Chapter 11, investigates all of the media used by painters, as well as, their various pros and cons. This includes, "...encaustic, fresco, tempera, oil paint, watercolor, gouache, acrylic paints, and mixed media..." It explains how, in the 15th century, painting finally became as prized as the other creative arts. Why? Because of artists like Artemisia Gentileschi. (My favorite female artist of all time.) Her work, "Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting", is stunningly beautiful.
(She was so far ahead of her time technically! Her "Judith and Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes", is also a masterpiece of "tenebrism"- contrasting large areas of darkness with small areas of brightness.) Jasper John's hybrid work, "Numbers in Color" from chapter 4 is a great example of both an "encaustic" and a "collage". Also, the anonymous work,
"Mummy Portrait of a Man", struck my eye. These artists used pigment and hot wax to create works of art on canvas and wood respectively. Our text talks about the two types of frescoes, The "wet" wall method is called "buon fresco" and the "dry" wall method is called "fresco secco". Our book mentions how challenging these methods are because of the speed and prior planning
required to utilize these media well.
My favorite frescoes in this chapter are: 1) Michelangelo's, "Libyan Sibyl" in the Sistine Chapel, and 2) Pozzo’s, “The Glorification of Saint Ignatius.” Pozzo's incredible use of foreshortening, atmospheric and linear perspective, et cetera, are jaw-dropping. You feel like you are looking directly into "Heaven"! (It literally took years to complete these monumental works. But that investment of time has lasted through the ages because of the durability of frescoes.)
I'm going to skip tempera to last because I have a lot to say on that subject. Next, we learn how versatile oils are. They have the ability to be mixed to create tones, hues, and luminosity that were previously impossible. Take the "vanitas", "Still Life with Lobster" by Jan de Heem. Not only is it a beautiful work. A "feast for the eyes". But it represents "food for thought" also.
It reminds us of the "vanity, or frivolous quality, of human existence." I did not have a favorite watercolor. Why? Because it was a bit like comparing "apples to oranges". I liked the Chinese tradition, exemplified by Wu Wei's,"Grapes". (The beautiful calligraphy and "gestural effects".) But I liked the more Western style represented by Winslow Homer's, "A Wall, Nassau", every bit as much. (Just a side note. Wu Wei seems like a "tortured soul". Suffering from paranoia, depression, et cetera.
Being institutionalized, although in prison rather than a sanitorium, he reminds me of a Chinese van Gogh. Could that be a partial source of his creativity, as well?) I'm running kind of long
because I really enjoyed this chapter so much . Anyway, to sum up the media, I enjoyed Jacob Lawrence's humorously titled "gouache": "You can buy bootleg whiskey for twenty-five cents a quart". I love the way he disorients the viewer, creating almost a sense of inebriation, that is so appropriate considering the subject matter.(Gouache uses watercolors mixed with Chinese white
chalk.) Helen Frankenthaler's, "Flood", in synthetic polymer was a favorite. ( I saw a mountain range and setting sun. I'm sure other people experienced this painting differently.) And, last but not least, Patricia Patterson's mixed media piece, "The Kitchen". I like the way the colors and objects pour
out of the 2-D picture into 3-D reality. A nice hybrid of painting and sculpture.( And the theme was Irish, which did not hurt.) I learned that sometimes art media, and the people who create them, are evolutionary and sometimes they are revolutionary.
Finally, I picked up a couple of important points about thinking critically about art. That it can be "didactic", and teach us about life in subtle ways. For instance. A painting can suggest or "connote", even more than it portrays or "denotes". Now, I am going to consider that tempera painting, that I purposely skipped above. It illustrates these points. It is Botticelli's, "Primavera". Done
in "tempera on a gesso ground on poplar panel". ( "Tempera" is made with water, colored pigments, and a gummy substance like egg yolk. It was applied with the point of a "fine sable brush" to an extremely smooth gesso surface. "Gesso" is typically made from glue and chalk or plaster of Paris.) It was painted for the wealthiest and most influential man in Florence, Italy.
This man was also one of the greatest art patrons in history. His name was, Lorenzo de' Medici or "Lorenzo the Magnificent"! Befitting a man of his prominence, it is about 7 X 11 feet in size. It is thought to have been painted for the bridal chamber near the master bedroom. According to our text, the artist "outlined the trees and his 'human' figures on the gesso and then painted the sky, laying blue tempera directly on the ground." Botticelli used an undercoat of black for the trees and
and white for the figures. He used as many as thirty coats of color to create each character! Now that I have that background out of the way, I'll tell you what I "know" about what is being portrayed and what I "feel" is being suggested. The name "Primavera" means "Spring" in Italian and I think Spanish also. The focus of the painting is Venus, the goddess of love and Spring.(I thought I recognized her face from the painting he did, four years later, called, "". Most art historians
seem to agree. To the far right is Zephyr, in "cold" blue colors suggesting the chilly winds of Winter. He is trying to seduce a nymph who morphs into Flora, the goddess of flowers. Venus is in "warmer" orange colors. Next to her are ther "Three Graces", beginning a dance. On the far left, in even "hotter" red, is Mercury, the messenger god and bringer of Summer. Everyone is bracketed by fruit above and blossoms below. Again, we know he is a genius at using focus and colors. What I "feel", relates more to the figure of Cupid hovering above the goddess of love. Packing his traditional bow and flame-tipped arrows of passion, I noticed something for the first time. He's blindfolded! Why? Is it because "love is blind" and all about hormones and superficial attraction? The more I thought about it, particularly in the wake of the "Movie massacre" in Colorado, the more I came to a different
conclusion. I thought about the four guys who shielded their girlfriends from live fire. Who saved their girl's lives at the cost of their own. Couldn't another interpretation be, that that blindfold is there because love blinds you to fear when it comes to the ones you love!?
Glenn Brown's work entitled, "Comfortably Numb, Magenta". This painting seems to portray "Christ's Passion". The pain Jesus is suffering, is palpable. The mocking "crown of thorns" and the anguished expression on His face show it. The smeared paint is very effective at conveying the horror of this experience.( It sort of has a "vanitas" feel to it. As far as, the"certainty of death" and the "transcience of life aspect"!) The viewer identifies with His suffering. Which is what I
"feel' the artist intended. In the final analysis, I hate the subject matter but I like its execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment