Reminiscing

I am getting ready for graduation on Thursday.  One of the things I am currently working on is decorating my cap; might be silly but I want it to reflect my degree and favorite works of art.  Therefore, I am working to collect images of my favorite art pieces and then put them on my cap.  One of my all time favorite sculptures is The David by Michelangelo.  I realized I had written a paper on this piece a couple semesters back for my Renaissance art class right after I got back from 3 weeks in Italy.  Thought I would post it....enjoy!

David, Michelangelo, 1501-1504

      The David, sculpted by Michelangelo Buonarroti in Florence, Italy from 1501-4 is a marble sculpture that stands 4.34 m (14.24 ft) high including the base.  This sculpture is housed in the Galleria dell’Accademia in Florence and is the centerpiece of their collection.  It is placed in a half rotunda with a long hallway of his other, non completed works lining the way and leading to what is often considered Michelangelo’s greatest masterpiece along with his Pieta in Rome. 
    The statue known as David is a large, male nude sculpted in the style of the ancient Greeks and Romans.  He has been placed in the contraposto pose with his left hand resting on his shoulder.  The placement of his hands and position of his body provides a contrast in how his body is open and closed within the whole.  This provides grace and harmony within the piece that is very reminiscent of classical sculpture but with changes that make it distinctly Michelangelo.     
      Michelangelo had grown up and been taught in the court of Lorenzo de Medici and was influenced by his tastes as well as the preferences of his teachers Ghirlandaio and Bertoldo di Gionvanni.  These artists taught him about sculpture, painting, and drawing and were large influences in his life.  Documents, including his letters, have shown that although Michelangelo did in fact see first hand many of the great ancient sculptures during his stays in Rome, he was not as impressed by them as other Renaissance artists of the time.  Rather, he viewed his work in sculpture as a competition with the ancient artisans and was always looking for ways to better what they had created.  This can be seen most elegantly in his sculpture The David.
    The David is a larger than life sculpture standing over fourteen feet tall.  The proportions of his body have been slightly altered from the “norm.”  His hands and feet are bigger than those of a regular human, his torso is longer, and his head is slightly out of proportion from the rest of his body.  This may be partly due to the fact that when Michelangelo carved the figure, it was meant to be placed on top of a building and thus Michelangelo carved the statue in order to have it appear normal when gazing up at it.
    Another oddity within the sculpture is that Michelangelo carved the two sides of the body differently.  “The right-hand side of the statue is smooth and composed while the left-side, from the outstretched foot all the way up to the disheveled hair, is openly active and dynamic. To achieve this effect, Michelangelo deliberately made body parts disproportionate.” 
    The right hand has been carved slightly larger than the left which places emphasis on the stone within the clenched hand.  Although Michelangelo used these techniques in the carving of The David, he did it so masterfully that an average viewer gazing at the sculpture takes no notice of these irregularities as they are struck with wonder at the mastery of the artist. 
    The symbolic and religious meaning in David can be seen in how his right hand has been carved in an exaggerated manner.  According to Hibbard, “the hand probably illustrates the appellation manu fortis that was commonly applied to David in the Middle Ages: strong of hand.”  While his torso is clearly sculpted in the traditional ancient manner of the Greeks and Romans due to the musculature and method of portraying the male nude; his head and neck with the tension visible in his twisted neck are entirely new and of Michelangelo’s design.  This demonstrates Michelangelo’s knowledge and respect for the practices of antiquity but also his attempt to be better than they had been.
    The David is a very typical example of what would become the famous muscular style of Michelangelo.  The figure is not a young, slender youth such as was portrayed by Donatello in his bronze David, but rather a young man in his prime who worked hard in the fields and wilderness and was not afraid of anyone or anything.
    David holds the sling ready as well as a rock in his right hand and looks off into the distance as though he is sizing up his opponent and determining how best to take him down.  As he is carved in marble, he has a supporting element depicted as a tree trunk on the right side of his body in the form of a tree trunk which steadies his form. 
       A reason for the strange dimensions as well as the nature of the carving; not being completely full and in the round, may be attributed to the block of marble Michelangelo was given to work with.  Therefore, due to the condition of the marble and already somewhat pre-determined lines he had to work with, Michelangelo had to create the figure much more flat than was traditionally done.  This meant that the back of the David is almost all completely flat whereas the front has been given more careful detail and attention due to the intention of it being viewed from the front rather than in the round.  Also, the quality of the marble may not have been quite as good as the famed Carrera marble Michelangelo used almost exclusively later in his career.  There has been some debate about this and whether it accounts for the poor maintaining of the sculpture through the centuries.  
    Michelangelo was given this commission after at least two other artists including Agostino di Duccio and Antonio Rossellino had worked with the marble block and been released from contract or dismissed.  Not much is known about why they were released from the project other than their initial work of roughing out the block had supposedly ruined it.  Unlike so many other artists, Michelangelo could “see” the finished sculpture within a piece of marble and believed that his role was to “free it from the stone and reveal it to the world.
    Michelangelo was given the commission for the carving of The David on August 16, 1501 and started work on the statue in early September.  According to his letters, he was given two years to complete the sculpture and would receive a salary of six gold florins every month.  He managed to complete it within the required time in spite of receiving other commissions which clamored for his attention including a bronze statue of David which has been lost.   
    The block of marble Michelangelo was given to work with had been badly damaged and weathered due to the work of the two previous artists as they attempted to rough out the general figure and then having been left exposed to the elements for many years.  This would have caused other artists to balk at the commission and often add pieces of marble in order to create the required piece.  Michelangelo felt that this was not necessary and declared that he would be able to carve the statue from that one block without the addition of any other stone. 
    Due to the stresses the stone had already undergone with the previous carvings and weathering as well as the compositional details Michelangelo chose to incorporate, the David has cracks along its base, legs, and tree trunk support feature.  These have been examined and documented throughout the centuries and most recently in 2005 in a journal article in the Journal of Archeological Science where they found that the cracks have been growing steadily and that it is partially due to how Michelangelo created the center of gravity within the piece in relation to the center of gravity of the base.  Those two features are off enough that they are creating stress on the sculpture and in time may result in collapse.
    The David has also been the victim of violence throughout the centuries.  It was first attacked as it was being transported to its final destination on May 14, 1504 when citizens threw stones at in protest for unknown reasons.  Also, during a riot in Florence in 1527 projectiles were thrown towards the Palazzo della Signora, hit the David, and caused the break in its left arm into three different pieces which then had to be repaired. 
    This statue is one of the most powerful and graceful statues to come out of the High Renaissance in Italy.  The David was commissioned by the directors of the Duomo and the Wool Guild (Arte della Lana) to complete the sculptural ornamentation of Florence Cathedral.  Even though the  The Florentines viewed themselves as David and the enemy as Goliath as in the Biblical tale.  Although initially intended to ornament the cathedral in Florence, after the military victory over the city of Pisa, it was decided that it would stand in a more prominent place where it would serve as a reminder of the might of Florence to all citizens.
    The David was at first meant to be elevated up off the ground and stand as a guardian and watchman for the city of Florence.  However, when the statue was completed and revealed, the public loved it so much that they kept it on the ground outside the town hall.  There was much debate on whether to have this sculpture remain a purely religious object or if it could also be utilized for political purposes by the government as propaganda against the Medici, the Pisans, and other overlords who sought to control Florence.
    Before the public reveal of the sculpture, there was a meeting of artists in Florence where such as da Vinci, Cosimo Rosselli, Sandro Botticelli, Giuliano da Sangallo, and others to decide where this magnificent sculpture was to be placed.  Never before had there been a meeting of artists who decided where and how art should be displayed.  This meeting demonstrates how far artists have risen from mere skilled laborers to revered artists, thinkers, and members of society.  This is exactly what da Vinci and other Renaissance artists worked so hard to achieve. 
    Although it is not one of his earliest works, it is still early in his career; some might say at the height due to the detail and mastery needed to carve the marble provided into a suitable sculpture.  By this time, he had already completed the Rome Pieta and had various other sculptures to his credit.  However, he was still young; in his early twenties and thus was not jaded to the world as many older artists were and much like he would become later in life.  
    To have a commission of this magnitude be given to such a young artist who despite being well known in Bologna and Rome, had yet to leave an impact on the artistic world of Florence is amazing.  Michelangelo at the time of the carving of David was in his prime; he had completed his artistic studies, created a few pieces which helped introduce him as an artist, and now was able to sculpt a piece which would stand as a testament to his skill and genius for years.      
    Michelangelo has been called many things and is known for many different works of art, each amazing in its own way.  However, the David is special because he gives us a taste of what was to come for Michelangelo in terms of style and content.  He is unlike other Renaissance artists in that his figures are always monumental and masculine in tone.  We are able to see hints of the style he would utilize when creating one of his most famous masterpieces; The Sistine Ceiling.  However, at the root of it all, is this famous sculpture known as the David and seen as the epitome of Renaissance art and sensibilities.

