My Life Imitates Art concept was explained here.
For my second part, I wanted to showcase the University of Florida’s gorgeous campus. Whether it’s full of screaming football fans decked in orange and blue or less empty and quiet on a cold winter day, UF is true a masterpiece in itself.
Image: http://pwlawrence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Michelangelos_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned.jpg.
Info: 1498-1499, marble, 68.5” by 76.8”, St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City.
Explanation: This sculpture is notable for two reasons. One, it’s probably the world’s most famous religious sculpture. Two, it’s the only piece that Michelangelo only signed.
The Pieta sculpture was commissioned for the funeral monument of French cardinal Jean de Billheres, a representative in Rome.
Michelangelo adapted the typical Pieta scene – other artists usually depicted Mary to look desperately sad as she held the dead Christ in her life. However, Michelangelo decided to create Mary’s face as one of soft serenity. Her faith in religion overcomes her emotional turmoil – although she is intensely sad, Mary is sweet and noble. She has accepted her son’s fate, but that does not stop her from cradling his body in her lap.
Mechanically, this sculpture is intricate. The folds and wrinkles in Mary’s robes are accurately modeled; they frame her face and neck delicately. The way Michelangelo made Mary’s headdress casts shadows on her neck. Mary’s eyes are cast downward. Her skin is smooth; the stone looks like flesh.
Christ’s body is sprawled in her lap. In death, her child is suddenly so much larger than she. The body’s muscles are properly arranged and have started to sink; the bones produce soft curves. Christ’s body has much weight, shown by the way Mary props him with her left hand under his arm. His foot dangles as an innocent gesture, perhaps intended to be a reference to how young he is.
Although Mary’s lap must be inconceivably large to hold Christ, Michelangelo has disguised it well. The draping of her robe combined with the diagonal of Christ’s body keeps the eye busy, but somehow does not detract from the extreme emotion that the piece conveys.
When this piece was first displayed, Michelangelo stood nearby and overheard people attributing it to different Renaissance artists. Enraged, Michelangelo carved, “MICHAEL. ANGELUS. BONAROTUS. FLORENT. FACIEBAT” (Michelangelo Buonarroti of Florence Created This). Later, he admitted that he regretted that he caved to his emotions… and never signed his art again.
My opinion: I love Michelangelo, and this sculpture. I think it’s interesting how young he depicted the Virgin Mary because “Women who are pure in soul and body never grow old. I like to think, however, that he wanted to show the connection of just how young Mary was – and, by association, imply how unfair it was for her to experience such great grief at such an age. She was still innocent, as was her son.
This is my favorite Pieta. It’s now in St. Peter’s Basilica, which is my favorite basilica. Other Pietas make Christ look more like a corpse than a human. I think Michelangelo masterfully combined many aspects of the scene to create a wholly poignant sculpture. Mary looks so celestial, so above this world but simultaneously distressed. One would think that these two themes would conflict, but – once again – Michelangelo pulls it off flawlessly.
Sources: http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Altars/Pieta/Pieta.htm.
Image: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/michelangelo-1.jpg, http://blognitivedissonance.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/bernini-david.jpg, http://jaysblogspectacular.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/donatello-david.jpg.
Info: Michelangelo, 1504, carrara marble, 17’ tall, Galleria dell’Accademia, Florence, Italy. Bernini, 1623-1634, marble, 67” tall, Galleria Borghese, Rome, Italy. Donatello, 1440s, bronze, 62.2” tall, Museo Nazionale del Bargello.
Explanation: These sculptures are all of the Biblical hero David (of David and Goliath). The story goes that the Philistine army was preparing to go to war against Israel. A nine-foot giant came out each day for 40 days, challenging the Israelites to fight him. His name was Goliath.
When Jesse sent his youngest son, David, to check on his brothers in the war zone, he saw Goliath threatening the Israel soldiers. David spoke out and volunteered to fight the giant. Carrying only a staff, some stones and a slingshot, David approached Goliath. Goliath cursed David out, but David slung a stone at his forehead, which flew through his armor.
Goliath died. Using Goliath’s sword, David cut off the giant’s head. Seeing this, the Philistines ran away, and the Israelites won.
Of course, the depiction of David became something of a standard in art; many artists have created their own versions of the man – notably, Michelangelo, Bernini and Donatello.
My opinion: No one said my blog had to be all paintings, right? I know I didn’t do these chronologically – instead I set them up so that the differences were clear.
Donatello’s David is much too feminine for my taste – David was supposed to be lithe, yes, but that doesn’t mean scrawny – and I think the bronze is distracting. The color of the sculpture draws away from the importance of the subject. Maybe Donatello tried a bit too hard to break societal norms while creating this piece. In my opinion, at least, his statement kind of backfired.
