2 of 2)
In this class, we discussed the The Coronation of the Virgin at length. First, we discussed ‘The Trinity’ and how it is represented very differently across individual art pieces since they are “distinct, but equal” which creates a paradoxical situation. I found this idea to be rather interesting because it shows how something as religion, which is supposedly concrete, is open to various interpretations. Therefore, art can also be interpreted in unique ways and adds a new layer to each piece. Furthermore, there is also subtle references to purgatory in The Coronation which is a concept not discussed in the bible, but finds its way into a religious piece. It demonstrates how educated the artists of the time period were, and illustrates that art is not simply images, but a deeply thought out process layered with symbolism and ideologies. This understanding leads to iconography.
These picture demonstrates the various themes of contemporary art. It is a painting of a featureless man, showing his back. Firstly, it depicts the individualistic theme by only showing one figure. Second, it is a very simplistic piece, done in mainly black. While I am intrigued by these underlying themes, I prefer art with more color and more elaborate designs.
Something that I found interesting about last class was the discussion on the economy of art. Specifically, the value of a name. Oftentimes, the most valuable ones are the ones that are associated with famous artists. This then incentivizes museums and art historians to prioritize pieces and leave the less known, even if the art itself is equal in imagery, behind. In other words, the pieces that are in more demand will draw much more interest and recognition. Unfortunately, this creates biases against certain pieces– for example “anonymous” pieces are hardly written about. When considering that women completed most anonymous pieces, one really begins to consider the role gender plays in the current modern art landscape. Upon reflection, I realized that I do not know any famous women artists. This is a concerning realization, and in my future encounters with art I will strive to incorporate more women pieces. In addition, we discussed contemporary art and its themes on innovation and individualism. This style of art is more focused on metaphorical meanings, which is curious to note because it adds a new element when analyzing art pieces. In understanding this, we can draw inferences and become analytic scholars on this topic.
I noticed a couple things at the museum. First, the lighting. The rooms were dark, except for the paintings, which had lights casted on them. This created a feeling of importance: the art in the room was the primary center of focus. Furthermore, the level of noise took me aback. In a usually loud campus (lots of construction), the rooms were eerily silent. I thought back to the discussion of art’s initial purpose as works of religion, and I quickly felt as if I was in church. As someone who does not have much experience with art or museums, both of these feelings were noteworthy in my visit.
Today, we discussed teleological and how it is a poor way to view art history. Teleological thinking essentially believes that society is moving linearly where our actions are done with a clear purpose in mind centered around progress. However, in art, progress does not exist. Indeed, art changes, but art does not progress. If we looked at art through a teleological scope, we would believe that the development of art concluded post-Renaissance. This type of thinking is not beneficial, as people begin to compare different historical societies using the context of present day. We must remain neutral when comparing art of different time periods, and understand the context in which the pieces arose.
The renaissance is an often spoke of time period, but not as frequently defined. It is a broad term which encompasses numerous cultural shifts in different nations to fit under one umbrella. This was my main take away from today’s class: the renaissance was multiple cultural revivals taking place at different times. The return to Greek and Roman literature, art, and science did not happen overnight across the continent; rather, it was a slow process which altered society after centuries. We see this on display in the difference between the French and Italian renaissance. While the Italians began their cultural shift in the 14th century, it was not until the French fought wars against the Italians, in the 16th century did they adopt similar ideologies. This point is interesting and relevant because it will contextualize the time periods and different works we see through history.