Pieta, Michelangelo, 1499, marble

David, Donatello, 1432, bronze

Sistine Chapel Ceiling, Michelangelo, c. 1508-1512, fresco

  Bibliography
Anthony Hughes and Caroline Elam. "Michelangelo." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online.         Oxford University Press, accessed April 21, 2014, http://www.oxfordartonline.com.mcc1.library.csulb.edu/subscriber/article/grove/art/T057716pg2           
Attanasio, Donato, Rosario Platania, and Paolo Rocchi. 2005. “The Marble of the David of         Michelangelo: A Multi-method Analysis of Provenance.” Journal of Archaeological         Science. 32, no. 9: 1369-1377.

Beck, James, and Michelangelo Buonarroti. 1999. Three Worlds of Michelangelo. New York:         W.W. Norton.

Borri, A, and A Grazini. 2006. “Diagnostic Analysis Of the Lesions and Stability Of             Michelangelo's David.” Journal of Cultural Heritage. 7, no. 4: 273-285.

Buonarroti, Michelangelo, and Robert Walter Carden. 1913. Michelangelo : A Record of His Life     as Told in His Own Letters and Papers. London: Constable & Co. ltd.

Buonarroti, Michelangelo, and Mario Salmi. 1966. The Complete Work of Michelangelo.             London: Madcdonald.

Brandes, Georg Morris Cohen. 1963. Michelangelo: His Life, His Times, His Era. New York:         Ungar,        

Clements, Robert John. 1961. Michelangelo's Theory of Art. [New York]: New York University         Press.

Hibbard, Howard. 1985. Michelangelo. Cambridge ; Philadelphia: Harper & Row.

Shaikh, Saad, and James Leonard-Amodeo. 2005. “The Deviating Eyes of Michelangelo's         David.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 98, no. 2: 75-76.

I'm Still Here!

Hello blogging world!
I have not forgotten the post I promised about the Norton Simon exhibit....but finals are happening at school right now which is taking all my brain power and time.  Once I finish this week and graduate next week (in exactly 8 days- YAY!!!!!!!) I will be able to post more.

New Post in the Works!

Hello blogging world!
I am currently on Spring Break so am taking something of a "brain break" for a few days before diving back into all the readings my professors have given me.  The highlight of my break will be my visit to the Norton Simon I am doing in a few days with my mom and grandma! Not only will we be taking in the spectacular collection there, but will be spending a great deal of time in their special exhibit from the Museé d'Orsay which is on at the moment featuring some of the greatest works in Impressionist art.  I will try to write a review of the exhibit when we go but just from what is online, I can tell it is going to be something special.  If you have a free afternoon, I HIGHLY suggest you make the drive to Pasadena and visit this special museum.  It has (in my opinion) a better collection than the Getty and the manner in which they organize and present the art is highly conducive to an enjoyable experience.

Be warned, you will have to reserve timed tickets to get into this exhibition.  They do however allow you access to the rest of the museum as well which is nice.  Let me know if you end up going and what your thoughts were!
Here is the link for the exhibit
Norton Simon- Museé d'Orsay exhibit

Hagia Sophia- A Jewel Through the Ages

One of the many classes I took for my Art History degree was Islamic Art and Architecture.  It was a fascinating class where we examined many of the art forms and items not normally studied.  I wrote my term paper on the amazing church known as Hagia Sophia.  This amazing site remains one of the top items on my bucket list of places to visit around the world.  I'm hopeful that one day I will be able to cross it off my list.  Hope you enjoy the discoveries I made while researching this church!