Bernini’s David is alright. I think Bernini might have been preoccupied by the opportunity to show off his muscle modeling. I take issue with Bernini’s David because the man appears older (and wiser) than he is described in the story. However, I do love how Bernini captures David frozen in time.
My favorite David is Michelangelo’s. I think his sculpture is majestic and noble; his depiction of David matches the image in my mind. His body is subtly muscular; his face is young. David is paused, holding a stone in a gigantic hand, but is looking confidently towards his foe.
Just gorgeous.
Source: http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/davidandgoliath.htm.
Oscar Wilde once wrote,
“Life imitates art far more than art imitates life.”
This is especially true in Gainesville, Fla., where I attend college.
I wanted to show my blog readers how artful life is here in Gainesville, so I photographed a few particularly beautiful scenes from a local restaurant (part one) and campus (part two).
Without further ado, I present part one! Enjoy.
In Satchel’s Pizza downtown, the owners pride themselves on their unconventional decorations. They have a conglomerate mosaic door, a mobile of tire hubcaps, a chandelier of keys and much, much more.
Image: http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/s06/mgawrys/images/renoir.moulin-galette.jpg.
Info: Bal du Moulin de la Galette, 1876, oil on canvas, 52” x 69”, Musee d’Orsay, Paris
Explanation: Impressionism, a movement that started in France in the late 19th century, was a total break from the rigid techniques and traditions of European paintings. The change centered around the idea of the now and involved the artist painting as quickly as possible in order to capture the moment as it was happening. This brought about the use of short brushstrokes of pure color (instead of long strokes with complex shades). Artists also encouraged the ideal of subjectivity rather than indifference – after all, the goal was to create a piece that showed the impression the scene made on the person viewing.
Many world-renowned (today) artists were Impressionists: Monet, Degas, and – of course – Renoir. Pierre Auguste Renoir was a leader in developing and popularizing the Impressionist movement, and Le Moulin de la Galette epitomizes this style.
This painting shows a typical Sunday afternoon at the Moulin de la Galette, a social area next to a windmill in France. Working-class Parisians would go to this area wearing fine clothing and spend the afternoons/evenings drinking, dancing and eating. The piece is intended to be a quick snapshot of the happenings.
In keeping with the Impressionist style, Renoir painted the lights and shadows as they fell on the people. Actions – like the couples dancing and the blonde girl talking to the boy on the bench – are frozen in time. The scene focuses on the girl in the striped dress – who is purported to be the sister of Renoir’s favorite model – and as the viewer’s eye travels backward, the faces become less distinct; eventually, people are just quick dots.
My opinion: Oh, Impressionism. This painting is so relaxing to me. Renoir has masterfully captured the atmosphere of the moment – easy, cool in the shade of the trees, careless – while still infusing the piece with so much energy.
I’m really into the idea of Impressionism in general because I think it’s such a legitimate concept. Capturing the moment in all its imperfect beauty is so much better than carefully orchestrating a posed painting. Even the medium lends itself to quick creation.
The dancing couples are moving in different directions, people are having separate conversations, customers are eating, and everything is just happening concurrently but it’s not at all frenzied. The shadows slow everything down. Viewing this piece is like being there, and it’s so wonderful to get lost in the moment.
To me, this is real art.
Sources: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/renoir/moulin-galette/, http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/c19th/impressionism.htm, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/imml/hd_imml.htm, http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/glo/impressionism/.
Image: http://www.dustinhetrick.com/art/school_athens.jpg
Info: The School of Athens, 1509-1510, fresco, 200 in x 300 in, Apostolic Palace, Rome, Vatican City.
Explanation: “The School of Athens” really showcases the division in Renaissance philosophy, although it is set in classical times. The two greatest Greek philosophers walk together, holding their books and discussing their thoughts. Plato, on the left, points upward, suggesting that the meaning of life is bigger than the physical world. Aristotle opposes him, holding his hand towards the Earth and arguing that meaning can be derived from the concrete world. It’s been suggested that Plato’s red and orange clothing is colored fire and air; Aristotle wears blue and brown (water and earth).
On either side of them, the men are surrounded by their Greek supporters, which Raphael painted to resemble his contemporaries. Plato looks like Leonardo DaVinci; at the bottom of the steps, Heraclitus as Michelangelo slumps against a block. Holding a compass is Bramante shown as Euclid. Raphael himself is in the painting, on the far right side as Apelles. He is staring right at the viewer, as if questioning their opinion of the piece.