Hagia Sophia, Exterior View

     Hagia Sophia has a long and varied history.  It began as a Byzantine Christian church, was converted to a Muslim mosque when the Ottomans overthrew the Byzantines and set up their empire in Istanbul, and then was once again transformed, this time into a national museum in 1935 that showcased its history as a mosque and church. 
    We will examine the architecture and history of Hagia Sophia.  The building began as a Byzantine Christian church and when the Ottoman empire conquered Constantinople and renamed it Istanbul; they converted this magnificent church into a mosque which became known as the Ayasofya mosque.    
    Hagia Sophia was built in 532 AD after the church previously standing there had been destroyed due to a revolt by the people of Constantinople.  The emperor of the time, Justinian, decided to build a church that would combine the traditional basilica form of a Christian church with a secular Roman dome such as was seen in the Pantheon in Rome.  This form of architecture had never been seen before and presented many different challenges to the architects chosen by Justinian to design and oversee the building of the church. 
    The modern Hagia Sophia that stands today is the third or fourth reconstruction of the original building.  This is due to natural disaster such as earthquakes, fire, and general destruction.  Justinian used circumstances such as a revolt by the local people to expedite his plans to build the church he desired without having demolish the existing church to access the site he wanted to use.  
The great church of Justinian was destined from the very outset of its history to be so wracked and jarred by earthquakes as to demand almost continual buttressing and repair. Indeed, from the accounts of Byzantine writers it has been calculated that twenty-seven severe earthquakes occurred in Constantinople from the beginning of the seventh to the middle of the fifteenth century, while the church itself has been shaken by at least sixteen major shocks since its completion in 537.
        Justinian chose Anthemius of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus to design Hagia Sophia for their mathematical skill and architectural prowess.  He commissioned them to design a church that would put all other churches of the time to shame as well as stretch their mathematic and architectural abilities to the limit.  Justinian wanted a traditional square church fused with the round dome seen in Roman architecture.  There were numerous challenges surrounding this demand.  The architects had to figure out a way to have a transitional feature that would allow them to build the circular dome as large as Justinian required.  To do this, they created a new type of architectural feature known as a pendentive which is a triangular arch-like element that allows a builder to transition from a square base to a round dome.  It was because of this pendentive as well as the four massive buttresses surrounding the church that the dome was capable of being as large as it is (fig 5).    
    There were two types of church plans that were most often used at this time.  One is known as the basilica plan church which was popular in the western part of the world and was shaped similar to a cross.  The other was known as the central plan church where there is a central dome and the entire church is much more compact in how it was constructed around that dome (fig 1). 
    There are experts who say that the Hagia Sophia is a central-plan church and others who say it is basilica-plan church.  Based upon review of plans for both types of churches as well as the floor plans for the Hagia Sophia (fig 2,3), it is apparent that the Hagia Sophia is a melding of both the basilica-plan and central-plan style churches.  This can be seen in the floor plan of Hagia Sophia (fig 3,4).  Hagia Sophia has the length of a basilica-plan church with the centrality of a central-plan church.  It may be that Justinian wanted to meld East and West within his church and that is why Hagia Sophia does not fit exactly into either of the church plans. 
    The dome of Hagia Sophia is the crowning glory of the church and is what defines this church as one of the greatest churches and architectural masterpieces of all time.  The dome is one hundred and seven feet in diameter and only two feet thick.  The size of the dome was an architectural feat not matched until Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome was built in 1506.  Hagia Sophia’s dome has forty windows placed at the base of the dome which not only release some of the tension coming down but also provide light to the interior of the church and help to create an atmosphere within the church itself of mystery and religious sanctity (fig 8).  The building materials used for this church hearkens back to the concrete used by the ancient Romans.  They used almost entirely brick and mortar to build the church, including the dome, but the bases are made of stone to provide stability to the church.  Hagia Sophia was also designed to look as though it is divided into four levels which look like registers.  This not only draws the eye upward, but it also takes some of the stress away from the dome. 

Hagia Sophia, Interior of Dome

    Hagia Sophia went through its first transformation in May 3, 1453 when the Ottomans swept into Constantinople and set up their empire in the newly renamed city of Istanbul.  The Ottoman emperor Mehmet II (the Conqueror) was the one who brought about the changes to Hagia Sophia and began the alterations that make it the building seen today. 
    The Ottomans chose to not tear the building down for a number of reasons.  The church was already an impressive structure at the time of conquest, even though it had fallen into some disrepair, and therefore it made sense to not waste money in building a whole new mosque rather than utilizing an existing structure.  Another reason the Ottomans chose to retain the church is to showcase their power over the population by redoing the church.  Hagia Sophia and how it was altered became the starting point and inspiration behind many of the other Ottoman mosques to come. 
      To change Hagia Sophia from a Christian church to a Muslim mosque, there were many changes that had to be made to both the interior as well as the exterior of the church.  Hagia Sophia was not drastically altered at the time of Mehmet II in order to adapt it to a mosque.  Little more was done than removing the Christian liturgical ornaments, building a mihrab and minbar towards Mecca, constructing one temporary wooden minaret for calls to prayer, and replacing the cross on the top of the dome with a traditional crescent.   
    Through the years, Hagia Sophia continued to be altered to suit the needs of the Muslim empire as their principal mosque in the city.  Within the church, all of the Byzantine mosaics which made the church famous were whitewashed to cover them since there is no figural art allowed in Muslim holy spaces.(fig 9)  Art historians are very lucky that the Ottomans only whitewashed over the mosaics instead of chipping them out so that we are able to view them today partially restored.  Another change that was made was to add in large pendants which had Koranic inscriptions on them and hung around the nave under the large central dome.  Traditional aspects of a mosque such as four minarets, the mihrab, minbar, were added gradually as the years passed and each Ottoman sultan sought to leave a mark of their patronage on the mosque.   
    Hagia Sophia remained an active mosque until 1931 when it was closed to the public.  It remained closed for four years while repairs and changes were made to reflect its history as both a Christian church and mosque.  It was reopened to the public in 1935 as a national museum and has remained as such since then.  It has undergone and continues to undergo significant renovations to bring back the grandeur of its time as both a church and a mosque.  In 2010, there was an extensive research project undertaken to ascertain and if possible, further preserve and protect the mosaics within Hagia Sophia.  Scientists used methods such as infra-red thermography and ground penetrating radar were used to identify places where mosaics were in danger of decay due to environmental elements and also find mosaics still covered by plaster from the time of the Ottomans.  Studies such as this one as well as continued efforts by art historians are necessary to help preserve this international treasure for the generations to come.

Bibliography:

Downey, Glanville. 1950. “Justinian as a Builder”. The Art Bulletin. 32, no. 4: 262-266.

Emerson, William, and Robert L van Nice. 1950. “Hagia Sophia and the First Minaret Erected     After the Conquest of Constantinople”. American Journal of Archaeology. 54, no. 1: 28-40.

Kähler, Heinz. Hagia Sophia. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Inc., Publishers, 1967.  

 
Kinross, Patrick Balfour. Hagia Sophia.  New York: Newsweek Book Division, 1972.

MacDonald, William. 1957. “Design and Technology in Hagia Sophia”. Perspecta. 4: 20-27.

Mainstone, Rowland. J. Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure, and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great     Church. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1988. 11-12  

Moropoulou, Antonia, Asterios Bakolas, Maria Karoglou, Ekaterini T Delegou, Kyriakos C     Labropoulos, and Nikolaos S Katsiotis.  “Diagnostics and Protection of Hagia Sophia Mosaics”. Journal of Cultural Heritage. (January 2013)

Ousterhout, Robert. 2006. “Hagia Sophia”. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 65,     no. 3: 435-437.

Ozkul, Tulay Aksu, and Eiichi Kuribayashi. 2007. “Structural Characteristics of Hagia Sophia: I—A Finite Element Formulation for Static Analysis”. Building and Environment. 42, no. 3: 1212-1218.

Swift, Emerson H. 1935. “The Latins at Hagia Sophia”. American Journal of Archaeology. 39,  no. 4: 458-474.