The building is in the classical style and is designed as a Greek cross, which shows a compromise between pagan and Christian theologies (some even think that it was preview of St. Peter’s Basilica!). There are two sculptures in the background which correlate to the men’s philosophies – on the left, Apollo, god of sun, archery, and music; on the left, Athena, goddess of wisdom.
Design-wise, this piece utilizes linear perspective to show 3-D objects on a two dimensional surface, culminating in a vanishing point above the Plato and Aristotle’s heads. This draws the viewer’s eye to the most important part of the painting. The piece is also symmetrical; there is a transition from philosophy to science as the eye moves from left to right.
My opinion: The High Renaissance is my favorite! This piece embodies a few of the things I love the most – the colorful style of painting, the realistic depiction of clothes, and the incorporation of detailed architecture into the scene.
I think Raphael was brilliant for projecting the famous figures onto people he saw regularly. The only person without a contemporary’s face is Socrates, which makes me wonder what that means… hm.
Sources: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/SchoolAthens.htm, http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/raphael/4stanze/1segnatu/1/athens.html,
http://mv.vatican.va/4_ES/pages/z-Patrons/MV_Patrons_04_01.html.
Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Klimt_-_Der_Kuss.jpeg
Info: The Kiss, 1907, oil and gold leaf on canvas, 70.9” x 70.9”, Österreichische Galerie, Vienna, Austria.
Explanation: This painting is Gustav Klimt’s most famous work, painted during his Golden Period (which was during the world’s Art Noveau, Symbolism, and Arts and Crafts movements). The piece is a throwback to Degas’s two-and-three-dimensional works inspired by Japanese prints. Although the painting may seem flat at first glance, the colors and emotion give it an unexpected dimensionality.
Clearly, “The Kiss” depicts a couple intertwined as they kiss against a bronze background. The man wears a cloak of black and tan rectangles, representing males’ powerful and straightforward attitude toward life. The woman dons a dress with circle patterns all over it; these shapes represent an open flower (symbolizing female sensuality).
However, not much else in the painting is defined – the woman and man are meshed together in a powerful embrace, which causes an explosion of color and patterns in a disorganized way that is somehow still pleasant to the eye.
While the woman has her eyes closed in a strange mix of abandonment and pleasure, the man’s face is not shown. His passion is implied by the strong muscles in his cheek as he kisses; his tenderness, in the way he carefully cradles the woman’s face.
The couple stands on a cliff covered in flowers (it’s almost meadow-like), but there is no background. Klimt created the piece so that nothing distracts from the two central characters. The viewer gets the feeling that the two are totally alone and removed from any tangible world. There is no pressure or time, just love. It’s like nothing exists but them – they are just two caught in a whirlwind of color and infatuation.
My opinion: I have this painting in poster form on my dorm room’s wall. I think it’s so beautiful and passionate because she’s so into the guy and she’s just melting into him.
The couple is becoming one before the viewer’s eyes – morphing together because they’re so desperately in love that they have to get as close as possible… and, even then, they’re not close enough. The two are clutching at each other so tightly that the woman’s arm doesn’t even make a separate line from the shape of the man’s neck.
The grass on his crown has combined beautifully with the flowers in her hair to mingle and create the cliff on which they stand. The woman closes her eyes because she’s just totally overcome by gratitude and adoration – her emotions are overwhelming her so much that she has no choice but to go limp in her lover’s arms.
… all of this from a kiss on the cheek. *happy sigh*
Sources: http://www.peintre-analyse.com/baiserus.htm, http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/klimt/kiss/.
Women In Art is a video that, quite simply, shows the evolution of the depiction of females throughout the ages. Isn’t it interesting to see how as societal norms changed, what was considered ‘beautiful’ also evolved?
For a more contemporary comparison, watch Women in Film here. Even though those women are - of course - human and therefore have different faces, they all somehow come together to create the concept of ‘beauty’ over time.
Image: http://smarthistory.org/assets/images/images/MasaccioTributeMoney.jpg
Info: The Tribute Money, 1420s, fresco, 97.2” x 235”, Brancacci Chapel, Florence, Italy.
Explanation: Masaccio is regarded by many as the first great painter of the Early Italian Renaissance. He made great strides in establishing the three-dimensional style of painting figures and settings. He incorporated human movement into his pieces, utilized vanishing points to give his paintings depth, and developed linear perspective.
“The Tribute Money” is considered to be one of Masaccio’s best works. The painting depicts a scene from the Gospel of Matthew in which the Pharisees consult Jesus Christ on whether they should pay taxes to the Romans. Jesus instructs Saint Peter to the river, where he finds a coin in a fish’s mouth; he uses this to pay the tax.
When Masaccio was commissioned to create this piece, there was an ongoing controversy over the taxes levied in Florence. The depiction of Christ encouraging (and, in fact, enabling) Peter to pay was meant to be a propagandistic persuasion for dissenting viewers.
This piece is painted to be a continuous narrative, meaning that many events happen on the same canvas (the characters are repeated). In the center is the first event – a tax collector (dressed in the short orange robe) asks for the tribute money, and Jesus directs Peter to fish. On the left, Peter obeys. Finally, on the right side of the painting, Peter pays the collector with the money he found.
“The Tribute Money” is revolutionary for its introduction and inclusion of three-dimensional techniques.
Masaccio uses linear perspective to create a vanishing point right above Christ’s head; this draws the entire scene back into the mountains to create the illusion of depth. This is reinforced on the right, where the building is painted using shadows. Masaccio also employed atmospheric perspective to create a stormy background without detracting attention from the action at hand.
My opinion: Masaccio was a genius (and arguably the first to successfully create three dimensions). His manipulation of lines – both drawn and invisible – required mathematic skill and precision but were, in my opinion, incredibly necessary for the conception/execution of depth.
Also, note that Peter by the river is smaller than the figures in the forefront; although this may be the artistic ‘norm’ in modern times, it was considered an intelligent move by his peers. By the time the Renaissance finishes, there will be no confusion about a character’s location in a scene because the artist could now establish it so clearly.
More personally, I love the way that Masaccio designs the figures. Their bodies are modeled convincingly, and the colors of their clothes are bright (emphasized by his source of light). The folds and shadows of the men’s robes are realistic. And – finally – an artist has figured out how to paint halos that correlate to the direction of the wearers’ heads!
I really like religious paintings, which is weird because I’m not a very religious person. At any rate, this painting excites me because it was one of the first in the Early Renaissance (!!!!), my third-favorite art period!
Sources: http://www.finearttouch.com/Masaccio_s_Tribute_Money.html,
http://www.artbible.info/art/large/24.html, http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/m/masaccio/brancacc/tribute/tribute.html.
Image: http://www.artquotes.net/masters/frida-kahlo/the-two-fridas.jpg
Info: The Two Fridas, 1939, Oil on canvas, 67” x 67”, Collection of the Museo de Arte Moderno, Mexico City.
Explanation: As far as self-portraits go, Mexican surrealist Frida Kahlo’s “The Two Fridas” is arguably the most in-depth painting the art community has seen in the last century.
“The Two Fridas” has just that – Kahlo paints two different versions of herself on either side of the piece. On the right is the Frida that Mexican muralist Diego Rivera, her on-again off-again husband, fell in love with and married; on the left, the Frida that Rivera resents.
Kahlo created this piece in 1939, shortly after Rivera asked her for a second divorce. Painting this while undergoing emotional crisis, Kahlo depicts herself as split and broken against a stormy background mirroring her mental state.
On the right is the ‘old’ Frida. She is dressed in traditional Tehuana clothing and her heart is bared but whole, showing the positive effects of Rivera’s affection. Frida holds a miniature portrait of Rivera, shaped like an egg and connected to a long red string/vein; this was intended to suggest that Rivera was both her lover and her child.
The vein runs up her arm, through her heart and across to the other Frida, with whom she is holding hands – this signifies the inherent connection between the two women, whether Rivera likes it or not.
The ‘new’ Frida, which Rivera no longer loves, is dressed in a European Victorian-style white dress to signify her dual heritage (her father was a German-Jewish immigrant). Blood from the cut vein drips onto her dress, conveying the physical and emotional pain of her surgeries, abortions, and loss of Rivera. She tries to stop this blood flow by pinching the vein with scissors.
Frida’s heart is exposed and wrecked, but she sits stoically.
My opinion: This double self-portrait is so brilliant because it almost mocks Rivera’s argument for divorcing her (no doubt it was “you’ve changed”).
The differences between the two Fridas are so clear, but the most painfully obvious aspect of the piece is Kahlo’s suffering. In either body, Kahlo was hopelessly, totally, desperately devoted to Rivera – by leaving her, he is ripping her apart to feel pain only she can comprehend.
My favorite quote of Kahlo’s is: “… understand in the end that I love you more than my own skin, and that, though you may not love me in the same way, still you love me somewhat. Isn’t that so? … I shall always hope that that continues, and with that I am content.”
If that, combined with the portrait above, doesn’t convince you that she is one of the strongest (and thus most inspirational) women in history, I’m not sure what will.
Sources: http://www.pbs.org/weta/fridakahlo/worksofart/index.html, http://www.ebsqart.com/Education/Articles/Art-History-and-Criticism/2/Frida-Kahlo-and-Duality/5/, http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/davis/davis8-28-08.asp .