Hagia Sophia, Cutaway Elevation

Hagia Sophia, Interior of Dome

 

 

 

Rembrandt at the Norton Simon

I was going through old papers and found one I wrote for my Baroque art class.  It is a comparison paper done on two paintings by Rembrandt.  He is one of my favorite artists so enjoy my take on his work! And, if you feel so inclined, visit the Norton Simon and compare them for yourself!

Rembrandt and His Method

    I recently visited the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena where I viewed a painting by Rembrandt van Rijn called Portrait of a Boy which was painted in oil on canvas in 1655-60.  This is an unfinished work which shows the viewer part of the process through which Rembrandt painted and created.  To provide contrast, I chose Maria Trip, also by Rembrandt, painted in 1639 in oil on panel to show a finished product by the same artist. 
    The Norton Simon Museum has a “dog tag” for every piece which also includes a description and short explanation of the work.  For Portrait of a Boy, the plaque reads:
“In its unfinished state, this exceptional picture offers invaluable insight into Rembrandt’s working method.  Over the rich, dark ground, the body and costume have been indicated merely with a few broad, sure brushstrokes.  The collar, hair, and head have been developed further, with layers of scumbles and glazes, while the face, particularly the eyes, has been fully modeled and highly finished.  The child’s face, bathed in an even, frontal light, radiates from the velvety darkness of the background.  This unusually straightforward presentation both reflects and enhances the engaging charm and openness of the ingenuous child, who eagerly presents himself to the viewer.” (Norton Simon Museum)
    Portrait is unfinished which lends an air of mystery to it.  The face has been nearly completed although the rest of the body and the background including what looks to be a falcon or bird of some sort remain only crudely painted in.  There are large slashing lines and and broad texture strokes to delineate where the more finely detailed work would go later.  The falcon is almost unrecognizable; it appears to be just a mass of lines on the boy’s arm.  By observing an unfinished work by Rembrandt, one may begin to understand his painting techniques.  The viewer can see that Rembrandt first faintly outlined approximately where he wanted the piece to sit inside the canvas and then began to work on pieces of it. 
   Rembrandt then would gradually added in more detail and layers of paint to achieve his desired effect.  We can see that he first chose to paint the facial features of the boy which may have been a common practice; by capturing the face first, the artist could then go back to his studio and finish the rest of the piece without having to have the model posing for the entire length of time.
    His color palette in this piece is very muted at this stage; this may have been meant to change at a later time but we shall never know.  The majority of the piece is done in rich dark brown tones with a splash of red in the feather of the hat and in his cheeks and lips.  The brown may have ended up being worked to look like velvet or fur thus the dark tones. 
    The boy’s complexion is very fair and almost angelic in hue.  The boy does not fit within Rembrandt’s signature style of portraiture where the subject is in three quarter profile, as seen in Maria Trip, which then throws part of their features into shadow.  The boy is looking out at the viewer in a full frontal pose and meets our eyes.  It may be that Rembrandt chose to present the child in this way so as to reflect the innocence and charm of a child in contrast to the way adults choose to present themselves to the world.         
    Maria Trip likewise has a muted color palette of browns and golds with the white of the lace collar leading the eye to her face.  She is in the more traditional style of three-quarter view.  However, in contrast to the unfinished painting of Portrait, her clothing and figure are completely outlined and detailed down to the finest stitch of lace on her collar and cuffs.  Rembrandt maintained a softness, almost a "sfumato," around her face and hair although her body is separated from the background of the piece.           
    I chose Maria Trip to compare with Portrait of a Boy due to the fact that it is a completed portrait, and uses the same medium of oil paints.  This painting presents the subject in a three-quarter profile and clearly depicts the rich lace and fabric of her dress.  Also clearly seen within this painting is the furniture used as a prop within the piece.  She is bathed in a similar frontal light to the boy and although it lights her, the background of the painting is still very much ambiguous and in shadow. 
    This may have been the preferred method of Rembrandt during this time for portraiture; choosing to focus on the subject of the painting rather than the setting and background.  Unlike Renaissance painting where the background and setting became almost as important as the subject of the painting itself, Rembrandt has chosen to channel Michelangelo in his treatment of landscape which is one where the artist does almost nothing, possibly some mountains and a sky but not much else is deemed necessary to the piece.        
    The reason I chose these two works is because I felt that Portrait and Maria were able to show at least partially how Rembrandt went about creating a figure for a portrait and how he used oil paints to layer and create the various textures and tones needed to accurately depict a subject within their portrait.   
    These two works can be related to one another due to a variety of factors.  One of those is that both are portraits and therefore fall within the same category of painting.  Another relation has to do with the color palette utilized.  Both of these portraits use deep, rich color tones such as red, brown, and gold to show the textures such as velvet, fur, feathers, and lace.  These are also colors which allow the face of the subject to be highlighted without being washed out as it might have been with lighter colors having been used for the background and clothing. 
    Another way in which these two portraits can be related is through the absence of a symbol such as a dog, flower, etc. which were used to convey messages and meaning about the individual.  I find it interesting that neither of these portraits contains any such decipherable symbol and instead, the only truly noticeable figures are those of the people.  
    Portrait of a Boy resonated with me personally because it showed a young child although it was not completed.  Young children were not often painted during this time unless they were royalty due to the high death rate of children.  If children were included within a portrait, it was most often within a family group and frequently a deceased child would be included as well; although it often would have been shadowed or painted in such a way so as to communicate that it was deceased. 
    This painting also caught my attention due to the fact that it was an unfinished painting.  This was somewhat unusual for the time as a painting would have often been painted over to reuse the panel or canvas or it would have been altered for a new commission.  There are still varying theories as to why this painting was left incomplete and who the sitter was.  Whatever the case, it has provided invaluable insight into the methods and workings of one of the greatest painters of the Baroque period and allowed art historians a rare glimpse into the past.   
    To conclude, these paintings are excellent representations of Rembrandt’s style and allow us to see into his mind and technique.  It also gives rise to several questions which art historians have wrestled with such as who the young boy is, why his portrait is unfinished, and why it was kept in that unfinished state?  But for now, this painting provides a clear comparison.  It shows us that Rembrandt truly was a master painter even during the early stages of a work.

Maria Trip, Rembrandt, 1639

Portrait of a Boy, Rembrandt, 1655-60

Works Cited:
R. H. Fuchs:  Dutch Painting, (page 87)

The Beginnings of Change- Courbet

So, one of the classes I am taking this last semester of school is Impressionist Art.  For those that do not know, this is the time period where Monet, Manet, Degas, Renoir, Courbet, and many others produced their greatest works. (Van Gogh was late-post Impressionism).  One of the first artists to pave the way for the true Impressionists was an artist by the name of Gustave Courbet.  I recently wrote a short essay on his works and thought I would share it here....enjoy!


       Courbet is a significant artist within the art history timeline and canon because at a critical point in art, he was one of the first to take a stand against the accepted traditions and rules of the Ecole des Beaux Arts (School of Fine Arts) in Paris.  Instead, he chose to create paintings which reflected his upbringing in the provincial part of France.  He was concerned with painting life as he encountered it without any alteration to elevate or show it as something it was not.  Those who came to the School of Fine Arts for training always wanted to shed their provincial style, speech, and manners in favor of the fashionable and desirable Parisian lifestyle.  Courbet chose to actively embrace his country style and manners rather than conform and blend in with the crowd.  He wore wooden clogs, rough homespun clothes, drank beer rather than wine, and adopted a Romantic lifestyle where he viewed himself as the tragic hero standing in the face of convention and the Neo-Classicism favored by the School of Fine Arts.  His painting titled The Wounded Man done around 1845 accurately depicts his views at the time of himself as a tragic hero.  This painting is a self-portrait where the figure leans up against a tree after having been defeated in a duel.  He is bleeding from a wound near his heart although he does not appear to be overtly in distress but rather resigned to his fate as he fades away from blood loss.  This was a typically dramatic work in the Romantic style that Courbet embraced towards the beginning of his time in Paris.  However, he soon created/discovered a new movement which more accurately reflected his values and chosen subject matter.  This movement became known as Realism; a movement where life was accurately observed and depicted without attempting to elevate it.  Also, Realism was content with everyday scenes and subjects rather than historical paintings, portraits of kings and queens, etc.  

The Wounded Man, Courbet, 1845

    A prime example of this change from Romanticism to Realism is his painting called The Stonebreakers done around 1849.  In this painting we have a horribly poor man and his son hard at work creating the rubble to be used for roads.  Although their posture and clothing indicate a kind of hopelessness that their situation in life will never change, the father still has pride in his profession as he swings his hammer with a precision born out of years of practice.  The father also retains a wad of tobacco which he freely shares with any passersby.  This unexpected gallantry and generosity is at odds with his situation in life and brings out an area of interest for the piece.  Courbet was fascinated with the mundane of life and painting those who were not deemed worthy subjects by the establishment.

The Stonebreakers, Courbet, 1849

    Perhaps his most famous painting where he flaunted all conventions held by the School of Fine Arts was in his painting titled Burial at Ornans done around 1849-1850.  This painting is of a burial scene near his hometown.  It is not unheard of to paint burial scenes, such as those of monarchs and heads of state, but what Courbet did was create a painting of an unknown everyday burial on a canvas that was usually reserved for the great history paintings like those depicting a famous battle or a scene from Classical Antiquity.  By using such a large canvas for a seemingly unimportant event, Courbet was in essence throwing the hierarchy of genres instituted by the School of Fine Arts out of the window and stating that as an artist; he would decide what was an important even to depict and what was not.  Burial also was a slap in the face to the clergy as his depiction of them within the painting was not flattering at all.  Courbet depicted the figures (clergy included) as having divided attention and not focusing or caring for the departed in any real way.  They are there for appearance’s sake and will go back to their everyday lives without a thought or backward glance once the service has been completed (hopefully swiftly).  Courbet was in essence “calling out” society and the clergy on their false piety and the facade they present to the world.  He wanted people to drop the masks and live as purely and simply as the country folk he depicted.  The final “mark” against this painting by Courbet as far as the Academy and Salon were concerned was the fact that he painted the entire piece with a palette knife rather than traditional brushes.  A palette knife was viewed as merely a tool for mixing paints together; not for composing a piece.

A Burial at Ornans, Courbet, 1849-50

    All these aspects of Courbet’s work and style combined to alienate him from the more traditional among the art world of Paris.  However, his works blazed a trail and allowed artists such as Manet, Monet, Renoir, Caillbotte and others to forge their own paths and bring about an even more radical art movement known as Impressionism.

Introducing....ME

Now that I have this blog, I guess I should start by introducing myself.  Many might know me but I bet there are a number reading this who might not so here it goes.
I am a 24 year old college senior graduating in May with a BA in Art History from California State University Long Beach (GO BEACH!!!!!!) My emphasis has been in Gothic through Baroque art although I also love the Greek and Roman eras.  I am currently working towards finding a job for after graduation where my "unique" skills can be put to use.
The other big part of my life is the fact that I am the oldest of 6 (count 'em, SIX) children.  There are the original "homegrowns" of me, my sister Rachel, and my brother Graham.  However, within the last three years we have doubled the kid count with the twins Henry and Grace, and our soon to be adopted five month old little guy (for now to be known as "Little Man").  They are HARD and at the same time bring so much joy as we watch them grow up and learn.  Our journey with them has been a true testament to the amazing power of God and his unfailing love and control over all. 
Beyond the rambunctious household of six kids, we also have three dogs; Christy a breeder for the program at Guide Dogs of America who is on her last litter, Smith, my sister Rachel's service dog, and Libby; the boss of all who at 20lbs is the old lady of the house and yet still manages to maintain her status in the pack.  There is also Dash our CA desert tortoise who is THE BEST pet ever as he sleeps for almost half the year. =D
So there you have it, me in a nutshell.  Now I'm off to finish writing questions about an article on Moche culture and deciding what Art History tidbit I should post first! Any requests??????

Finally Arrived....Welcome to All!

Well, I have finally joined the blog world.  I have so many diverse interests I couldn't decide on just one to focus on so this will be (per the title); random musings.  I will be posting excerpts of papers I have written, reviews of museum exhibits I visit, and other bits of life that I find interesting.  Come along for the ride; it should be fun!
Thanks and Welcome!
Emily